Flats FSO Common areas enforcement?

[wizzer]

If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?

[Clevelandfire]

Thats a very good question. To find the answer would be the golden grail for most fire safety and housing inspectors.It will take a test case to define whats what, to what extent a resident could be enforced upon.

[Mushy]

I'm a little confused with this question.

How can it be a single private dwelling and have common areas

sorry if this is obvious to the experts

[Clevelandfire]

Where you have a block of flats that are all privately owned individually. The corridors leading to the flat door is a common area

[PhilB]

If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?

I hate to repeat myself on the subject of single private dwellings so I won't....please read related posts

Answer to question...yes...read article 32(10)...anyone including flat owner could be prosecuted....anyone who has to any extent control...could be served an enforcement notice....(that would in my opinion include the owner of the flat).

Does anyone send their FSOs on training courses? the newish fire safety order is quite good and far simpler than previous fire law......why does this subject always seem to confuse....serious question???!!!!

[Clevelandfire]

If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?

I hate to repeat myself on the subject of single private dwellings so I won't....please read related posts

Answer to question...yes...read article 32(10)...anyone including flat owner could be prosecuted....anyone who has to any extent control...could be served an enforcement notice....(that would in my opinion include the owner of the flat).

Does anyone send their FSOs on training courses? the newish fire safety order is quite good and far simpler than previous fire law......why does this subject always seem to confuse....serious question???!!!!

Yes as you say IN YOUR OPINION  sunny Jim

Instead of sitting there all righteous and wise can you give me one occassion where that has actually happened. You try and take a private resident to court matey boy because I have a strange feeling it will be case law that decides this not the law according to you.Is no body sending Fire Service College instructors on common sense courses these days
I am absolutely fuming. What an absolutely daft post. Thats what I call a urinating in the wind post and you haven't just sprayed yourself you have managed to spray a few innocent bystanders whilst you are at it.

[PhilB]

Yes as you say IN YOUR OPINION  sunny Jim

Instead of sitting there all righteous and wise can you give me one occassion where that has actually happened. You try and take a private resident to court matey boy because I have a strange feeling it will be case law that decides this not the law according to you.Is no body sending Fire Service College instructors on common sense courses these days
I am absolutely fuming. What an absolutely daft post. Thats what I call a urinating in the wind post and you haven't just sprayed yourself you have managed to spray a few innocent bystanders whilst you are at it.

First point, I'm not a fire service college instructor.

I was asking a serious question, why when the Fire Safety Order is a lot simpler to read and understand than previous fire law do people get so confused on the subject of domestic premises?

Yes it is my opinion and no I don't know of any case law because in my common sense world the problem doesn't often happen so there is unlikely to be any case law.

Artcile 32(10) is clear, any person can be prosecuted, if an offence of one person is caused by the act of another.

Another FACT is that anyone with ANY EXTENT control can be served an enforcement notice. So in this scenario if  the owner of a domestic premises removed a fire door that protected relevant persons, and he is also a relevant person, why do you not think he could be served with a notice to replace it, or prosecuted if he placed persons at serious risk?

Last point, if the best you can do is base your arguement on a 'strange feeling' that you have perhaps you have a training need, the FSC might be able to help if they have any fire safety instructors left.

.....and you should go to bed earlier Cleveland you get very grumpy in the early hours!

[PhilB]

Getting back to the discussion some of you will remember the old FP Act. When we isssued 5(4) notices we could make requirements in dwellings if they could effect the means of escape from the premises we were certificating.

Example would be a caretakers flat in an office block, we could require detection, but not a sounder in the flat. We could require the front door to be a fire door and we often did.

 If he removed the detector or the door we could serve an 8(4) notice to make him replace it. The situation is no different in your scenario Wizzer, except that now we have no power of entry to the flat, under the 71 Act we did have power of entry if 24hrs notice was given. I think it unfortunate that they didn't retain that power in the fire safety order.

[kurnal]

An interesting scenario in the original question. And a new twist as a result of the Fire Safety Order which does not apply to domestic accommodation but does apply to the common areas.  NB we must remember that things are different in Scotland, as the Fire Scotland Act also does not cover the common areas but this is to some extent balanced by the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 which makes it very clear exactly what the dutes and responsibilities of title involve.

In England it brings us back to the old chestnut- is the flat entrance door part of the common areas or part of the domestic accommodation. In privately owned flats it may be the owner of the flat  or it may be the management body and in practical terms I dont think it would matter.

It is important though that for new developments and conversions that solicitors should consider this to make it easier for the future or maybe we need a title conditions bill as the Scots have?  

I would see it working like this. If the person removed the door from their flat - and there were other flats in the block above their own level then removal of the door may create dangerous conditions for all levels above the one affected.

A prohibition notice would be served on all flats and common areas above the level affected including on the management  body  prohibiting use until the door was replaced.

The management body or owner of the common areas would ensure steps were taken quick as you like to replace the door and would then seek redress in the civil courts to recover the costs from the person who removed the door and if necessary an injunction to prevent it happening again.

The flats are subject to article 31 and a prohibition notice can be enforced as article 31  applies to ALL premises EXCEPT those comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling.

[PhilB]

I would see it working like this. If the person removed the door from their flat - and there were other flats in the block above their own level then removal of the door may create dangerous conditions for all levels above the one affected.

A prohibition notice would be served on all flats and common areas above the level affected including on the management  body  prohibiting use until the door was replaced.

The management body or owner of the common areas would ensure steps were taken quick as you like to replace the door and would then seek redress in the civil courts to recover the costs from the person who removed the door and if necessary an injunction to prevent it happening again.

The flats are subject to article 31 and a prohibition notice can be enforced as article 31  applies to ALL premises EXCEPT those comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling.

Quite agree Kurnal but if it wasn't so serious to warrant a 31 notice do you not agree that an enforcement notice could be served...you would need to make sure it was served on the right person but I can see no problem with serving it.

[kurnal]

Yes and it would be served on the Responsible person - probably the Company Secretary of the management company or the chair of the management committee.  

It would not be served on the owner of the flat in my view. You would have to be prepared to demonstrate to  the court, on appeal, that they " had to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." To do that you would have to refer to the title deeds and rely on there being such a clause giving this responsibility. Unlike in Scotland.

[jokar]

I do not think it would be prohibitable, afetr all, all doors will provide protection against fire to some degree and therefore an enforcment notice should suffice.

[PhilB]

Yes and it would be served on the Responsible person - probably the Company Secretary of the management company or the chair of the management committee.  

It would not be served on the owner of the flat in my view. You would have to be prepared to demonstrate to  the court, on appeal, that they " had to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." To do that you would have to refer to the title deeds and rely on there being such a clause giving this responsibility. Unlike in Scotland.

But if you remove your front door surely you are exercising control.

Lets take it a step further, you serve the notice on the RP and he replaces the door, the next day the owner of the flat takes it off again and so it continues.

The RP has failed to comply with the notice and is committing an offence. But if he can demonstrate due dilligence he has a defence and the flat owner could be prosecuted onder 32(10).....in my humble opinion of course.

[kurnal]

Yes of course and that is where action article 32 may be used. In the same way a vandal could come along and take off the front door and you would not serve a notice on the vandal.

What would you require as the steps to be taken in your notice on the tenant who has already shown such ignorance and recklessness for the safety of others? Is this person likely to be diligent in meeting the requirements? You cant serve an enforcement notice to stop someone from doing something, an enforcement notice is all about remedy. This tenant is no better than a vandal. The worse possible outcome would be that they could appeal and with legal aid they may win on the grounds that in issuing the enforcement notice you have not shown that they have responsibilities under article 5. Where would that leave the authority?

No I would say back the sure winner and go for the Responsible person for the common areas. As someone said earlier a flat on its own is a bungalow. A bungalow does not need a fire resisting entrance door. So the fire door at the entrance to the flat must be part of the common areas M'Lud.

[PhilB]

Yes good points Kurnal I mostly agree but I still think that if the owner is not a vandal as you describe and has just done something to his door that rendered the means of escape inadequate we may be able to serve anotice on him.

Who is the responsible person in a block of private flats, lets say four private owned flats and the owners between them manage the common parts...the plot thickens!!

I think the most important point in answer to the original question is that something could be done to remedy the problem eventhough the premises are domestic and not subject to the Fire Safety Order.

I'll don my anorak and dissappear now before that scarey Mr Cleaveland wakes up.