Tenants of flats- legal rights

[kurnal]

Tom
Owner/ occupiers of flats have a particular interest and should be party to the findings of the fire risk assessment. They probably are in a stronger position than tenants because the RP of the common areas will no doubt add his costs for implementing the findings of a risk assessment to their service fee. When buying their flat their solicitor will also presumably make this a ondition of purchase so there is leverage there.

Lodgers are not relevant persons I suggest? (Because domestic premises are not subject to the Fire Safety Order.)

Delivery men are employees and their employer has a duty to communicate etc

Uncle Tom Cobleigh may have a reasonable right to information but since the old Gentleman passed away in 1794 then he wont be much trouble. Uncle Tom Sutton may be more of a handful.

No I remain convinced that there is a hole in the Law and, in any building with multiple occupiers to which the Order applies, all occupiers and tenants should enjoy similar rights to information as do employees.

[Tom Sutton]

As I have said previously Kurnal I do not disagree with you but it is how you would amend the order without complicating it any worse than it is already. Also I do not think they would amend the order a regulation would be made under article 24 and that would be a wow to see.

Regards to my previous submission the following statement is the kind of augments that would be put forward.

Lodgers use the common areas and are Relevant Persons under the order, (any persons who is lawfully on the premises or in the vicinity of the premises who are at risk are Relevant Persons, except fire-fighters on duty), they have a vested interest so why shouldn't they be included?

[Clevelandfire 3]

Hang on TW Sutton you say one thing then change course. You shot down someone for including tenants and employees in an amended example of article 19  and also say you cant include every man and his dog wanting to know the findings of the risk assessment as this would open a can of worms. So please make up your mind. Owner occupiers are rps in their own right so should be subject to article 22 anyway. I dont understand your point, i thought i did. Perhaps ive misunderstood you.

[kurnal]

Lodgers use the common areas and are Relevant Persons under the order, (any persons who is lawfully on the premises or in the vicinity of the premises who are at risk are Relevant Persons, except fire-fighters on duty), they have a vested interest so why shouldn't they be included?

Yes good point about lodgers- of course you are right.
But Clleveland 3 raises an interesting issue in regard to the role of tenants vs owner occupiers when it comes to blocks of residential flats.

I think owner occupiers MAY be persons having control depending on whether they are responsible for the ownership and maintenance of their front door. If they have the right to change their door then they are persons having control but only to the extent of their control over the door. Otherwise they are just relevant persons. What happens inside the entrance door to the flat is outside the scope of the Fire Safety Order.

Where flats are sold to individual occupiers the canny landlord will retain control over the front door. IMO it is vital that they should.

If the landlord has retained control over the front door then all owner occupiers, tenants and lodgers alike are simply relevant persons.

And I still think that relevant persons who purchase, rent or lease any part of a building with multiple occupiers should legally be party to the significant findings of the fire risk assessment of the common areas and the emergency plan

[Midland Retty]

Ok, in order to catch that scenario Article 19 could be ammended to read: Information to employees, tenants, (leaseholders), freeholders and lodgers.

Sorry I am being a little sarcastic to a degree...

Thinking about this further I dont seem lodgers coming into this. Lodgers are normally defined as someone lodged in a single domestic dwelling where the owner lives.

If you have two or more lodgers in your house it becomes a HMO (three people forming two or more households) and they are then referred to as "tenants".

I guess an owner / occupier in a block of flats may get a lodger, but I have never known this happen and I'd lump them in the general term of "tenant"

I take your point TW about article 24 and agree. But my examples, I think, show how the order could be worded to get RPs to provide information to those with a right to see it, in whatever form that takes, without opening that nasty can of worms you mentioned.

[davincey]

Re emergency plans, I fully agree that relevant persons should be informed and would personally consider that to fall under section 8 'reasonable precautions'

I would ask kurnal though, why do you think that the significant findings of the FRA should be shared? (this is a devils advocate kind of question and not a suicidal attempt to be shot to pieces by the great man!!)

Surely any significant findings should be subject to remedial action and/or effective management systems and therefore unless the issues directly involve the tenants, i.e. storage in electrical risers, there is no need for the tenants to be told?

Ok, I am now hunkered down ready to be torn to shreds from all sides!!

[Tom Sutton]

C3 I do get myself tired up in knots and I will try to do better in the future. All I was trying to say was, I agree with kurnal, this matter should have been address when the order was drafted. To change the order now it would not be simples without making the order more complicated than it is already, although others disagree. The examples I gave was the kind of augments I believe would be raised when the drafters were considering the terminology to be used. However I am not saying it should not be done.

Also as a tenant what information would I want to know,

First would be has a FRA been conducted and is the common areas safe. If the RP refused this information then I would simply give the FRS a bell.

Secondarily what would I do in the event of a fire in the building, which I believe art 8(2) & 4(f) would require the RP to provide a fire action plan for all the occupants if s/he tried to obstruct me, the blower to the FRS?

Although not ideal there are other ways to meet your needs, because it could be a very long time before the order is amended, if ever.

MR I am too thick to see your first statement as being sarcastic in any degree but it does make the point who do you include in the group.

As for the worms, forget them, I will go fishing with them instead.

[kurnal]

Re emergency plans, I fully agree that relevant persons should be informed and would personally consider that to fall under section 8 'reasonable precautions'

Yes you are probably right. It will probably take a court case to determine this though.

I would ask kurnal though, why do you think that the significant findings of the FRA should be shared?

Because the significant findings may be relevant to their safety. The definition of what needs to be recorded is found in article 7:
"7) The prescribed information is—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order;"

Now as I see it this the full fire safety package in terms of active, passive and management. I agree this would be too much information for the average tenant but they should at least be told the basics.

I always put together a bespoke  information pack for tenants in my risk assessments of flats explaining what to do if they discover a fire, what to do if they hear the alarms in the common areas, how important it is not to wedge fire doors or put obstructions in the common staircases, not to store things in the electrical risers, use of lifts  etc etc.

Perhaps its my fault for the way i asked. On exchanging contracts for the rent of this particular flat for my son, I nicely requested, (on headed email to give them the hint)  to see the significant findings of the fire risk assessment. Their reply was as follows

"  I have spoken to the managing agent of the building this morning regarding the fire risk assessment and they have confirmed that they do not release such documents- due to the sheer complexity and detail of the report. The lady I spoke to, reassured me that the building is very well maintained."

Now since my son had told me that both the fire alarm panel in the common areas and a ventilation control panel were both showing fault lights there was some cause to doubt this. Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked more direct questions.

Hence my looking closely at the Order, discovering my very weak position as a tenant and the start of this thread.

As several of you have inferred, if the Landlor had provided the tenants with information, maintained the place correctly  and fulfilled article 8 then my enquiry would probably not have been relevant.

[FSO]

Extremely broad but have you considered 15(2)a?

Loosely applied obviously