On the question of whether the RRO applies to holiday lets, I seem to remember there was some debate on this forum last year sometime. I have also been asked a similar question recently, but it was a privately owned holiday home that was occasionally let to family and friends (for payment). The vast majority of the time it was occupied by the owner a second home (holiday home).
To answer the question I reviewed the RRO and it appeared to be the case that a holiday home type use is not specifically referred to, however the RRO does make reference to domestic premises. Domestic premises are specifically exempted from the requirements of the RRO. The Definition of domestic premises is ‘premises occupied as a private dwelling’. Therefore if we establish that at the times when the premises is let as a holiday home it is not a private dwelling then it suggests the RRO should apply.
The question whether the order applies to holiday homes has recently been debated in the fire press. In the July 07 issue of Fire Prevention Fire Engineers Journal, emeritus professor of fire law, Rosemary Everton, considers this very question.
The subject is considered initially in terms of the definition of a domestic premises being occupied as a private dwelling. And when hired as a holiday home it is still being enjoyed as a private dwelling albeit by the hirer. This being the case it could be argued that the premises are exempt from the requirements of the order.
The counter argument to this being that a definition of dwelling as defined by Lord Millett in Uratemp Ventures v Collins, a dwelling is a place where one lives and makes one’s home, a place to which he returns and forms the centre of his existence.
Professor Everton concludes that
‘on such an analysis (and it emanates from the House of Lords) it surely emerges that for an occupier to occupy premises as a private dwelling he or she would need a considerable interest the place, an interest certainly larger than that either contemplated or conferred by a holiday hiring agreement. Accordingly, with such an interest appearing to be lacking, and the premises thus not being occupied as a private dwelling it follows that they do not constitute a domestic premises and hence are not excluded from the application of the Order’.
Although neither argument has been tested Professor Everton alludes to the view that, should the definition be tested, then the more cogent of the two cases is the definition of a dwelling not including premises let as a holiday home. The article concludes that ‘the nature of the subject is such that any search for precision remains to an extent unsatisfied, until the point is the subject of a court’s decision.’
So no definite clarification, however the stronger argument suggests the RRO does apply to holiday lets. If it does apply then a fire risk assessment should be carried out, and adequate fire safety provision should be in place in line with the recommendations of the FRA.
I suppose a more straight forward way of establishing if your client need to carry FRAs for the premises is to ask the Fire Authority where the holiday lets are located. If they say no and they put it in writing then maybe your client has to do no more. I asked the question in the instance quoted above and the Fire Authority took the view that the RRO did apply to holiday lets.
‘Houses let to tenants’. Not my forte, but I think the housing act applies to rented properties. (Or it used to) Local authorities can and do require minimum standards in terms of fire safety.
