Guest Houses and Relevant Premises and Relevant Persons

[PhilB]

I quite agree Ken, what is needed is some case law as this is a common scenario both here and north of the border.

[Ricardo]

Great debate,and thanks to all for some fine comments, without going into too much detail again to bore you , this is in simple terms 1 large house,of 3 floors,after I ring the front doorbell and walk over the threshold, I am in an entrance vestibule with 2 doors facing me, the left door leads to first and second floor guest bedrooms, to my right leads to private owners accommodation entire ground floor, my worry as an officer attempting to enforce correctly and for the safety of all "relevant persons" is to take a look in the private part of this house, to see what is going on in there, just in case a fire could start remotely at the rear and take an age to be discovered as my private house has no AFD, and I have guests sleeping directly above my private house.
And since this is a single escape stair, I am attempting to improve the escape for the guests by providing them with a lobby at ground floor within the domestic part.

Could a fire possibly break through the ceiling and affect them? what if the owner has had a problem with leaking central heating and a ceiling has indeed been taken down temporarily, that would surely affect the "relevant persons" above in case of fire below? So I believe I need to have a look inside the domestic part to see if there is any potential hazards that could affect the "relevant persons above" I feel I may be negligent If I don't.

As an old friend put to me, the intention of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 is not trying to protect the owner of a guest house in their private accommodation, any more than it is trying to protect me in mine.

But since a fire in the private part may affect a guest or two, the guests need to be protected from a fire starting in both the "relevant part" and the private part.

So although I am being told that the owners private accommodation is not a "relevant premises" for the safety of the real "relevant persons" I can enter the domestic part of this house and insist on fire protection measures such as AFD and a fire door,
but this is not in any way to protect the owner and his family in their domstic areas but for the protection of the guests who are the real "relevant persons. Thats how it has been put to me for Scotland.


Furthermore the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Circular no 17?2007 ( I have a copy if anyone wants one)
details Policy intent

Quote -We are aware that there has been confusion amongst some dutyholders and enforcing authorities as to the extent of the application of Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act.  While it is not for the Scottish Government to provide an interpretation of the legislation, we are able to provide clarification of Scottish Ministers’ policy intention in respect of the extent of application of the new fire safety regime.  

The proposals to reform fire safety legislation which were the subject of consultation in 2002-03 and were later used to instruct the drafting of the Fire (Scotland) Act were based on extending the coverage of the new regime to all premises, with the exception of domestic premises (defined as premises occupied as a private dwelling including common areas, such as stairs).

[Tom Sutton]

I agree guidance is needed but I cannot see case law helping as very few cases ever get past the magistrates court. What’s needed is something like the old FPA circs and the RR(FS)O guidance notes may be the way forward? However I accept this would not help the Scots.

[nearlythere]

The point I'm feebly trying to make (and understand) is that in any particular building there may be one or more premises and, perhaps, the residential accommodation may or may not be regarded as a separate premises and, therefore, may or may not be 'relevant' and, presumably a judgement needs to be made depending upon such matters as the degree, if any, of fire separation, access arrangements, etc. The owners might be living in a room off the guests' corridor that also provides an escape route and sharing the guests' bathroom or might have their own private entrance from the street with 1hr separation all round - or something between the two extremes. Presumably the first question will be something like 'Is the owner's accommodation a separate premises?' and, if not clearly so, a common alarm, AFD, etc will be needed. Or am I wrong?

That is the whole point Ken et al. Yes, I would agree that common alarm, AFD would be a requiste in the "private domestic"  to warn relevant persons in the guest area, that there is a fire in the building that could effect them.
Then you say "etc". How much etc did you mean? Would you expect the RA to take into consideration the general fire safety of the private domestic area? If you do then the RA of a block of flats should include each occupier.
Does anyone know the legal definition of Premises in this regard? Are premises a building or part thereof?

[PhilB]

Premises is defined in the Fire Safety Order.....but not in the Scottish Act.

I think the problem is not the definition of premises but the fact that the Scottish Act unlike the Fire Safety Order does not allow for requirements to be made in domestic premises.

Article 17 requires measures to be maintained in all premises....but a problem would still occur if we wanted something new to be provided as article 17 only deals with maintenance of existing provisions.

[jokar]

Nearlythere, the definition of a premises is exactly that either the whole of a premises or part of a premises.  The Order precludes the term building by default which is messy when a building is built to Building Regulation standard but when it is existng it becomes  a premises.

[nearlythere]

Are we all coming to agree that in the case of the building which is a guest house with private residential the latter is not included in the RA unless for an automatic and manual fire alarm system which would be throughout and fire seperation between it and the guest house escape routes?

[PhilB]

No, I think this post shows that it is not that simple and it also depends where you live.

[Ken Taylor]

A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.

[nearlythere]

A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.

What about purpose built guest houses with private residential attached with internal communication between the two? Many guest houses are specifically built this way nowadays due to the availability of Tourist Board grants.

[kurnal]

Well!!!!
I thought this was a straightforward one and made two fatal mistakes- first to think I was sure about something in fire safety and two to assume that common sense would prevail in the writing and implementation of the law.

Phil thanks for your explanation- I had scanned the Scottish legislation but had not appreciated the significant difference in this case.

So the crux is this:

I take the view that the domestic premises in this case are those areas occupied solely by the owner as his living accommodation. The staircase and guest rooms are relevant premises. ( The staircase not being solely used in connection with domestic premises.)

1- the most important- in practical terms what fire safety provisions need to be made in this building to ensure a reasonable standard of safety for relevant persons?  IMO this must involve protection to the staircase and fire detection.
2- If the boundary between the domestic premises and the relevant premises is demarcated by a door, is this door part of the domestic premises or part of the relevant premises? (I say its part of the relevant premises as it creates a protected stairway which is an essential component of the relevant premises)
3- Applying the same logic what standard of door do we need in order to create the protected stair- two half hour doors or a single door with detection in the domestic premises? Remember what its there for- we are not seeking to protect or cover the domestic premises we are seeking to protect the relevant premises. Just in the same way that the walls have to be strong enough to support the floors above.
4- What enforcement action can we take to ensure that this provision is installed? A notice on the responsible person for the relevant building to arrange for the installation of adequate fire safety measures to protect the relevant persons from a fire hazard that may arise elsewhere in the building.

The Responsible person for the guest house wants to run a business. If he cant persuade other users of the building to install the basic safety provisions to make his guest house safe to use then his guest house should not be operating. So we serve the notice on him.
If he says his duties in respect of fire safety only extend to the extent he has control I say you have control over whether you operate or not.

In my ( often flawed) opinion of course.

[Mr. P]

I would say it is up to the potential b&b owner to protect the other bld users, not them to dosh up! Putting that across without getting a bif on the beak may be difficult.

[Ken Taylor]

A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.

What about purpose built guest houses with private residential attached with internal communication between the two? Many guest houses are specifically built this way nowadays due to the availability of Tourist Board grants.

Your example will, presumably present as two clear properties of which that forming the purpose-built guest house accommodation alone will be subject to the Scottish Act duties - but including the adequacy of the interconnection in terms of fire safety - unless this also provides a means of escape (in which case, I take it that this route would also be included).

[PhilB]

The Responsible person for the guest house wants to run a business. If he cant persuade other users of the building to install the basic safety provisions to make his guest house safe to use then his guest house should not be operating. So we serve the notice on him.
If he says his duties in respect of fire safety only extend to the extent he has control I say you have control over whether you operate or not.

In my ( often flawed) opinion of course.

I think that's the answer Kurnal. We may not be able to require measures to be taken in the domestic parts, but this may mean that the relevant premises cannot operate. I'm sure faced with that dilemma the responsible person will do all he can to improve matters.

[Ricardo]

With regards to all the above, I was wanting to discuss "Prohibition notices" for premises that comprise guest house accommodation and also private domestic premises together in one large house.

The Fire (Scotland)Act 2005 tells us the following in:
Sec 63 Prohibition notices, is served on the “occupier of relevant premises”,

So that excludes the domestic owner/occupier ( unless of course it is the same person)

Subsection 2 says if the enforcing authorities consider that the use of the “relevant premises” involves "risk" to relevant persons that the use of the relevant premises ought to be prohibited or restricted.

and

Subsection 3 says the "risk" is  anything affecting relevant person’s means of escape.

now

My thought process with the above would include, as a result of what I have discovered by being nosey during an inspection, and asking if I can possibly look in past the domestic part of this house, a fire risk has been discovered,that could affect the means of escape of the relevant persons within the relevant premises.

There is structural damage either to the ceiling or separating wall and I believe that this could have an impact on the escape of the relevant persons from the relevant premises in case of fire in the domestic part.

Now

I cant serve any notice on the owner/occupier of the domestic dwelling, the Act doesn't allow that, so my only option is to serve a notice on the responsible person of the guest house above (dutyholder in Scotland)

Although they have not actually committed any breech of the Act, I inform them that it is considered that a fire in the domestic property located directly below/adjacent to the relevant premises, could affect the means of escape of relevant persons in the relevant premises.

I also inform the responsible person that I have no powers over the owner of the domestic premises under my legislation, so I have no choice but to serve a notice on them, to retrict the use of their guest house explaining that I am of the opinion that a fire in the adjoining domestic premises could impact upon the safety of the relevant persons in their guest house.

I advise them to seek their own independant legal advice if they think it is necessary regarding what as the enforcing authority I intend to do here.

Any thoughts?