Owner sleeping above his own shop

[SidM]

Could somebody please confirm that in the subject scenario

(a) The owner of the shop is a relevant person at night
(b) He cannot escape through the shop &
(c) if he does not have an hour's separation he needs a part 6 system installed?

[nearlythere]

Could somebody please confirm that in the subject scenario

(a) The owner of the shop is a relevant person at night
(b) He cannot escape through the shop &
(c) if he does not have an hour's separation he needs a part 6 system installed?

I take it the owner is in a flat above the shop.
a,  Is the owner the occupier of the shop?
b,  Is the shop his only MOE?
c,  Are you suggesting that if he had 1 hr seperation he could stay put?

[SidM]

The owner is the occupier of the shop and the single flat above.  I'm syuggesting that if he has 1hr separation, he does not have to have AFD.

[Paul2886]

I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO

[kurnal]

The risk assessment should give advice in respect of the protection of relevant persons and should point out all risks and appropriate control measures.

However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.

Now if the building has been converted in the last 12 months or has been subject to a change of use that would be different.

[CivvyFSO]

However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.

I see no reason why enforcement measures wouldn't stick.

To answer SidM:

The owner is indeed a relevant person at night if he can be affected by a fire in the shop.
If it were being built now then escape through the shop would not be allowed by Building Control.
If it were being built now then 60 mins separation would be required at the building stage. No linked alarm would be required if this were the case.

Since it is built and up and running, as Kurnal points out, the risk assessment should determine what is necessary. But taking an enforcers viewpoint, I would certainly not be happy with escape through the shop, and in lieu of 60 mins compartmentation linked part6 smoke alarms are usually accepted as a reasonable solution.

[PhilB]

I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO

I disagree Paul, Civvy has correctly summed it up in my opinion.

Private dwelling is not relevant, whether he owns rents or is employed is not relevant. If he is at risk from a fire in the shop he is a relevant person and the risk assessment should consider him.

[Paul2886]

Yes I agree. Having read things again I disagree with myself. Well, its been a long week

[kurnal]

However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.

I see no reason why enforcement measures wouldn't stick.

Yes civvy go ahead and serve your enforcement notice. Then when he fails to carry out the necessary steps what then?

Court? Fine? Imprisonment?

If I follow your logic does that mean people who self harm should be prosecuted for assault? People who take drugs should be prosecuted for supplying to themselves?

[nearlythere]

I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO

I disagree Paul, Civvy has correctly summed it up in my opinion.

Private dwelling is not relevant, whether he owns rents or is employed is not relevant. If he is at risk from a fire in the shop he is a relevant person and the risk assessment should consider him.

Even if he is not a relevant person are members of his family who may live with him in the flat?

[PhilB]

He is a relevant person and so is anyone else who is lawfully in any premises in the vicinity.

Kurnal it would be easy to enforce if necessary. The enforcing authority could also prohibit the use of the flat if the risk was, in their opinion, so serious.

[nearlythere]

He is a relevant person and so is anyone else who is lawfully in any premises in the vicinity.

Kurnal it would be easy to enforce if necessary. The enforcing authority could also prohibit the use of the flat if the risk was, in their opinion, so serious.

Does that therefore mean that all of the occupants of a block of flats with shops on the ground floor, a common type of building, are relevent persons? And if so does that mean that all of the building is subject to a FRA? Or does it just mean that consideration should be given to the risk to the residential occupant when risk assessing the shops?

[PhilB]

Does that therefore mean that all of the occupants of a block of flats with shops on the ground floor, a common type of building, are relevent persons? And if so does that mean that all of the building is subject to a FRA? Or does it just mean that consideration should be given to the risk to the residential occupant when risk assessing the shops?

They are relevant persons if they could be affected by a fire on the premises. In the example you give they are unlikely to be relevant persons.

If there is suitable means of escape and adequate fire separation they are unlikely to be affexted by a fire in the shops. But yes the Order does apply to the common parts.

[FSO]

If it is only the owner sleeping above, how about escape through a window?

It is allowed in dwelllings up to 4.5 metres, so whats the difference?

I agree with the principle of putting a part 6 system in though. Cost v proportionality? I think its justified.

Enforceable as well, but im sure it would not need to come to that.

[CivvyFSO]

Yes civvy go ahead and serve your enforcement notice. Then when he fails to carry out the necessary steps what then?

Court? Fine? Imprisonment?

If I follow your logic does that mean people who self harm should be prosecuted for assault? People who take drugs should be prosecuted for supplying to themselves?

Then he could be prosecuted for not complying with the enforcement notice. The contents of the notice and who it is there to protect has very little to do with the offence in this case. If he appealed the notice then it may be a different story.

Look at it from a slightly different viewpoint. If he died in the place and it could be attributed to the FRS not enforcing the order, would my excuse of "Well, I considered that he could do what he wanted to himself" go down well in front of the Coroner? I would be there as someone who knew the standards in the premises were dangerous and failed to act. He IS a relevant person, and the RRO is there to ensure he is protected appropriately.

I do concede that it could be taken out of my hands during an enforcement or prosecution, and it may not get that far or he may win an appeal. But if that happens at least I have done as much as possible within my level of responsibility.