Guest Houses and Relevant Premises and Relevant Persons

[kurnal]

Just to add if I may without higjacking your thread- As I read the Scottish Act, there are no powers under section 63 to prohibit or restrict use of domestic premises unless a licenced HMO???

[afterburner]

The Scottish Act & Regulations are targetted on the 'relevant person' concept and Section 79 of the Act state(as a definition of 'relevant person'): -

relevant person”, in relation to premises, means—
(a)any person who is, or may be, lawfully in the premises; or
(b)any person—
(i)who is, or may be, in the immediate vicinity of the premises; and
(ii)whose safety would be at risk in the event of fire in the premises;

I would have thought that subsection (b) would cover the safety arrangements necessary for the 'domestic' occupants in the guest house, as depicted in Ricardo's thread starter.

[nearlythere]

The Scottish Act & Regulations are targetted on the 'relevant person' concept and Section 79 of the Act state(as a definition of 'relevant person'): -

relevant person”, in relation to premises, means—
(a)any person who is, or may be, lawfully in the premises; or
(b)any person—
(i)who is, or may be, in the immediate vicinity of the premises; and
(ii)whose safety would be at risk in the event of fire in the premises;

I would have thought that subsection (b) would cover the safety arrangements necessary for the 'domestic' occupants in the guest house, as depicted in Ricardo's thread starter.

I think it all hinges on what is considered in law to be the premises. The premises might, as I believe, only be the areas where guests have access to eg bedrooms, WCs, dining room sitting room etc. The premises are part of the building. The protection of the guest house end from what might happen in the domestic would be covered by the provision of a L1 AFD and protection of escape route from it.
If you can enter the private areas and extend the RA then, by applying the same principle, when you are Risk Assessing the common areas of a block of flats you should also include the adjoining flats.

[Ricardo]

Just to add if I may without higjacking your thread- As I read the Scottish Act, there are no powers under section 63 to prohibit or restrict use of domestic premises unless a licenced HMO???

I believe that to be an accurate quote.

[afterburner]

the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.

maybe, perhaps

[nearlythere]

the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.

maybe, perhaps

As would the ocupiers of the private flats enclosing a common escape route?

[afterburner]

that's a cracking question nearlythere.

The common escape route from private flats could alos be construed as the ingress route for firefighters and therefore any protective measures applied to the staircase (probably through the Building Standards) would fall into the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations, reg 23 regarding maintenance for the firefighters.

I suppose what we're trying to get a handle on is where does the legislative power stop and who is left at risk. the problem being is that neither our Scottish legislation nor the RRO has been tested much in Court, so we're interpreting guidance and legislation.  Ricardo's original question and this whole thread shows how many similar opinions can come from one query, but the variations are very interesting.

[Ricardo]

the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.

maybe, perhaps

Yes I agree tottaly Afterburner that these people are in the vicinity, I just don't think that we can take them into account under the fire legislation, (IMHO) as the legislation is not there to protect them, any more than its there to protect you and me in our domestic abodes. Its there is it not to protect "relevant persons" only.Meaning:

Those people who have a legal right to be in or in the vicinity of a relevant premises. I am thinking when section 79 says an person I am thinking that means any relevant person, but dont scream , I may be tottaly wrong.

And I just dont think that Joe Public in his private domestic dwelling which is right next door to a relevant preimses, can demand or expect the protection of the Act.( but anyway as you say Afterburner, maybe just one day we'll get a difinitive answer from the courts.

This confuses me so much, but its great to hear all the views.

[The Colonel]

By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun

[Ricardo]

By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun

Good luck Colonel, I am getting good at these, so If I can provide any advice please get in touch.

[nearlythere]

By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun

Thats probable one of the easy ones. Cant see must heat generated in a bedroom, except mine of course.