Enforcing AFD in Bed Sits

[SidM]

A 3 storey HMO with a shop on the ground floor & bed-sits above.  The Order does not apply to domestic premises and therefore I have been told that, in an enforcement notice, I cannot ask for AFD.  So why does LACORS specify it and presumabley if I can't enforce AFD in the bed-sit, I can at least ask for a sounder linked to a detector in the shop or am I not allowed to do this either?

[wee brian]

Try reading all of the guide and all of the Order.

Theres more to fire safety than the Order....

[SidM]

Thnaks Wee Brain, that was a very helpful and pompous answer that put my mind at rest immediately. 

[nearlythere]

A 3 storey HMO with a shop on the ground floor & bed-sits above.  The Order does not apply to domestic premises and therefore I have been told that, in an enforcement notice, I cannot ask for AFD.  So why does LACORS specify it and presumabley if I can't enforce AFD in the bed-sit, I can at least ask for a sounder linked to a detector in the shop or am I not allowed to do this either?

The shop, not being a domestic premises, is subject to a risk assessment but consideration must be given to the effect a fire in the shop would have on others. Others, in this case, include the domestic occupants who are relevant persons for this purpose.
Would a fire in the shop have the potential of harming the occupants of the dwellings?

[SidM]

Yes, a fire in the shop would affect those in the dwellings as there is inadequate separation.  When you lift the damaged/broken ceiling tiles, the floor boards are clearly visible. 

[nearlythere]

Yes, a fire in the shop would affect those in the dwellings as there is inadequate separation.  When you lift the damaged/broken ceiling tiles, the floor boards are clearly visible.  

That is a therefore a significent finding for risk assessment of the shop and you should be making recommendations for adequate control measures to be put in place.

[SidM]

So, would a recommendation to have AFD in the bed-sits be enforceable by the Fire Authority?  Am not trying to be funny but a simple yes or no answer with reasoning would be nice or alternatively, I don't know is just as fine.

[Midland Retty]

Sid

The commercial premises as NT points out should be addressing the lack of appropriate fire separation between t and the flats above.

This could achieveds by either making the seperation 60 mins FR (which may be difficult) or 30 mins FR complete with AFD and sounders in the flats

The enforcement of precautions inside the flats would be down to the local housing authority (LHA)

However, this does depend on a few things. If there are common parts to the flats then the RRO will apply, inside the flats themselves however is the jurisdiction of the LHA so, I'd do a joint inspection with them.

[SidM]

Thank you Midland Retty, much appreciated

[nearlythere]

So, would a recommendation to have AFD in the bed-sits be enforceable by the Fire Authority?  Am not trying to be funny but a simple yes or no answer with reasoning would be nice or alternatively, I don't know is just as fine.

The control measure does not necessarily have to be detection but I would suggest that in this case it would seem a good option.
The control measure employed may be enforcable by the F&R Service as it should be a means of protecting the relevant persons from the effects of a fire in the shop. The reason I am not giving full weight to the recommendation for detection as a measure is that the owner or person who to any extent has control, could offer a viable alternative solution which could satisfy the enforcement authority but, it is a fair bet that detections is probably the best.
Be advised that detection may only be part of the solution. Detection is not necessarily a panacea for all fire safety deficiencies.

[wee brian]

Thnaks Wee Brain, that was a very helpful and pompous answer that put my mind at rest immediately. 

OK maybe that was a bit pompous. But if you had read the guide you would have known that the Housing Authority can deal with it. That's why it's in the guide.

Also, you do have enforcement powers in HMOs.

[CivvyFSO]

In a nutshell:

(1) To the shop owner: Enforce a fire resisting ceiling to a 60 minutes standard using article 8. (Measures to reduce risk of the spread of fire)

(2) To the owner of the bedsits: Enforce nice loud detection in the shared escape routes from the bedsits. (Or leave it to housing, depending on any protocols you might have.)

To go on about it a bit....

The 30 mins ceiling with linked detection to the commercial part is viable depending on how happy you are with it, but I tend to steer away from that where possible. My reasoning is as follows: From the point of view of the shop owner, you need to stop a fire in your premises affecting relevant persons. Although the people in the bedsits are relevant persons regarding a fire in your premises, you are not the RP for that part of the building. Your control ends at the ceiling, and that is where you can make the difference. A 60 minute ceiling is fully within your control, does not rely on any testing, and conforms to the standard set out in ADB. (Which does not list detection as a compensatory feature for a lack of compartmentation)

Cue arguments and claims of being unreasonable/jack booted etc........ (Go on, I can take it)

[Midland Retty]

You jack booted, low down, unreasonable, prescriptive, jumped up, dictatorial, busy body   Hows that....simples!  

No, joking aside Civvy - youve made some good points there - I reckon you'd make a great fire safety officer - ever thought of trying that line of work ? !

[CivvyFSO]

ever thought of trying that line of work ? !

And leave the perks of this McDonalds? Never!

[PhilB]

I think Wee Brian made some good points. Some people think that they can solve all the worlds problems with the fire safety order. In the bedsits, regardless of the protocols that may exist...the most appropriate legislation is the housing act....not the fire safety order.