Flats FSO Common areas enforcement?

[wee brian]

yes

[Clevelandfire]

are you sure?

is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?

[PhilB]

are you sure?

is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?

Yes Sunny Jim, we're sure. What  do you consider it to be Matey Boy?

[wee brian]

There must be something in the water in Cleveland!

[Midland Retty]

are you sure?

is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?

Can't see what you are driving at.... have you urinated in the wind perhaps?
A flat meets all the criteria of being a domestic dwelling as defined in the RRFSO

Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.

I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.

In terms of actually prosecuting a resident  I fully understand that there is the legal / legislative framework there in which to do it. Alas in reality I don't think it will be all that easy to follow through.

The managing agent scenario is much easier to deal with, but actually enforcing on an individual tennant or residents association maybe a toughie. But it is a scenario that will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later as Im finding a lot of my work now involves private flats and HMOs etc and Im sure many other Insp. Officers are finding the same. We will soon be needing definative guidance on how to approach these situations.

[Tom Sutton]

Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.

I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.

Sorry Retty there is in article 31(10) but I am still with PhilB on this one.

[Midland Retty]

Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.

I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.

Sorry Retty there is in article 31(10) but I am still with PhilB on this one.

Shhhhhhh dont tell him that !!!

No quite right but I was refering to the fact it isn't mentioned as a single domestic dwelling anywhere in the "interpretation" section in Part 1, but I recognise in hindsight that I should have been clearer in what I said

[Mushy]

No doubt you are all aware of this document that I was pointed in the direction of on here recently

Not sure if it covers doors to flats though as i've not read it all yet

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/16886.doc

[wee brian]

yes it does

[Ricardo]

a flat in a block flats is a single
domestic premises is it?

Still a bit puzzled with where you are coming from on this one clevelandfire, would you by any chance be getting mixed up with HMO's at all?
as far as I can see from what PhilB has already said: Quote,

domestic premises" means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden, yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling);

it is the words in brackets that are the important bits, by excluding from the definition , common parts of blocks of flats, and similar premises , such as HMO's, such common parts fall within the scope of the FSO.

And Article 31(10) of the FSO, allows for a prohibition order to be served on an HMO, and this power is not limited purely to the common parts.

[CivvyFSO]

There may be some confusion here between a "private dwelling", and a "house which is occupied as a single private dwelling" as mentioned in article 31(10), and the latter being the key to the FRS/LA being able to prohibit/restrict the use of flats despite them being private dwellings.

Just a thought for 'discussion'.... From article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular..."

The 'in particular' being a key to suggest that the list that follows is not exhaustive.

So, in my opinion, if we have a need to enter any premises to be able to enforce the RRO then we can, BUT... That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever for us to require to enter domestic premises. If there is a reason there that would warrant entry, I would suggest that it is not a domestic premises in the first place and the reason for entry would be to prove that it is not a domestic premises. i.e. A workplace or similar.

(I would take advice from higher up before I went stamping around telling people to let me into what is potentially their home though.)

(And by 'higher up' I do not mean PhilB.)

[PhilB]

Just a thought for 'discussion'.... From article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular..."

The 'in particular' being a key to suggest that the list that follows is not exhaustive.

So, in my opinion, if we have a need to enter any premises to be able to enforce the RRO then we can, BUT... That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever for us to require to enter domestic premises. If there is a reason there that would warrant entry, I would suggest that it is not a domestic premises in the first place and the reason for entry would be to prove that it is not a domestic premises. i.e. A workplace or similar.

(I would take advice from higher up before I went stamping around telling people to let me into what is potentially their home though.)

(And by 'higher up' I do not mean PhilB.)

No far better to listen to others, I know nothing!

But in my opinion you cannot enter any premises, that is made clear in Artcile 31(10). In that article only premises includes domestic premises....

"(10) In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly."

So powers of inspectors only apply to domestic premises in article 31 purposes i.e. prohibition or restriction.

I agree that if the premises is not being used as a domestic premises then no problem you can enter.

There may of course also be reasons to enter a domestic premises that is being used as a domestic premises e.g. a flat above a shop or a pub, to make sure relevant persons are not at risk....but unfortunately you cannot.

Under the 71 Act you could if 24hrs notice was given and unfortunately that power was not included in the Order.

[CivvyFSO]

I refer you once again to article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order"

Is that not quite a broad sword?

[Midland Retty]

The problem here is that the term  "anything necessary" could be taken in many ways.

Could it mean that as an inspector I could kill someone for the purpose of carrying out this order? (Of course not we would all say thats totally ridiculous).

Going on from that then does it mean that we are allowed to enter any premises, domestic included, at anytime? It's where things start to get a bit grey isn't it. Who decides what is ridiculous or definative? Its basically a Judge and a Jury at the end of the day.

I would suggest that possibly yes we are able to access a domestic dwelling. In order to ensure relevant persons aren't put at risk for instance (Im thinking of PhilB's example of a private flats above a commercial premises) then we would have no option but to potentially enter that domestic premises (the flat)

Im just trying to think if anything in the Fire and Rescue Services Act would help us here with powers of entry but I don't think it would, even if it did the FRSA isn't used for fire safety enforcement and could be seen as abuse of process.

The term "anything necessary" is so wooley that if you stuck tusks on it you'd swear it was a mammoth

Whatever your opinion you can see how a clever Barrister might start twisting those words "anything necessary" to his / her advantage .

So to conclude I think that in any event until an official definition is forthcoming I would always try to get myself "invited" into the domestic premises rather than demand entry. The nicey nicey approach does work sometimes.

[peanut]

I have only quickly skim read all the previous posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned by someone else...

Article 17 (2), (3) & (4) deal specifically with this point.