Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[kurnal]

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.

Sorry Colin but that is too cryptic for me. I assume you are referring to posting number 61 in this thread, in which my intention was to refer to the change in the focus of Fire Safety enforcement and not to the review of BS5839. On re-reading this I apologise if I was unclear. With the advent of The Fire Safety Order, our focus moved to the "Relevant Person" whereas previous legislation was focussed on the protection of employees in a workplace and the number of occupied beds in a hotel. I believe this to be fact.

The other comment in the  posting is that some of us in the industry questioned whether  "Relevant Persons" were afforded appropriate protection by a fire alarm system in which their bedroom is equipped with a Heat Detector. That concern has now been been fully  resolved by the determination.

[Midland Retty]

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.

Im intrigued by this - I think its a very important matter for consideration and as such Ive done a little bit of research into it.

I approached two councils (two housing officers) on whether or not their respective authorities would deem sleeping accomodation for staff in a hotel to be domestic premises.

They both said that they would not class the sleeping accomodation in that respect to be domestic premises because the main use of the building is that of a hotel. If the two "groups" were "seperated" by one hour F/R it would be a different matter.

If on the other hand you had a standalone building within the hotel grounds providing accomodation soley for staff that would then be a HMO (but I think we knew that already).

Just as a side note the old purple guide (FP Act 71)  Appendix A P.98 also makes reference to this issue. It states that general staff accomodation within a hotel is not a dwelling. The only exception being if the hotel owner wants to live on the premises and thus uses part of the hotel for his or her own private quarters.  

The housing officer's opinions are based upon their experience and interpretation of existing legislation - but only a determination / case law would give us the true definition.

Food for thought.

[hammer1]

Just my 2 pence worth here..

In the LACORS guidance it states that the document does not cover;

areas in workplaces where staff ‘sleeping-in’ is a condition of employment or a business requirement,
as in hotels;

But they fall under;

These types of accommodation fall under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and detailed fire safety guidance for them is contained in the HM Government Fire Safety Risk Assessment Sleeping Accommodation Guide.


Do I get change out of that 2 pence???

[Midland Retty]

Hi Hammer1

You do indeed get some change

Simply let us have your bank account and sort code details and I'll ensure you get the appropriate change deposited into your account    

[kurnal]

Thanks Hammer 1

Yes I came across that interpretation, though could not find any further reference to it in those terms in other guidance, such as the Govt guidance to the Housing Act and Regualtions. But am still looking.

Whether the staff sleeping in is a condition of employment or business requirement is also debateable considering modern employement practice. Nowadays some of the employers in question wish to employ migrant workers because they can pay them the minimum wage and make a deduction from even that for living expenses. The migrant workers are happy because through a frugal existance and long hours they can live on the remaining pittance and still send cash home.  To me this sometimes smacks of convenience rather than business requirement.   Yes those working unsocial hours may have a relevant case in accordance with "business requirement" eg finishing shifts in the early hours when there is no public transport.

The restaurants similarly could not attract migrant staff on the same basis unless they offered living accommodation. Especially in the city centres where rent alone would be prohibitive. Is that a business nned?

Perhaps political arguments are not appropriate here though.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Kurnal your points are valid and hold true. There is no doubt migrant workers are exploited badly. Alas the politics behind it are by the by. Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO. I think its almost a forgone conclusion that staff accomdation in part of ahotel could never be a HMO.

[nearlythere]

I have to say K you are to be admired for refusing to go down without a brutal struggle. Interesting issue this one and all because of a bedroom. Do your bedroom exploits usually attract this degree of interest from the many watchers just to see how you handle yourself, if you pardon the pun?

[Allen Higginson]

I have to say K you are to be admired for refusing to go down without a brutal struggle. Interesting issue this one and all because of a bedroom. Do your bedroom exploits usually attract this degree of interest from the many watchers just to see how you handle yourself, if you pardon the pun?

Ohhh,errrrr,Matron!!

[CivvyFSO]

Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO.

Debatable... They do not benefit from same passive fire separation as is required in flats or HMOs. And if they are being evacuated every time the alarm goes off, will that not create the same issues we always speak about with alarms in the common areas of flats? i.e. Complacency leading to people not evacuating, sounders removed etc. So we have a fire alarm system that is potentially not going to move people out of their rooms, which could have simple partition walls between them and a fire. How is this better than 30 or 60 minutes separation between the occupier and a fire?

There are many other things that make up the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS). As somewhere to actually 'live' it is probably far from ideal. Do you have adequate privacy, space, security, ventilation, is it quiet enough, can you control the temperature to your liking in your room? This warrants the control that the housing act supplies. It is not a fire safety issue, but I doubt Kurnal is suggesting that they apply for a HMO licence for fire safety purposes.

IMO the dividing line is whether people are truly living there. If they are, then I don't see how anyone can say it is not occupied as a private domestic premises and the LHA need to be aware of it, and they should make sure it is fit for purpose (as living accomodation) by applying the HHSRS.

It raises a whole new question of how you define 'living there', as if you switch rooms regularly are you living there?

Too many grey areas.

[wee brian]

What's all this about "HMO" standards. Whether its a hotel, a HMO or a bit of both relates to what powers exist and who might enforce them.

The technical standard should be based on the risk.

[Midland Retty]

Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO.

Debatable... They do not benefit from same passive fire separation as is required in flats or HMOs. And if they are being evacuated every time the alarm goes off,

Not sure I agree there Civvy! In flats I will accept there is greater seperation - but not in a traditional HMO - such as a converted victorian terraced house. At best the seperation will be the same as hotel (30 mins) in my experience most conversions have been done on a tight budget using questionable materials.

[CivvyFSO]

A tradition HMO (if lacors guidance is followed) should have suitable separation between the occupancies. No separation is required between the actual rooms in a hotel.

We can talk about sub-standard hotels just as much as we talk about sub-standard HMO's, but at some point we have to assume that they meet the standard, or as enforcers/risk assessors we are involved with bringing them up to such a standard.

Wee Brian, that is the point. If we can't decide whether people actually living in a hotel can be classed as 'private & domestic' then we don't know what is to be enforced, or who enforces it. The housing safety rating is there for a reason, it is to ensure that people who rent (or pay by some other means, i.e. labour) accommodation are entitled to a suitable standard. So, IMO, if workers are actually 'living' in a hotel they should be entitled to the same system protecting their health and safety. This, IMO, potentially takes that certain section of the hotel out of the remit of the RRFSO.

[Midland Retty]

A tradition HMO (if lacors guidance is followed) should have suitable separation between the occupancies. No separation is required between the actual rooms in a hotel.

We can talk about sub-standard hotels just as much as we talk about sub-standard HMO's, but at some point we have to assume that they meet the standard, or as enforcers/risk assessors we are involved with bringing them up to such a standard.

Sorry Civvy you have misunderstood me (or perhaps I wasn't very clear)

You're correct there was no requirement for hotels to have seperation between bedrooms. But most often they are by virtue of the materials they are constructed with because of privacy and noise attenuation factors. Lacors doesn't require 30 minute F/R between bedsits either it just asks for sound traditional construction. Again this might also be 30 minutes F/r if its 12.5 mm plasterboard

Therefore whichever way you look at it a traditional HMO will not offer any better protection than that of a hotel. A flat would  however (60 mins)

In some examples it does use the phrases "ideally" thirty minutes fire resistance.

What really is to be gained from altering the existing standards prevailing from the hotel anyway?

Local Housings Officers I questioned, and the  Building Regs Officers I spoke to all lead me to believe that a HMO in a hotel couldn't exist (unless appropriately seperated), and that the staff quarters aren't domestic dwellings. Look also at past legislation as point of interest, the FP Act stated that Staff quarters are not dwellings.

So I still say the Fire Authority could enforce standards within areas used for staff accommodation in a hotel. if there was seperate annexe housing staff on site that would of course be different.

Along the way if a hotelier did desperately want to have a HMO inside a hotel I would ask, and subsequently try to enforce adequate seperation between the two groups, and to allow a mix of standards if that is what the hotelier wanted .

[Clevelandfire 3]

Lesser standards exist in HMOs than they do in a hotel. Hotels have self closers on fire doors, better detection because Part 1 detectors are more intelligent and sophisticated than part 6 detectors, else why not just have part 6 in large hotels? The higher stadard in hotels is down to the fact members of the public stay there and are unfamiliar with building layout. Also the false alarm issue doesn't wash with me either. Apart from the old problem of steam from en suite bathroom setting of the bedroom detection which generally got sorted out over time Ive never known hotels to have excessive false alarms in all the time was in the brigade either operationally or as an FSO. And as far as Im aware false alarm has never been a reason to get rid of detection completely. May change smoke for heat or move siting of detectors but never remove.

[CivvyFSO]

Can you not see the big difference between what you are calling staff quarters, and people actually living there.

Do these people not get the same protection regarding their standard of living?