Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[Midland Retty]

There is no difference Civvy, no.

I acknowledge and agree that the staff living quarters are their home. Never argued against that.

My argument is that in a mixed building you can't mix standards, atleast not without adequate seperation.

The Fire Precautions in a hotel (lets assume it has an existing  L2 fire alarm system, self closing fire doors on all rooms, EL in the corridors, manned reception at night) afford just as much protection than those in a HMO, infact they are normally of higher standard because public sleep there. So Im not sure I understand your issue about protection in that sense .

Are you looking at it from general housing standards view point or their rights as tennants? if so what specifically do you mean? And why would those rights be any different if they lived in a hotel necessarily?



 

[CivvyFSO]

If the staff are living there and paying for the privilege, then surely they have the same rights of security/noise/health/space etc as Mr Student living in his HMO?

yes/no?

I say yes.

That being the case the only legislation looking after those rights is the Housing Act?

yes/no?

Again, I agree with myself and say yes. (surprise)

The Housing Act surely does not apply unless it is domestic?

[kurnal]

Civvy thanks for taking the argument forward over the last few days.

To many it may seem an irrelevant technical argument because the fire safety standards can be enforced through one or other regimes by the relevant authority, either under their own legislation or through the protocol.

But I think it does matter. If the staff bedrooms are domestic premises then it should indeed enjoy the full spectrum of protection and facilities afforded by the Housing Act. And if the Housing Act does apply then the rooms involved must be domestic premises and not subject to the FSO. The determination over detection in hotel bedrooms would then be irrelevant if they were occupied by staff.

I feel  sure that throughout I  must have overlooked something obvious and that there must be some case law or guidance to give a definitive answer on this.

Someone will know the answer - where are you Phil?

[CivvyFSO]

Civvy thanks for taking the argument forward over the last few days.

Ha, not sure how far forward I have taken it. I have certainly convinced myself that it is not as straightforward as it seems. Got a bit of a "dog with a bone" thing going on here.

Someone will know the answer - where are you Phil?

Indeed. Where are you when we need you Stampy?

[Midland Retty]

If the staff are living there and paying for the privilege, then surely they have the same rights of security/noise/health/space etc as Mr Student living in his HMO?

yes/no?

I say yes.

That being the case the only legislation looking after those rights is the Housing Act?

yes/no?

Again, I agree with myself and say yes. (surprise)

The Housing Act surely does not apply unless it is domestic?

Right now Im with you Civvy

I didn't realise you were talking about general tenant's rights - I thought you were simply arguing the fact over fire precautions !!

I again, not to argue with you Civvy , but to simply find out where the land lies on this contacted my friendly Local Housing Officer - hopefully the following will ease the Prof's mind a little

A hotel room still definately can't be a domestic dwelling in her opinion. Furthermore the Housing Act probably doesn't apply either in this scenario (Hotel)  

Fortunately however they can deal with tenants rights / housing standards issues by other means. (HHSRS)

Prof, I understand why you are concerned for the tenants, whether you believe it is a dwelling is up to you (I think my postings show otherwise), in actual fact it is a pointless argument because whether it is a dwelling or not the Local Authority can enforce standards for the protection of tenants regardless .

If youre still concerned why not put your own mind at rest by contacting the Local Housing Standards team in the area covering the hotel and garner their opinion.

If you have accepted the fire precautions to hotel standard and advised the hotelier to approach local housing authority about other issues the staff accomodation I would suggest you have done the right thing.

And Oi Prof whadya mean "Thanks to Civvy" - what about all the phone calls I made to building control, local housing authority, the time I spent sifting through endless bits of paper, the sleepless nights all on this issue - yet no thank yous, no gratitude not a peep - Cheers Prof  .  .....        

Joking aside - it's been a useful and healthy debate

Mr Barry / PC Stamp wont help - I bet he's too busy practising his golf swing.

[PhilB]

Mr Barry / PC Stamp wont help - I bet he's too busy practising his golf swing.

No Retty far too busy for that!

In my humble opinion a hotel room would not be classed as a domestic premises.

[kurnal]

MR I truly appreciate and am grateful for all your work  and input on this topic. If you were to agree with me I may even thank you as well.

As I have said before the query was prompted by totally unsuitable accommodation for staff living above a restaurant A licence application for a HMO has now been made and the Local Authority will consider their position and will respond in due course with their decision.

But that got me thinking about rooms in a hotel dedicated for use as living accommodation by staff..... and I am still looking for a definitive reason...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Midland Retty]

Now look here Prof, you can either accept my opinion or admit you're wrong   

I'm glad you bought the issue up for discussion. 

It doesn't rest easy with me that staff sleeping accomodation above a restaurant would be classed as a HMO (depending on the numbers staying there) yet staff accomodation in a hotel wouldn't be.

Its thrown up quite a few legal anomolies associated with staff quarters in hotels - and its been useful to me to thrash them out and look at it in detail - so suppose I should thank you really  and you too Civvy, and erm you Phil, and Cleve.. and... zzzzz

[CivvyFSO]

because whether it is a dwelling or not the Local Authority can enforce standards for the protection of tenants regardless .

If this is the case then that is the answer I was looking for.

However I don't see how they (LA) can enforce standards unless it is a residential premises, because;

From The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005:

Citation, commencement and application

    (2) These Regulations apply in relation to residential premises in England only

From the The Housing Act:

(4) In this Part “residential premises” means—
(a) a dwelling;
(b) an HMO;
(c) unoccupied HMO accommodation;
(d) any common parts of a building containing one or more flats.

“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to
be occupied as a separate dwelling;

From Housing Health and Safety Rating System - Guidance for Landlords and Property Related Professionals:

Dwelling – any place which is used or meant to be used for living purposes.

For any of this to apply we are clearly labelling the areas a dwelling. So our only way in through the RRFSO is to try define a legal difference between a dwelling and a private dwelling, and to be able to give a legal reason why they are not private dwellings.

I believe that in the circumstances we are talking about we potentially have;

a) Somewhere that the RRFSO applies, but tenants who are clearly permanently living there do not have the same rights regarding their standard of living as other tenants elsewhere.
b) The possibility of a dwelling, where the RRFSO clearly does not apply, within a hotel.

Joking aside - it's been a useful and healthy debate

Indeed.

[JC100]

For your info.

Sir Ken Knights determination in respect of the fire safety adequacy of fire detection in a hotel.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/1311357.pdf

[Midland Retty]

I believe that in the circumstances we are talking about we potentially have;

a) Somewhere that the RRFSO applies, but tenants who are clearly permanently living there do not have the same rights regarding their standard of living as other tenants elsewhere.
b) The possibility of a dwelling, where the RRFSO clearly does not apply, within a hotel.

Civvy you're like a dog with a bone  you... 

I can't argue with what you have stated. I agree with your conclusions. I'll do a bit more digging with the housing officer on Monday - I'll ask if she meant the HHSRS as the appropriate mechanism or whether she meant something else!

[CivvyFSO]

Civvy you're like a dog with a bone  you... 

It has been said before. 

[SmokeyDokey]

In terms of the Housing Act 2004 its pretty clear from Ultratemp Ventures vs Collins
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm that an hotel room can be someones dwelling - so HHSRS could be applied if that how the hotel rom is being used.

IMO, for the RRFSO, whether the domestic premises exception aplies sems to be more linked to whether the room can be said to be a private dwelling. That seems unlikely for an hotel room used by a member of the public and also pretty unikley if it is staff accommodation for which they have no security of tenure and can be moved or lose the accommodation at the employer's whim - especially if the employer has the right to entyer and check the rooms.

[CivvyFSO]

Cheers for that Smokey, I think it clears it up nicely.

IMO, The Housing Act is the most appropriate tool to deal with the given example, and the case you mentioned shows that it could/should be used.

[Midland Retty]

I think we need to be a little careful here.

The case referred to is regarding a long term tenant rather than an employee whom had lodgings as part of their job.

The lovely housing officer I contact stated that the explanations I gave in earlier posts from her were based on the fact that:-

1) The scenario was that of a hotel and
2) The accommodation was provided for staff and not Mr Joe Public seeking long term tennancy

Smokey Donkey also raises a fair point - is a hotel bedroom provided for staff only a private domestic dwelling.

In general terms, and in the case Smokey sent us the link to, I can see why the Housing Act applies, but just to argue the point and to be clear, the case given does not refer to an employee who was given accomodation as part of his contract.