Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[CivvyFSO]

Sounds quite specific, I guess you are not being creative and thinking up new ways to confuse us?

[kurnal]

I thought my query was particularly relevant to this thread as the outcome could affect the authority of the Fire Brigade to requre the installation of ANY detector in a staff bedroom of a hotel as I see it, never mind an argument over heat or smoke. I used a specific hotel scenario because that is the subject of this thread, the premises that I have in mind is actually a restaurant with staff bedrooms for migrant workers and the case is still ongoing. But the fundamental issue is the same.

The detail in the hotel scenario is deliberately structured and embellished to query other peoples views on the licensing of HMOs,  because the Housing Act and National Guidance give different definitions of what constiutes a 3 storey HMO.

I posted here out of interest because in the case involved the brigade had served a prohibition notice on the bedrooms and subsequently lifted it on completion of the work required. It seems that nobody had addressed the HMO licensing situation. I got involved as part of the additional requirements - to carry out a risk assessment.  

Overall for me its one of those uncomfortable situations where I am suggesting to my client all sorts of ramifications to regularise things that go beyond what the enforcement guys are asking him to do- like apply for a licence for example and install smoke detection in the common areas and fire doors to the bedrooms - the brigade have just asked for a sounder connected to the  alarm system in the commercial rooms below. Sometimes it makes you question your own actions and this is as good a sounding board as any other.

But to me it raises very interesting questions over the way staff bedrooms in hotels are dealt with since the Fire Safety Order and the demise of the FP Act.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Kurnal I see your point and think you raise a valid argument

In response I would have to say that even with staff accomdation provided a Hotel is not in part nor in full a HMO. The reasons being are as follows:-

1) A hotrl is purpose built as a hotel. Just because staff stay there doesn't change that definition.Even depsite any argument that it may be in part HMO the use of the building would be predominantly that of a hotel without argument.
2) The hotel should have been built to the prevailing building regulations at the time. Most HMOs are converted domestic dwelligs which didnt obtain building regs approval. If the hotel was built to prevailing building regulations it would automatically rule out it being a HMO according to the Housing Act.
3) A hotel room regardless of who stays in it has the potential to affect the means of escape for the premises and relevant persons. Thus measures to protect the common moe take presidence either through detection / fire seperation, or where that can not achieved the immediate and unmitigated use of a prohibition notice or restriction notice by the fire service. This has already been done on several occassions.
4) The responsible person has a duty to protect relevant persons. This includes staff as well as guests. By virtue of this detection would have to be installed anyway atleast in a hotel scenario.
5) LHA would not have any jurisdiction in a hotel unless the building was proven to part HMO which is highly improbable. Otherwise the fire authority has by law full jurisdiction to make requirements in a hotel under the RRO regardless of whether staff or members or public stay there or indeed any tennancy conditions are prevailing therein (which again is highly unlikely).
  

[CivvyFSO]

Tough one.

The wording in Lacors guidance seems to point towards the whole HMO needing to be at least 3 storeys, not necessarily just occupying any floor above the first floor.

I don't see what is wrong with what you are doing. It might seem to your client that you are being a bit meaner than the FRS, but you are giving advice on something that is beyond the FRS's power to enforce or request, although the local Authority should have been dragged in to this by the FRS.

Is your client aware of the penalties for not having a licence where one is required?

[CivvyFSO]

2) The hotel should have been built to the prevailing building regulations at the time. Most HMOs are converted domestic dwelligs which didnt obtain building regs approval. If the hotel was built to prevailing building regulations it would automatically rule out it being a HMO according to the Housing Act.

The relevance with building regs only applies with reference to premises converted into flats.

[kurnal]

Sorry this appears to be going off thread. Thanks for the replies, I agree that the issue hangs on whether staff bedrooms, which are charged for by deduction from the hourly rate, constitute domestic premises. On reading the guidance to support the Housing Act there is much to persuade me that they are domestic premises, whereas several fire service colleagues disagree and think that it is part of the workplace. I guess it may take another determination to be sure.

[nearlythere]

Sorry this appears to be going off thread. Thanks for the replies, I agree that the issue hangs on whether staff bedrooms, which are charged for by deduction from the hourly rate, constitute domestic premises. On reading the guidance to support the Housing Act there is much to persuade me that they are domestic premises, whereas several fire service colleagues disagree and think that it is part of the workplace. I guess it may take another determination to be sure.

What about just tossing a coin? Then we will not be less wrong than right nor more right than wrong.
That from the developing wisdom of my student - Solomon.

[Davo]

K

Excuse my ignorance but surely they are not at work, not receiving remuneration, so surely the rooms are not a workplace

Agree with Clevey!

davo

[nearlythere]

K

Excuse my ignorance but surely they are not at work, not receiving remuneration, so surely the rooms are not a workplace

Agree with Clevey!

davo

Davo. When an employee is on meal break using staff canteen/rest room they are normally not receiving remuneration but it is still part of their workplace. IMHO

[CivvyFSO]

I think I have it........

If you want to claim that rooms in a hotel are indeed 'domestic' dwellings then apply to building control for a change of use from purpose group 2 to purpose group 1 and see how far you get.

Until you have successfully done that and changed the purpose group, they are not private domestic dwellings, as such the RRFSO points towards them being a workplace and the people in the rooms are without doubt employees.

Do I win?

[Davo]

CivvyFSO

I think we all know the answer to para one, especially if the rooms are basic hotel type ie no kitchen etc etc as we would expect in our own residences.

I still say Clevey's point about affecting the other areas is the most valid


davo

ps do I get another prize for being the 100th post

[Midland Retty]

Yes Civvy. Both you and Cleveland have touched on what I think is the main point - The official designated use of the premises in law.

What was the premises built as? Has there been a change of use? If so have building control been informed / agreed to that change of use?. If they haven't the building remains defacto and de jure a hotel.

What business tax (or whatever the correct term is for it) do they pay? Is it for a hotel or HMO?

Also you will probably find that any tenancy agreements in place for the staff staying there will differ from those offered to tenants in HMOs.

I can find little in the Housing Act that convinces me (atleast in a hotel scenario) that part of the hotel could be classed as a HMO.

[wee brian]

What was the premises built as? Has there been a change of use? If so have building control been informed / agreed to that change of use?. If they haven't the building remains defacto and de jure a hotel.

So. If I take a house and convert it to a shop. But I don't get Building Control Approval. The Order doesn't apply............as it remains a house.

Perhaps a rethink......

[Midland Retty]

Perhaps a rethink......

Nope

If you did that you would need to inform Building Control. If you didn't thats by the by you may find Building Control pay you a visit!

The fact is you would be creating a workplace and therefore RRO would definately apply.

[CivvyFSO]

Midland, I think you just made his point for him. Simply not informing building control does not mean it stays in its original purpose group.

However, I still say you cannot call it a private domestic dwelling until you compartment it off from the other purpose group as would be required under building regs. Until you do that it remains part of the hotel, thus NOT private.

This might take someone looking through the Housing Act in more detail than I am willing to bother with......

If I found this happening on inspection, I would look at it from the point of these rooms being no different to having a member of the public in them. If the hotel owner wanted to say that I couldn't ask for the detectors in those rooms maintained etc then I would point him towards building regs and the housing act, and until he has changed the purpose group I would deal with it under the RRO. I would let anything he appealed go to determination unless some information was forthcoming that proved it was private and domestic. (Or a ship) Once he has changed the purpose group and got it through building regs then we should have no problem anyway.