Fire Exit Routes

[potter 2]

Any thoughts on this little puzzle..Mr X owns 4 shops in a row (single occs in single shops)of 3 floors they have externals on to an enclosed yard owned by Mr B and they have always passed through that yard to escape etc,Mr X now buys the yard and says to his own tenents .you cant come through my yard  unless you give me lots of money.He tells the FARS the shops staff are now at risk of all dying etc.even though its himself whos causing the problem.He hasnt physically done any thing to disable the egress from externals.(yet)  Thoughts..civil matter between shop and owner on access/egress rights subject to their contracts.etc...if Mr X put a barrier to stop egress after informing the shop occupiers and giving notice - the shops have got a MoE problem caused by their own landlord and who would be in the dock in a fire situation if exit goes.If Mr X went out and did it tonight he would be responsible under what law as the shops already know now they cant go through the yard.. ?Is it quite simply- if they have no right of egress the shop keepers need to reasess and either pay up or redesign their moe . the building owner would have something to say about that as well.Seems a good little number to get some cash to me..

[PhilB]

I had this very situation recently. Landowner did not want fire escape route passing over his land. He won a court order which prohibited tresspass but employer ignored him an his means of escape continued to pass across landowners yard.

Landowner gave notice and then physically blocked fire exit with steel barrier.

[kurnal]

Yes its always been this way though.
If it was a single building Mr X would be responsible as owner for the common areas but as they are all separate buildings then they are stuck.
The shop owner creates the risk and has a duty to manage that risk. If most of the building they occupy is now untenable because of excessive travel distance then they must stop using those parts.

If they rent the building from Mr X they can find alternative premises and relocate - or pay up. Or they could take legal advice on whether they have a case for a rent reduction as much of the building is now unuseable.

If they own the shops they could consider creating pass doors through the compartment walls and tell mr X to go forth and multiply.

I often despair for the antics of some of the low life with whom we are unfortunate to share our existence. But there are similar horror stories from the other side- persons who own land and are not able to do anything with it either as a result of squatters rights or neighbours from hell. Rogue Landlords and tenants - I guess they probably balance each other out.

[John Webb]

I'm not an expert on legal matters but several things about this problem make me ask:
1. Trespass is defined as "make unlawful or unwarrantable intrusion" in my dictionary. I fail to see how fulfilling one's obligation by having an escape route to comply with legislation could fall into either catagory; the requirement for an escape route is lawful and not unwarrented, surely.
2. I presume the landlord has control over the buildings and therefore is obliged under the RR(FS)O to co-operate with the tenants to let them meet their obligations?
3. Don't the leases have anything to say about access/egress from the premises?

[PhilB]

I'm not an expert on legal matters but several things about this problem make me ask:
1. Trespass is defined as "make unlawful or unwarrantable intrusion" in my dictionary. I fail to see how fulfilling one's obligation by having an escape route to comply with legislation could fall into either catagory; the requirement for an escape route is lawful and not unwarrented, surely.
2. I presume the landlord has control over the buildings and therefore is obliged under the RR(FS)O to co-operate with the tenants to let them meet their obligations?
3. Don't the leases have anything to say about access/egress from the premises?

1. In my case it was clearly unlawful intrusion as a Court had issued an Order prohibiting access, the fact that it was an escape route is not the landowners problem. He gave plenty of notice, 6 years infact that he didn't want the shop to use his land as an escape route and had eventually had to seek a Court Order to prohibit access, he gave plenty of notice of his intention to block the exit.

The employer could easily have provided an alternative escape route in this case but chose not to.

2. The duty to co-operate and co-ordinate is only applicable where two responsible persons, share or have duties. If you chose to make use of my back passage without my consent I surely don't share or have duties towards you, and my back passage is very dear to me!!

3. Leases would surely only bind the parties that signed up to them, a common problem with wayleave agreements.

[Clevelandfire]

Wayleave agreements are nightmares and PHillllllllB's back passage isnt a route Id recommend to anyone.

Both parties must agree to a WL aagreement it and get it legally binding by a solicitor. THEN and only then if one of them foftits that agreement can the fire service get involved and ask the agrieved party to unobstruct the means of escape or get knocked off for possible offences.

But even then it can be a minefield and my advice to pretty much anyone is try and achieve adeuqate MOE in other ways because lets not forget you may have an agreement with say PhilllllllllllllllB to use his back passage but if he then vacates it and sells it on to someone else the new owner may not want u to use it and your wayleave will be null and void anyway unless you sign up to an agreement with that new owner.

Im not even going to ask if PhilllllllllB has ever attempted to sell his back passage because I really would be urinating into the wind and possibly contravening several public decency laws. I dont care Chris Houston is apparently in Vietnam or Thailand or somewhere and cant keep a close eye on me!

[Midland Retty]

Ive just dealt with a  licensed premises where the means of escape from the rear of the property and the beer garden was actually through the back garden of an adjacent private house.

The householder blocked the exit sometime ago after troublesome patrons created a nusiance.

A new licensee took over the premsies and was not aware that an escape route existed via the residents garden. Imagine their suprise when we prohibited the use of the pub because of the obstructed MOE.

Fortunately the householder did come round after a nice little financial agreement was put forward and a new wayleave agreement has been drawn up between the solicitors. Just go to show that these thinsg need to be checked thoroughly and reviewed often to make sure all parties are still happy with the agreement.

As Clevelandfire states it is essential a legal document is drawn up. Gentlemen's agreement don't stand up in court.

[potter 2]

occupiers now got barristers on the case reading the small print---getting expensive--.2 occupiers have a pass door at top floor so option there.other 2 now looking at sealing top floor and work to max travel distance and claiming rent reduction..watch this space for the next gripping installment