Private dwelling or place of work ?

[AM]

not when used as agriculture.

Where is that bit FSO?

Article 6(1) d - Order does not apply to fields, woods or other land forming part of an agricultural or forestry undertaking but which is not inside a building and is situated away from the undertaking's main buildings;

[FSO]

Thanks AM you beat me to it.

[nearlythere]

not when used as agriculture.

Where is that bit FSO?

Article 6(1) d - Order does not apply to fields, woods or other land forming part of an agricultural or forestry undertaking but which is not inside a building and is situated away from the undertaking's main buildings;

I meant about redpoint's man being involved in agriculture?

[Benzerari]

I would be grateful for any help on this one if you would be so kind.

At what point does a private dwelling become a place of work ?

Let me explain...

Example 1

A man owns a relatively large estate. There is a large mansion house, gardeners workshops and potting sheds etc, accommodation for PA and family.

Would this man require a fire risk assessment ?

Example 2

A man owns a private house. He employs a cleaner to clean his house.

Would this man require a fire risk assessment ?

As both examples are private dwellings, they are also places of work. I appreciate the examples are very different, but I would appreciate your comments.

Thank you in anticipation,

J

I may add some ambiguities!

Victorian house owned by who ever landlord, but he is not living in it, he is rather renting it, say 8 to 9 rooms rented to other different people not from the landlord's family, some of the tenants do work from home i.e. hair dressing in the room some other doing computing works, so in fact they are 24/7 present there.

Would that private house be considered as place of work and therefore a fire risk assessment would be required or not?

Bear in mind the whole house have only two standalone smoke detectors in the common areas of ground and first floors, would that be compliant?

[jokar]

It may well be a HMO and therefore parts will require an FRA anyway and then dependent on its categorisation the FA may well need to be a part 1 system or a mixed part 6.

[Benzerari]

It may well be a HMO and therefore parts will require an FRA anyway and then dependent on its categorisation the FA may well need to be a part 1 system or a mixed part 6.

The main issue is, who would know that, some landlord is renting his own house to other different poeple using it as place of work and therefore to force him to comply?

[jokar]

Owner should apply for a licence from LHA.  Also, FRS do targetted inspections of property in certain areas.  Also, really it does not matter, the RR(FS)O is a reactive piece of legislation and it is the owners responsibility to comply with the law.  If he does not and has a fire he could well be prosecuted.  many people do not comply with the law of the land and get away with it until something happens.  Do not forget we have jsut had a HMO owner sent to prison for 4 months for these issues afetr a fire in which people died.

[CivvyFSO]

I think Jokar has hit it almost on the head there. Although I would say it is legislation that allows us to be reactive, rather than actually 'reactive legislation'.

It is not up to us or the LA to force him to do anything. It is his duty to comply, and if he did have a fire, or someone with a clue about fire safety visited the hairdressers and put in a complaint, then I am sure it would be dealt with appropriately.