Enforcing the RR(FS)O

[Tom Sutton]

I was a tenant in a flat above a commercial outlet in the West Country and there was a regular Fire Safety Inspection. The fire service was made aware that one of the flats was now being occupied.

Subsequently we were informed that a prohibition order had being placed on the property which was issued April 2007. Upon further investigation by the fire brigade we were informed that the property's fire alarms were not working properly, because the zones were not activated.

Also we were told that installation of sounders is required in our bedrooms because the fire doors will prevent us from hearing any alarms. I am led to believe this is the reason for the prohibition notice being placed on the property.

We were interviewed under caution about the events in our flat and obviously very distressed, and very disappointed about the whole situation. We were informed by the fire brigade that none of the problems will fall in our direction, but purely on the management company.

Because the fire safety precautions were not adhered to, we were not allowed to stay in our bedrooms because they were to far away from the closest fire escape which meant the 3 of us staying on the front room floor for 10 days. Because of these and other problems we decided to terminate our tenancy agreement with immediate effect and left the property last week.

I was wondering if you could help me locate the exact law the management company will be subject to. Surely if the bedrooms were unsuitable for us to be sleeping in then, this must be the case for the entire time we were tenants?

I see no problems with the answer I think its straight forward but the actions of the Inspecting Officer appear to be OTT why did he think it was necessary to caution the tenant and as the tenant says “he was very distressed”?

Also I assume you will be able to find about the contents of the prohibition notice by using the Freedom of Information Act and as I recall on previous thread there was talk of a register when dangerous conditions exist in the local area can anybody help?

[jokar]

Each FRS has to have a register of Notices so this is available for the public and others to view.  I am with you TW, the IO was OTT in the approach but in theory was protecting the residents from a fire in the commercial premises.  However, dependent on whether or not they had separate means of escape and the degree of separation between the commercial premises and the flats the whole thing may have been wrong.

[bungle]

I would be interested to know on what grounds the IO carried out an interview under caution. As I understand the initial text was written by a person renting a private flat. This means he/she is a relevant person but how they can be deemed to be a "responsible person" ( whether as "person having control " or any other criteria being applied) is quite beyond me.
Personally I would request a copy of all the relevant documents and then consider a formal complaint. My understanding is that an IUC should only be carried out when there is  a suspicion that  the individual has commited an offence and in this case that could never be so. The RRO clearly states that not having any knowledge of a Prohibition Notice is an excuse .
Furthermore single domestic dwellings are exempt from FRS fire safety activities.

[messy]

Furthermore single domestic dwellings are exempt from FRS fire safety activities.

Single domestic dwellings (flats) can be subject to, and affected by a prohibition order (Article 31.10 refers) 

[nearlythere]

I was a tenant in a flat above a commercial outlet in the West Country and there was a regular Fire Safety Inspection. The fire service was made aware that one of the flats was now being occupied.

Subsequently we were informed that a prohibition order had being placed on the property which was issued April 2007. Upon further investigation by the fire brigade we were informed that the property's fire alarms were not working properly, because the zones were not activated.

Also we were told that installation of sounders is required in our bedrooms because the fire doors will prevent us from hearing any alarms. I am led to believe this is the reason for the prohibition notice being placed on the property.

We were interviewed under caution about the events in our flat and obviously very distressed, and very disappointed about the whole situation. We were informed by the fire brigade that none of the problems will fall in our direction, but purely on the management company.

Because the fire safety precautions were not adhered to, we were not allowed to stay in our bedrooms because they were to far away from the closest fire escape which meant the 3 of us staying on the front room floor for 10 days. Because of these and other problems we decided to terminate our tenancy agreement with immediate effect and left the property last week.

I was wondering if you could help me locate the exact law the management company will be subject to. Surely if the bedrooms were unsuitable for us to be sleeping in then, this must be the case for the entire time we were tenants?

I see no problems with the answer I think its straight forward but the actions of the Inspecting Officer appear to be OTT why did he think it was necessary to caution the tenant and as the tenant says “he was very distressed”?

Also I assume you will be able to find about the contents of the prohibition notice by using the Freedom of Information Act and as I recall on previous thread there was talk of a register when dangerous conditions exist in the local area can anybody help?

Is the tenant sure that he was interviewed under formal caution or just interviewed. If the former the IO should have advised the tenant that he had "the right to remain silent but anything he did not.....etc. etc.  If the latter the IO may have asked him to provide honest and truthful answers and that he was not under caution, in which case the tenent could have chased him.

[Thomas Brookes]

In all my years of fire inspections, I have never heard of a flats tennant being cautioned in such a way. It would be a fairly stupid person to think he can caution the tenant for something the building owners done, unless they lease/ rent the hole building and sub let.
Although I have come across some quite harsh FO in the past never heard of this sort of thing ever.

I feel the same as Nearlythere they were probly just interveiwed and feel they were interogated, he might have used a bit of bluff and bluster if he thought the tenants were responsible for the damage to the fire system!!.

[PhilB]

The tenants could commit an offence if they breeched a 31 notice and in those circumstances it would be appropriate to caution them. Having said that common sense should prevail and a few questions would soon establish who enforcement should be targeted against and in this case it is not likely to be the tenants.

It slighly concerning that some people think that flats are outside the scope of the Order when article 31 clearly applies to them.

[bungle]

Sorry,
I didn't have the RRO with me last night and was mistaken!

Bungle

[PhilB]

The RRO clearly states that not having any knowledge of a Prohibition Notice is an excuse .
.

Just curios Bungle, where did you feel that the Order states this? The old legislation did provide a defence in this case but the Order does not.

[val]

Not sure if this is relevant in this case but don't forget the article below. If you cause an offence to be committed then you to are liable. In this case it is unlikely that the tenants moved in without the knowledge of the RP but in an HMO a tenant 'could' move themselves back in despite the landlords best endevours.

32 (10) Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Order, is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this paragraph whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.

[Tom Sutton]

Is the tenant sure that he was interviewed under formal caution or just interviewed. If the former the IO should have advised the tenant that he had "the right to remain silent but anything he did not.....etc. etc.  If the latter the IO may have asked him to provide honest and truthful answers and that he was not under caution, in which case the tenent could have chased him.

There had been an enforcement notice served on the property before the prohibition notice. All the tenants were cautioned at the beginning of the interview and yes they know what cautioned means. All had to sign a written undertaking to say we would not sleep on the 3rd floor of the property after being made aware of the prohibition notice. They had no knowledge a prohibition notice had been served on the property and did nothing to prevent any work being done to the property regardless of any issue.
 
The prohibition notice was issued for the 3rd floor, because the travel distance was excessive, it has poor fire compartmentation, a lack of a fire alarm system and the FRS opinion was under no circumstances should the rooms on the third floor be slept in. The landlord advertised the property as a 2 bedroom flat with the 3rd floor as the bedrooms

[bungle]

Phil,
Sorry , as I said i didnt have an RRO with me when I posted and ws getting confused...again!

Bungle

[nearlythere]

Is the tenant sure that he was interviewed under formal caution or just interviewed. If the former the IO should have advised the tenant that he had "the right to remain silent but anything he did not.....etc. etc.  If the latter the IO may have asked him to provide honest and truthful answers and that he was not under caution, in which case the tenent could have chased him.

There had been an enforcement notice served on the property before the prohibition notice. All the tenants were cautioned at the beginning of the interview and yes they know what cautioned means. All had to sign a written undertaking to say we would not sleep on the 3rd floor of the property after being made aware of the prohibition notice. They had no knowledge a prohibition notice had been served on the property and did nothing to prevent any work being done to the property regardless of any issue.
 
The prohibition notice was issued for the 3rd floor, because the travel distance was excessive, it has poor fire compartmentation, a lack of a fire alarm system and the FRS opinion was under no circumstances should the rooms on the third floor be slept in. The landlord advertised the property as a 2 bedroom flat with the 3rd floor as the bedrooms

What would have happened if they refused to sign, which I wouldn't have done. Did they go in to the street and make passersby sign also just in case they may want to rent a flat some time?
Are jackboots now FS standard kit?

[Tom Sutton]

What would have happened if they refused to sign, which I wouldn't have done. Did they go in to the street and make passersby sign also just in case they may want to rent a flat some time?
Are jackboots now FS standard kit?

Surprisingly they have no animosity towards the FRS their anger is directed at the landlord for renting a premises that was allegedly dangerous they see the FRS as their allies.

[Clevelandfire 3]

The IO isn't being Jack Booted and probably never cautioned them . Tennants can be guilty of breaching prohibition Notices if they knowingly breach it of course. In this case it doesn't sound as though the tennants did do anything wrong and the officer was just trying to establish facts.

Remember that a caution exists to protect someone being questioned. Its yet againa  typical sign of the times all of a sudden we hear a story second hand and words like jack booted get banded around. I agree the Officer would have been out of order if he issued a caution without suspecting offences were commited.