Small Guest House or HMO

[kurnal]

CivvyFSO

I think my client would have no difficulty in implementing the benchmark standards recommended in all HMO guidance documents, because for a two storey HMO building window exits would be permitted. In fact they are compliant already apart from the need for the smoke detectors to be interconnected.

I agree it is not a single private dwelling and therefore the RRO may apply to all of the building if a hotel or just the common parts if it is an HMO. From the RRO point of view the fire authority have no problem with the common areas- relevant persons are not at risk in the common areas.

The fire authority view is that window exits are not appropriate means of escape from hotel bedrooms. And I agree with them. But still not sure that this is a hotel because accommodation is not offered to Joe Public. If you dont work for Company A  or Company B you will not be offered accommodation here.

Hey and thanks to all  for helping me get my head round the issues here.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Kurnal

I have to agree with the majority of posters whom say this wouldn't be a HMO

I accept the argument about it not being a true guest house because Joe Public can't just turn up on spec.

It sounds almost like a "hostel" in a funny kind of way (not a hostel in the traditional sense, but in as much that  a specific group of people use it for short term accomodation).

For it to be classed as a HMO then I would suggest long term residency would be a key factor (ie to the people staying there stop for a long period of time) and it would have to be the main residence for the tennants which occupy it.

So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.

Furthermore I cant understand how sprinklers could help in this scenario.

[kurnal]

Thanks again.

Another of my clients has a national retail training centre. The company owns four new three storey houses for use by company staff whilst on courses- which range from 2 days to 1 month. This local council (a different one)  says they are HMOs and has licenced them.

Housing Act 2004
259 HMOs: persons treated as occupying premises as only or main residence
(1) This section sets out when persons are to be treated for the purposes of section 254 as occupying a building or part of a building as their only or main residence.
(2) A person is to be treated as so occupying a building or part of a building if it is occupied by the person—
(a) as the person’s residence for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education;
(b) as a refuge, or
(c) in any other circumstances which are circumstances of a description specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the appropriate national authority.

In (a) above it does not specify how long a full time course of further education is- could this be one full day, one full week or one full month?
Does vocational training constitute further or higher education? Or apprenticeships?

[PhilB]

So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.

Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?

Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?

By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??

[CivvyFSO]

"Hostel" does seem to fit the building use much better, but still applies the CLG guides and RRO to all areas/rooms. BUT the CLG guides acknowledge in them that premises do differ, and also the whole point of the guides and the RRO is that risk assessment is the methodology in deciding what protection/facilities are required. I personally would not accept window escapes, but... It's only 2 storey... Decent AFD, decent fire doors and control of ignition sources/combustibles in the entrance hall could possibly ensure that nobody is jumping out of windows in the first place.

For what its worth: The persons in their rooms are relevant persons even if the rooms could be classified as single private dwellings, and it is possible to enforce standards in the common areas that protect the people in their rooms from a fire in the common areas/kitchens etc. Don't forget, if someone can be affected by a fire in the premises then they are a relevant person and the RP should take steps to protect them. (As far as reasonably... blah)  IMO, there is nobody more relevant or more in danger than the sleeping guests.

>>In (a) above it does not specify how long a full time course of further education is- could this be one full day, one full week or one full month?<<
>>Does vocational training constitute further or higher education? Or apprenticeships?<<

Hmmm... I shall argue the case that anywhere I stay can be a refuge... It is my refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life, so me stopping at your hotel makes it a refuge. Do we really need definitions for everything? If we revert to common sense we do (somewhere inside our heads) know that a full time course is a full year and takes a similar chunk of a week to a full time job.

[PhilB]

I personally would not accept window escapes, but... It's only 2 storey... Decent AFD, decent fire doors and control of ignition sources/combustibles in the entrance hall could possibly ensure that nobody is jumping out of windows in the first place.

But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.

There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??

[Midland Retty]

So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.

Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?

Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?

By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??

Are you questioning me Mr B?

Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"  

Joking aside it is a fair point you make PhilB, but I just wouldn't be comfortable accepting window escapes in this instance.

I wouldn't allow escape windows in a hotel, and furthermore you would need to inform the guests that they should use the windows for means of escape purposes. Would guests be happy in doing that?

Im fairly fit (for a 25 stone man) young and able, but I wouldn't be too keen on dropping from a first floor window.

Guest Houses, Hostels and the like In my opinion differ slightly to HMOs

In a HMO the aim is to try and retain a more "homely " atmosphere.  Several guides allow HMOs to have escape windows because it is easier than trying to form protected routes in victorian terraced houses for instance.

I don't know... with a risk assessment yes you might be able to justify it but as an I.O. im not sure Id be happy with it and there would be a lot of additional factors to consider before I gave it the thumbs up.

[PhilB]

Are you questioning me Mr B?

Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"

Thanks Retty. Dear old Toddddddy the forum has never been quite the same since he left.

[Tom Sutton]

Hmmm... I shall argue the case that anywhere I stay can be a refuge... It is my refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life, so me stopping at your hotel makes it a refuge.

Sorry CivvyFSO they have that one covered.

(3) In subsection (2)(b) “refuge” means a building or part of a building managed by a voluntary organisation and used wholly or mainly for the temporary accommodation of persons who have left their homes as a result of—
(a) physical violence or mental abuse, or
(b) threats of such violence or abuse,
from persons to whom they are or were married or with whom they are or were co-habiting.

Unless there is something you are not telling us.

[Clevelandfire]

So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.

Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?

Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?

By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??

Are you questioning me Mr B?

Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"  

Joking aside it is a fair point you make PhilB, but I just wouldn't be comfortable accepting window escapes in this instance.

I wouldn't allow escape windows in a hotel, and furthermore you would need to inform the guests that they should use the windows for means of escape purposes. Would guests be happy in doing that?

Im fairly fit (for a 25 stone man) young and able, but I wouldn't be too keen on dropping from a first floor window.

Guest Houses, Hostels and the like In my opinion differ slightly to HMOs

In a HMO the aim is to try and retain a more "homely " atmosphere.  Several guides allow HMOs to have escape windows because it is easier than trying to form protected routes in victorian terraced houses for instance.

I don't know... with a risk assessment yes you might be able to justify it but as an I.O. im not sure Id be happy with it and there would be a lot of additional factors to consider before I gave it the thumbs up.

I agree with you MR (not about the whereabouts of the users anorak though). This isn't a HMO and window escapes arent acceptable. The case described is no different to a hotel and risk assessment junkies out there had better come up with a damn fine justification for the use of window escapes. In the 21st Century I don't think window escapes should be accepted anywhere. This is one of those cases where it kicks itself up the backside perpetually.

[PhilB]

I agree with you MR (not about the whereabouts of the users anorak though). This isn't a HMO and window escapes arent acceptable. The case described is no different to a hotel and risk assessment junkies out there had better come up with a damn fine justification for the use of window escape.

In the 21st Century I don't think window escapes should be accepted anywhere. This is one of those cases where it kicks itself up the backside perpetually.

So risk assessment is out???

Should ADB be amended to delete the recommendations for emergency egress windows???

If the risk assessment junkies (or the competent professionals) can justify deviating from a guide may an alternative solution be considered???

Is code hugging the way forward???

[Clevelandfire]

I think you have taken me out of context. Nope in my world window escapes havent got a place in todays environment (other than perhaps ground floor). By the same token no I dont think risk assessment should be ousted. Yes I think ADB should be ammended, but code hugging is a definate no no. Im a great fan of  " competent professionals" but there are too many "risk assessment junkies" out there who think recommending less than the minimal requirements would be acceptable. Window escapes are troublesome. The term able bodies is banded around alot. Define the term able bodied for me. I am overwieght. Will I fit through the window? will i risk injury if I fall from height? Would my 3 year old daughter be ok if I dropped her out the window using a matress to soften the blow?.  Would my 80 year old mother in law be able to use a window escape? SHe isnt classed as less abled and is in good nick as  80 year olds go!

[CivvyFSO]

But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.

There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??

I shall clear this one up for you then. By "accept" I mean it is possibly of a standard where I do not believe that relevant persons are at risk of death of serious injury in the event of a fire, and therefore I would not be serving an immediate prohibition/restriction notice and initiating a prosecution. If prohibition/enforcement was necessary then I would serve the notices and wait for an appeal and happily let the courts decide.

I would suggest that dropping from a 4.5m high window quite simply does not fit in with the requirements of article 14 or any CLG guidance. If something went seriously wrong and the windows were an absolute last resort then that may be fair enough, but I would still look at making the main route in/out as safe as possible.

Just to be extra awkward: If the window escape was above another window I may also insist on that window below being 30min FR since it is within 1.8m of what you would be dropping past. So there. :-p

[Clevelandfire]

But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.

There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??

I shall clear this one up for you then. By "accept" I mean it is possibly of a standard where I do not believe that relevant persons are at risk of death of serious injury in the event of a fire, and therefore I would not be serving an immediate prohibition/restriction notice and initiating a prosecution. If prohibition/enforcement was necessary then I would serve the notices and wait for an appeal and happily let the courts decide.

I would suggest that dropping from a 4.5m high window quite simply does not fit in with the requirements of article 14 or any CLG guidance. If something went seriously wrong and the windows were an absolute last resort then that may be fair enough, but I would still look at making the main route in/out as safe as possible.

Just to be extra awkward: If the window escape was above another window I may also insist on that window below being 30min FR since it is within 1.8m of what you would be dropping past. So there. :-p

I think I love you! You meet my criteria as being a "competent proffesional" but it is surely way passed your bedtime get some sleep!

[Mark Riley]

as these residents are employees then surely the employer should be asking for a copy of the significant findings from the B&B/HMO. these need explaining in some detail as to how they are or not compliant. then the argument of what is reasonable or not may become a business perspective. it may be that the employer is happy to send his normally ambulant persons to these premises but to send his employees with physical impairments elsewhere. he should however be given all the information he needs to make his decision on the safety of his relevant persons. if he is to move his business elsewhere then it may be reasonable or appropriate to spend money on more general fire precautions.