So there is a duty to make arrangements for maintenance with occupiers of other premises even if the Order does not apply to those other premises, and the occupier of those premises must co-operate with the RP.
Hence my point earlier in this post saying that notices could be served on occupiers of domestic premises!!!
Not convinced about this Phil. Yes Article 5(3) and 5 (4) and particularly article 17 reads as though it could apply to blocks of flats- especially 17(3) but article 6 is specific
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
there are no references to article 5 or 17 just to article 31. Thats clear enough for me.
In any case if article 5 or 17 did apply how could this be enforced as there is no provision for enforcement and no offences are defined that would cover the failure of tenants to implement the arrangements made by the Responsible Person in their persuance of article 17 (2,3 and 4)
Blood hell don't you start Kurnal, could we not all meet in a pub and thrash this out???....my typing finger hurts!!
Yes article 6 is specific and the order does not apply to domestic premises except for article 31(10).
However article 17 is also specific with regard to maintenance if the domestic premises is in the same building as premises to which the order applies.
Consider a premises where the order does apply, lets say an office in a block. And in this office adjoining the escape route is a caretakers flat…(domestic premises).
By virtue of article 17 measures that are in the domestic premises that are required for the safety of persons by any enactment may need to be maintained,
e.g. FP Act 71 may have required a detector in there, or building regulations may have required the front door to be a fire door and self-closing.
If following the fire risk assessment those measures are still required they need to be maintained.
If those measures are not maintained there may be a contravention of the fire safety duties (article 8 -22), the enforcing authority could then serve an enforcement notice on any person who has to any extent control…probably the managing agent but maybe…just maybe the flat occupier.
If the managing agent tried to put things right but was prevented from doing so by the occupier of the domestic premises…he fails to comply with the notice…which is an offence….but he may have a defence of due diligence if the occupier was causing the problem….perhaps he’s an objectionable so and so from Cleveland!
The offence of not complying with the enforcement notice would therefore be the fault of Sunny Jim and he could be prosecuted under 32(10).
If the contravention puts persons at serious risk an offence has been committed, and if the offence is the fault of the flat owner he can be prosecuted by virtue of article 32(10).
