Blocked fire exit

[Bruce89]

A neighbour who lives in a flat is parking their vehicle thereby blocking a fire exit from a commercial premises. Apparently under the deeds of the flat occupied by the neighbour, this parking space is hers.
Do you think Art 17 or Art 5(3) applies to the neighbour?

[nearlythere]

A neighbour who lives in a flat is parking their vehicle thereby blocking a fire exit from a commercial premises. Apparently under the deeds of the flat occupied by the neighbour, this parking space is hers.
Do you think Art 17 or Art 5(3) applies to the neighbour?

Can you be more specific about the word "blocking"? Blocking means that the door or exit cannot be used at all due to a complete obstruction. Is this the case?

[Phoenix]

I was thinking the same thing, Nearly.  I think there's potential mileage in Article 5(3), but has the gentle approach been tried?  First, establish an answer to Nearly's question (e.g. does the presence of the car merely reduce the available width of exit for a relatively small number of people, or does it stop the doors being opened at all?)  Could the car be parked back a couple of feet to allow the door to open (controlled perhaps by some bollards) and, if so, would there be sufficient width?  Is the door actually required for means of escape and, if so, for how many?  Does the commercial premises have a legal right of access over the land that is also the parking space and over the land beyond?  Is the neighbour out to cause a problem or would he/she be happy to co-operate?  Have there already been negotiations with the neighbour?  Is the neighbour aware of the problem being created by the car (is there a sign on the outside of the door, for example)?  Out of interest, what was there first - the commercial premises or the car parking space?

Stu

[Tom W]

I was thinking the same thing, Nearly.  I think there's potential mileage in Article 5(3), but has the gentle approach been tried?  First, establish an answer to Nearly's question (e.g. does the presence of the car merely reduce the available width of exit for a relatively small number of people, or does it stop the doors being opened at all?)  Could the car be parked back a couple of feet to allow the door to open (controlled perhaps by some bollards) and, if so, would there be sufficient width?  Is the door actually required for means of escape and, if so, for how many?  Does the commercial premises have a legal right of access over the land that is also the parking space and over the land beyond?  Is the neighbour out to cause a problem or would he/she be happy to co-operate?  Have there already been negotiations with the neighbour?  Is the neighbour aware of the problem being created by the car (is there a sign on the outside of the door, for example)?  Out of interest, what was there first - the commercial premises or the car parking space?

Stu

Most questions ever used in a paragraph! 

[Mushy]

I was thinking the same thing, Nearly.  I think there's potential mileage in Article 5(3), but has the gentle approach been tried?  First, establish an answer to Nearly's question (e.g. does the presence of the car merely reduce the available width of exit for a relatively small number of people, or does it stop the doors being opened at all?)  Could the car be parked back a couple of feet to allow the door to open (controlled perhaps by some bollards) and, if so, would there be sufficient width?  Is the door actually required for means of escape and, if so, for how many?  Does the commercial premises have a legal right of access over the land that is also the parking space and over the land beyond?  Is the neighbour out to cause a problem or would he/she be happy to co-operate?  Have there already been negotiations with the neighbour?  Is the neighbour aware of the problem being created by the car (is there a sign on the outside of the door, for example)?  Out of interest, what was there first - the commercial premises or the car parking space?

Stu

Most questions ever used in a paragraph! 

 

[Bruce89]

Believe me Phoenix I have thought of the points you raise, what I'm trying to do though is establish the legal position with regards the FSO if all else, eg. reasoning, goodwill etc. fails. I believe Art 17 may be the answer but wanted some other views.

[PhilB]

article 32(10) is the answer if the gentle approach fails.

[nearlythere]

article 32(10) is the answer if the gentle approach fails.

Yes. Article 32 (10) (as PhilB says), a fork lift truck and the nearest river should do it.

[Phoenix]

I was thinking the same thing, Nearly.  I think there's potential mileage in Article 5(3), but has the gentle approach been tried?  First, establish an answer to Nearly's question (e.g. does the presence of the car merely reduce the available width of exit for a relatively small number of people, or does it stop the doors being opened at all?)  Could the car be parked back a couple of feet to allow the door to open (controlled perhaps by some bollards) and, if so, would there be sufficient width?  Is the door actually required for means of escape and, if so, for how many?  Does the commercial premises have a legal right of access over the land that is also the parking space and over the land beyond?  Is the neighbour out to cause a problem or would he/she be happy to co-operate?  Have there already been negotiations with the neighbour?  Is the neighbour aware of the problem being created by the car (is there a sign on the outside of the door, for example)?  Out of interest, what was there first - the commercial premises or the car parking space?

Stu

Most questions ever used in a paragraph! 

 

Oh, I can ask many, many more questions than that in one paragraph:

Why do we like the smell of new mown grass?  What would the world be like if earth tasted like chocolate?  Are there any undiscovered colours?  What is my mum's middle name?  Why is Phil Barry?  How much does a cubic mile of sea weigh?  What's the difference between a banana?  What is beauty?  Is the passage of time continuous or in discrete quanta?  What are belly buttons for?  If one and a half chickens lay one and a half eggs in one and a half days, how many eggs do nine chickens lay in nine days?  How long does it take for the Earth to rotate 360 degrees (trickier than you'd think, this one)?

Anyway, returning to topic....

If you actually have to use Art 32(10) rather than just threaten it's use, then I feel you would be obliged to prosecute the RP also, unless he could use the defence in Art 33.  It's important that the RP has taken all reasonable steps to make the neighbour precisely aware of the situation he/she is creating.  Signage, recorded conversations and recorded formal communications should do it. 

Stu

[kurnal]

It all depends.
There are a few situations where action could be taken against the neighbour under the Fire safety Order  but generally in these situations it cannot. Its not the neighbours responsibilty to provide a means of escape for his neighbours benefit unless there is something in the deeds or lease that require this. If there isnt then tough.
Its the Responsible Persons duty to provide suitable and sufficient means of escape for relevant persons - not the neighbours duty. If they have fallen out then its tough luck but it needs the Responsible Person to open up negotiation with the neighbour to resolve this, its not the fire authorities job to fight his battle for him.
I used to get fed up with people trying to use the fire safety enforcement teams to solve disputes  with their neighbours and usually took some pleasure in reflecting the responsibility back to where it belonged.   
Thats my opinion for what its worth.

[CivvyFSO]

It will boil down to a legal matter regarding having a right of way. If he doesn't have the right of way then having a fire exit leading there doesn't give him the right of way and he is quite simply going to have to manage without that exit, or see what he needs to do to get the right of way.

Using 32(10) is not as clear as it might appear. If the commercial RP has the right of way, he still faces a problem whereby if he allows his premises to be used while knowing that his means of escape is unsuitable, he is potentially (read: probably) causing an offence. And to be honest I would have limited sympathy with an RP who allowed his premises to be used while knowing is MOE was unsuitable.

However if he does the right thing and, for instance, restricts numbers etc, then people are then not being put at risk by the parking, so no offence is caused. Catch 22?

The RP is in an awkward position. He can deny control of that part until he is blue in the face, he has full control of what happens inside.

The only way I think we could use article 32(10) was if the owner was unaware that the care was there blocking his means of escape and it was found on inspection.

[Bruce89]

Thanks to you all for your replies. Basically then, if the RP has legal right of way in respect to the area where the neighbour is parking the car thereby blocking the exit, Art 32(10) is available for consideration. However, if such legal right of way does not exist, if negotiations etc. fail to work, the RP will have to make alternative arrangements in order to achieve satisfactory means of escape from his premises.

[nearlythere]

The only way I think we could use article 32(10) was if the owner was unaware that the care was there blocking his means of escape and it was found on inspection.

Don't think that the owner could use unawareness as a relevant mitigating factor or get out card Civvy. The exit discharges into a car park and it would be reasonable to expect he should be aware that there could be issues with cars blocking or restricting egress.
If the car park appeared overnight, unlikely, or there was a car illegally parked say on a pavement outside the door, possibly, then he could have good reason for being unaware of the exit being blocked.

[CivvyFSO]

Don't think that the owner could use unawareness as a relevant mitigating factor or get out card Civvy. The exit discharges into a car park and it would be reasonable to expect he should be aware that there could be issues with cars blocking or restricting egress.
If the car park appeared overnight, unlikely, or there was a car illegally parked say on a pavement outside the door, possibly, then he could have good reason for being unaware of the exit being blocked.

I completely agree.