Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[Midland Retty]

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.

Nope don't think I have made his point for him at all. If Wee B was a law obiding ciitzen he should have informed building control and made the relevant applications before doing the works. If he chooses not to thats his lookout, but he risks Building Contol taking legal action

The point I'm making is this: If your hotel owner tells you  politely to bugger off because the hotel is now partly a HMO and points out you dont have the jurisdiction to undertake an inspection in the bedrooms then I'd be asking him to prove the premises are a HMO.

Did he seek a change of use ? Does he pay business rates as a HMO? What are the tennancy agreements? Do the staff get deductions out of the wages for rent. Are they entitled lodgings in their contracts of employment.

Besides the hotel can not be a HMO anyway if:-

1) It was purpose built as a hotel

2) If it was a building CONVERTED into a hotel to building regs standards it can not by definition be a HMO either. Even if the hotel was converted to provide student accomodation lets say (and done so to current building regs) it would fall under the designation of a flat or maisonette potentially but not a HMO

[CivvyFSO]

I am in agreement with you in the main part Retty. Particularly how we would deal with a stroppy hotel owner.

The point I am making (And that WB made) is that you can change the use of a premises without informing building control. It is wrong, and you could get into much trouble for it, but you can still do it. I could get a dodgy builder in to the hotel in question, rip out the ground floor and turn it into a shop. I have effectively changed its use as it is now used as a shop. I haven't complied with the Building regs and done any of the work that would have normally accompanied that change of use, but I have changed its use nevertheless. (Just the same way as you can break the speed limit.)

Where does it say in the housing act that a hotel cannot be a HMO? Don't get the converted building thing confused with the housing act definition regarding premises that have been converted into flats or purpose built as flats.

P.S. Just to argue a slightly different point there. You would need access to the rooms to ensure that detectors are still there protecting the escape route to the L2 standard required for a hotel. Even if the RRO does not apply to a premises, that doesn't affect your rights of entry if they are justified, and the occupier has a duty to assist the RP with regards any maintenance requirements. I am not saying it will be easy though.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Civvy

It seems we agree on the meaty / important bits of the argument

But Wee Bee argues his mythical premises wouldnt be subject to the RRO -  if he turned part of his home into a shop yes it would because it is obvious the use of the building would no longer be soley a domestic premises, and we know the order applies to workplaces.

My argument is based on something not quite so black and white.

I still standby my comments regarding the fact that a purpose built building simply can not be a HMO .

If I bought an old factory building and decided to carve it up into little self contained flats and didnt consult Building Regs and I  start letting out those rooms then yes you could say it is a defacto HMO in that respect. But I'd be operating illegally!

If however I took that factory, went through all proper channels, got planning / buuilding regs approval and did a proper job I wouldnt have an HMO I'd have a block self contained flats, it wouldn't be classed legally as a HMO.

[CivvyFSO]

Wee Brians argument was based around pointing out the fault in our own logic. 

Ok. Awkward head going on...

I have just bought a fully functioning 6 storey hotel from Kurnal.... (Gave me it cheap he did too)
I am going to run the first 3 storeys just as a hotel.
The top three floors I am going to rent out, to 15 of my unrelated minimum wage workforce.
I am going to convert one room on each floor into a kitchen for the floor to share, it already has a FD30S door on it so should meet any other guidance I can be bothered to consider.
I am going to completely remove the detection from the rooms in this area apart from the kitchen, and replace it with detection in the corridor only. (I don't want my own staff causing evacuations)
Community fire safety can come talk to my tenants and give them some free smoke detectors if required.

Show me any part of the housing act that says that this can not be a HMO. (I am not suggesting that you can't, just that I have looked and I can't find it.

However, if it is not a HMO, then are you also saying that the rooms are not private and domestic? If so should you really enforce the replacement of the L2 system? How would I stand arguing that they ARE domestic because people are living there, as their permanent home, referrring you to the case law that nearlythere pointed us towards.

(I think this is Kurnals problem. If the FRS involved are happy with detection in the common area only, are they really saying that as far as they are concerned it is private & domestic use. If it is truly domestic then the RRO won't apply to the rooms but then housing act needs to be considered. Kurnal either needs to say that the rooms are not domestic, and as such he will be recommending a higher level of fire alarm than the FRS has asked for, or if he says they are actually domestic then he is having to suggest that the RP pays for a HMO licence, which the FRS haven't mentioned. So Kurnal looks like the bad guy. Am I reading this right Kurnal?)

[Midland Retty]

Civvy Civvy Civvy I can't help but feel that you've wandered into the realms of fantasy there!...  I'll nevertheless indulge you.

If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations

Those nice people at Building Control will require you two seperate both "uses" with appropriate F/R. They would see the HMO part as a dwelling, and the Hotel part as a hotel. Simples!

So if you were a good little Civvy and did that I'd be perfectly happy!(Or if I felt the AFD wasn't to the correct standard in the your newly created HMO I'd pass my concerns onto the local housing authority for them to take it up).

If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.

I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible),  justify why you have lowered standards and I'd then be duty bound to report you to the local Building Control Dept.

Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!

With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.

Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe. You can by all means allow staff to stay on the premises, but their accomodation should be protected by fire precautions of the same standards to  those found elsewhere in the hotel.

Yes you could be underhanded and go ahead and lower the standard anyway, but if an inspector calls you know what would subsequently happen.


 

[kurnal]

Shall we try to go back to basics and to the original thread.

Hotels have always had wings set aside for staff. They are invariably extremely grotty and you would not dream of letting them to paying guests.  Sometimes they were part of the hotel main building and sometimes they were annexes. The good old FP Act specifically covered staff rooms and made provision for their control via the fire certificate.

Now heres the rub. The Fire Safety Order specifically excludes domestic premises (except for article 31).  Could we consider staff bedrooms to be part of the workplace ?  From my interpretation, the definition in the FSO of a workplace excludes parts of premises used as a private dwellings. As far as I know the only definition of a private dwelling appears to Case Law and the Housing Act.

Looking at the definitions in the Housing Act  (and the guidance and case Law - thanks NT) it appears to me that a room occupied by an employee as part of the job is a private dwelling- ie Domestic Premises. And taking it further if there are a number of such rooms in a building then it is probably a HMO.

Hence my question. Hope this has clarified it a bit.

(Civvy you nearly have it right in the real life scenario I am dealing with at the mo which is not relevant to this thread- hence the hotel scenario. Research got me thinking about hotels tho. The real case in point is a restaurant with staff bedrooms on the 2nd floor and attic that have been used as staff bedrooms for donkeys years. New owner (my client) bought the place on condition that the previous owner did the necessary work to lift the prohibition. There is no detection in the second floor at all and the only thing required on the prohibition notice was a sounder connected to the system in the restaurant. Worse still the bedrooms are inner rooms off the restaurant laundry / staff room on the 2nd floor and also without detection. No fire doors apart from the head of the staircase that leads into the first floor restaurant, there is alternative MOE from the second floor bedroom corridor in the form of a wall hatch that leds to an external platform and a vertical ladder. Six staff. Have made appropriate recs and spoken to local authority who were aware of the property but not aware  that there were more than 2 staff. Have advised client to apply for HMO licence)

[Clevelandfire 3]

Kurnal. We can "try" anything you like. It was you who bought up the hotel scenario so I fail to see why you seem to sigh at the side argument it has created, which in itself has brought up some interesting debate, if somewhat off topic.
In the case of the hotel scenario I think Midland Retty is quite correct. Infact I know of several hotels who are slowly changing from being hotels to HMOs because longer term lets mean better financial security for the owners. That fine so long as there isn't mixed occupancy. That is to say it either has to be a HMo or hotel, no in betweens permitted. Better a hotel turns into a HMO than a HMO turns into a Hotel because atleast if the existing precautions from a hotel are carried over to a HMO they will be a better standard rather than vice versa.
Talking your point Kurnal about a restaurant with sleeping accommodation abive for staff the argument about seperation that Retty talks about still holds true. In reality of course if the status quo has been in place for years building control won't take any action and you will then be left with the housing act to deal with your little problem, which means the housing authority would enforce the sleeping accommodation. <May not be a HMo by definition, but it may be a dwelling and therefore the RRO wil not apply.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Not doubting the wisdom and knowledge of others this is an interesting legal piece about the definition of a dwelling.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm

Ive read this and find it  somewhat dubious, unsuited to the real world !.

[CivvyFSO]

Kurnal, for what you have described I think you are doing the right thing. I don't think that, in the circumstances you give, relevant persons are really being protected. The FRS should have asked for more protection in what must be the common areas, rather than simply a sounder connected to below. And it should also have been passed to housing regardless of the need for a licence. It will seem tha tyou are being more harsh than the FRS were, but the RP needs to be made aware that the work needed in order to lift a prohibition does not mean that the RRO is being complied with.

Anyway... This is really just to provoke more discussion than it is to support what I actually believe to be right. .....

If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations

But I didn't. And it was over years ago.

If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.

Appeal ahoy! You can't just prohibit it because you don't like it. We have 60 mins compartmentation betweeen floors. My tenants are not being a risk to the hotel, nor are they being put at risk by the hotel.

I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible)

From powers of inspectors:
to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the following purposes—(i) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether the provisions of this Order or any regulations made under it apply

Therefore it is up to you to ask questions to ascertain whether the order applies through 'enquiry', there is nothing there that says I have to prove it to you. However, I AM saying that it meets the definition of HMO in the Housing Act.

Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!

In line with Wee Brians thoughts, what if I decided to move poorly older people in who need medical care? If I don't tell building control do hotel standards still apply, or is this only when it suits you?

With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.

I am saying that since you can't find anything in the housing act that discounts this from being a HMO, these floors constitute a HMO, thus they are clearly domestic. Due to that I am saying that your responsibility ends at the front door to the rooms. I have 30 mins between the rooms and the escape routes. I have LD2 detection as per Lacors. (I will worry about the safety rating issues when housing arrive.)

Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe.

It is none of their business.

[Midland Retty]

You are partially correct Cleveland. Ideally when first constructed you would have expected the two purpose groups to have been properly seperated. However some shops were prupose built with accomodation above them for the purpose of the shop owner to live in rather than for the accommodation to be rented out to third parties or staff members.

Kurnal is therefore correct in assuming that the sleeping accommodation in his scenario is probably a HMO
Dependent on the numbers sleeping there it may also be a licensable HMO. Also if only two members of staff sleep on the premises then  it wouldn't be a HMO but the local housing authority could still enforce standards using the Housing Health & Safety Rating System.

[Midland Retty]

Kurnal, for what you have described I think you are doing the right thing. I don't think that, in the circumstances you give, relevant persons are really being protected. The FRS should have asked for more protection in what must be the common areas, rather than simply a sounder connected to below. And it should also have been passed to housing regardless of the need for a licence. It will seem tha tyou are being more harsh than the FRS were, but the RP needs to be made aware that the work needed in order to lift a prohibition does not mean that the RRO is being complied with.

Anyway... This is really just to provoke more discussion than it is to support what I actually believe to be right. .....

If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations

But I didn't. And it was over years ago.

If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.

Appeal ahoy! You can't just prohibit it because you don't like it. We have 60 mins compartmentation betweeen floors. My tenants are not being a risk to the hotel, nor are they being put at risk by the hotel.

I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible)

From powers of inspectors:
to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the following purposes—(i) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether the provisions of this Order or any regulations made under it apply

Therefore it is up to you to ask questions to ascertain whether the order applies through 'enquiry', there is nothing there that says I have to prove it to you. However, I AM saying that it meets the definition of HMO in the Housing Act.

Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!

In line with Wee Brians thoughts, what if I decided to move poorly older people in who need medical care? If I don't tell building control do hotel standards still apply, or is this only when it suits you?

With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.

I am saying that since you can't find anything in the housing act that discounts this from being a HMO, these floors constitute a HMO, thus they are clearly domestic. Due to that I am saying that your responsibility ends at the front door to the rooms. I have 30 mins between the rooms and the escape routes. I have LD2 detection as per Lacors. (I will worry about the safety rating issues when housing arrive.)

Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe.

It is none of their business.

Civvy I can't be bothered anymore, this has gotten a bit silly.  You are throwing more and more stuff into the argument and changing the scenario. Im not going to keep countering stuff you add or change !!

I stand by my original response, if you dont agree then no probs.

[CivvyFSO]

OK. Just trying to make you or anyone prove it is not a HMO. The answer might still be out there somewhere.

The standards such as 60 minutes between floors and 30 mins to escape routes are common to a standard hotel occupancy, so I didn't consider that to be making anything up. But I must admit.. taking the alarm system back to an LD2 system was simply me being stroppy.

Anyway, it is the theoretical arguments which often raise awareness of the finer points regarding definitions, acts we don't normally deal with that may still have relevance, and case law etc.

[Midland Retty]

Apologies Civvy Im afraid I got out of the wrong side of bed this morning

I realise you were only trying to spark healthy debate.

If your floors are 60 mins F/R (you didnt mention that before) then prohibition wouldn't be necessary and I'd be quite happy with that.

I still wouldn't be overly pleased with your level of AFD however, probably not prohibitable based on the fact that staff live there ,will know each other, will know the layout of building etc. If I couldn't enforce you to upgrade your AFDthen I'd pass my concerns onto the LHA.

With the seperation you speak of you then you could call your upper floors a HMO - I wouldn't argue against it. I would if it was 30 mins F/R and would still ask you to convince me how it could be without adequate seperation. I know it isn't a HMO and would continue to treat it as a hotel . Atleast I've given you the opportunity to convince me otherwise.

As Building Control have informed me if they were  to hear of anyone using part of a hotel as a HMO without adequate seperation they would take action (note Im only talking about a hotel here as per your scenario). If you don't believe me contact your local building control officer see what their views are.

It's not about what suits me Civvy its about the law, and our interpretation of it. Yes the hotel standards would still apply if you decided to move people in who need medical care at the premises

You either make it wholly a rescare home or wholly a hotel - you cant have a mix like you suggest. If you do want a mixed use building you have to seperate each group.

Simples

Im off now to have a G&T on the lawn and chill.... its friiiiday!

[kurnal]

Thanks to all for your contributions. And Cleveland must have pin sharp ears to hear me sigh, good job he did not comment on other things he may have heard through my posting. Must be more careful what I have for tea when going on the firenet.

I still think that staff rooms in a workplace or hotel may actually be domestic premises.

[colin todd]

Wizzo, You are right to question the ludicrous suggestion that there is no cost. There are lawyers, consultants and Counsel involved in a determination. You paid for the fire and rescue authority's lawyers via the corporation tax of Wizzyco. The consultant acting on behalf of the client was of course very inexpensive as did the ratepayers of the county in question.
Kurnal, there was no new focus under the RRO , and you are incorrect in your bold, but unfounded assertions (which you state as though they were facts) regarding the intent of the revision of BS 5839-1.