Supported living FS standards

[memnon30]

Advice please.
I am in discussions with a landlord who has a semi detached house with 2 tenants with learning difficulties (local authority) and a carer who sleeps in. There are 3 interested bodies. 1/ Landlord, 2/Local authority, 3/ Company who supply the carer.
Ordinarily and depending on risk assessments our Fire Authority want the fire safety provisions to be to HMO standards as in most cases resi care standards would be too onerous.
How should I get the FSO to apply (and which guide?) as he is arguing that CLG guide "licensing of HMO in England" says that " a live in carer and up to 3 people receiving care in one house will also be counted as a single household" therefore its not an HMO. The tax man has stated that any income gains or losses are NOT as a result of any business activity. Could it be classed as a "place of work" for the carer ?
Many thanks

[kurnal]

I was hoping that someone else would have a bash at this one first but here goes.

These situations are always very difficult to call. It's the live in carer that makes it difficult. I think there are no prescriptive standards that one can hold up and point to, other than perhaps HTM 88.

Approved document B suggests that for up to 6 unsupervised residents with special needs, the group home should be treated as a dwelling house. But presumably because these three people need the support of the carer, their needs are greater and their dependence is greater in an emergency pointing towards the need for higher safety standards.

Again if they were adult placements fulfilling the criteria of the adult placement schemes regulations and the guidance published by the NAAPS (www.naaps.co.uk) may be relevant. But perhaps if the residents are fully dependent on the carer for the safe evacuation and safety in a fire, and that carer can only help one at a time, then there is a need for additional detection or passive measures to be taken.

Small places are always the most difficult to deal with because it's very difficult to keep fire precautions in proportion to the risk. And that's what needs to be done here. It really does sound to me as though it is a change of use from purpose group 1 to purpose group 2b.  But I don't think it's as simple as saying apply the LACORS guide or the ADB or HTM 88.  Starting from the building as it is now, identify the needs, both now and those that are likely to develop in the future, consider all aspects of where fire is likely to start and how it might develop. Consider how the residents will respond if it does and the role of the carer in the evacuation of all the residents. And then come up with some suitable arrangements to meet those needs. Sorry this is no help at all!

[tmprojects]

I have a bit of personnel first hand knowledge of these types of premises. a relative of mine lives in one simmilar.

she house shares with another person with simmilar learning difficulties. Because they are in many ways independant. they are placed in an environment that they would perceive as there own home. but because there independance is limited. they are provided with a carer who sleeps in.

I have often thought when visiting what are the arrangements? what standard do you apply? In my relatives circumstances. she is the tennant. as is her 'flat mate'. It is there home. But they have constant 24hr support.

Can i ask if you see this differently from the following scenarios;

An ageing person suffering dementia living in their own home and employing a live-in 24hr carer? or.... 

A rich family who employs a live-in nanny, has four kids, and flies away on work leaving her alone frequently.

Technically they're all places of work. But they are all primarily single private dwelllings.

The thing that changes all these is, as Kurnal says, the carer residing. So. What can you impose on these private residences? what would be reasonable?

Forgeting codes for the minute. my relative lives in a two-up two-down terraced house. All the doors are FD30S. there is a mains supplied (Batt backup) part 6 system with detectors/sounders in all rooms and in the staircase. and there is a Red-care personal alarm system. Would you want any more?

would you consider this premises requires a FRA? a part 1 fire alarm system? fire extinguishers? a written Evacuation Plan? records of 6 monthly evacuation drills? maintence records? How far do you consider they fall within the scope of the FSO.

Do you consider this to be different from the other two scenarios i have mentioned? How would you feel if this was your family/home?

In my very round-about-sort-of-way i am trying to make the following point. what does it matter what code applies. to me it is whether it is safe.

i will now duck my head below the parapet and wait for the gunfire.

[memnon30]

This is my dilemma. All that both of you have said I have pondered.
Your examples regarding dementia and nannies are all identified in the housing act. Because they are working for a single family it is classed as a single household, as does one to one care, however in my case there are two tenants who are not related resulting in two households. The carer makes 3 which results in 3 or more people from 2 or more households = HMO. The premises would in my opinion need a FRA for the carer. The main problem is that the structure is poor. Yes there will be FD30 s doors and all the part 6 interlinked AFD you can eat, but I am concerned when the stares discharge into an open plan lounge then you have to exit through the kitchen to get out. If this was a recognised HMO would I walk away and say its safe, probably not and in my humble opinion the tenants in my case are more vulnerable than many in a standard HMO. My case isn’t helped by the fact that the landlord is very particular and has researched this very deeply. I want him to improve areas in the house and he wants me to show him where it says he has to.
I suppose I could get the local vicar to marry the tenants which would sort out the problem, or ask the carer not to sleep at night.

[tmprojects]

but I am concerned when the stares discharge into an open plan lounge then you have to exit through the kitchen to get out.

Can i just clarify something. You say the stair comes down into the open plan living area. Do you mean the grnd floor is open plan with the kitchen, all one room?

If i understand you correctly the upper floor (sleeping Acc.) disharges via the stair into an open plan living/kitchen are with the exit door at the kitchen end.

Well, i refer you back to my point. Do you think it is safe. from your description, i don't. Something should be done. regardless of which codes apply.

can i also ask. Who in the LA deemed this suitable accomodation in the first instance?


But. And its a big but. You need to identify who is required to comply.

The Landlord may be right to ask 'where does it say I have to do it'.

I would Urge you to look at the lease!

Is the Landlord renting the property to the Local Authority(LA) as a single private dwelling? And it is they who are occupying it in the current use. i.e providing individual tenants thus creating a HMO.

Is the landlord renting it to the LA as a 'ready-made' vunerable persons accomodation HMO?
 
who is the employer?

well they all have responsibility to a degree.

Meaning of “responsible person”
3.  In this Order “responsible person” means—

(a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control. ((employer)
(b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)—
(i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) (Local Authority)in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or
(ii)the owner, (Owner)where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking.


Once you work out who needs to do what. i still say look at the risk first. Do your FRA and devise your Emergency Plan.

Simples.

[memnon30]

Yes I couldn’t agree more. There are 3 interested/responsible parties. Landlord, supplier of the tenants and the carers employer. We have had a lot of problems as often we only find out about these home by accident as the LA considers or used to consider them as private dwellings so didn’t feel the need to inform us. We are slowly showing them the error of their ways.
The landlord rents the property to a well known supported living company who supplies the carers. This company works with the LA to obtain the tenants who each have their own tenancy agreement.
Regarding the layout. The kitchen is a separate room but the main access and egress is via the kitchen which is where the problem is. I’ve managed to get FD30s and part 6 interlinked, and there is a patio door from the open plan lounge.
I have spoken to the carers employers who are sending me a letter stating that they consider the house to be a place of work. They have also arranged for a FRA, so I am now happy that I can persuade  the landlord to do the work.

[tmprojects]

Yes I couldn’t agree more. There are 3 interested/responsible parties. Landlord, supplier of the tenants and the carers employer. We have had a lot of problems as often we only find out about these home by accident as the LA considers or used to consider them as private dwellings so didn’t feel the need to inform us. We are slowly showing them the error of their ways.
The landlord rents the property to a well known supported living company who supplies the carers. This company works with the LA to obtain the tenants who each have their own tenancy agreement.
Regarding the layout. The kitchen is a separate room but the main access and egress is via the kitchen which is where the problem is. I’ve managed to get FD30s and part 6 interlinked, and there is a patio door from the open plan lounge.
I have spoken to the carers employers who are sending me a letter stating that they consider the house to be a place of work. They have also arranged for a FRA, so I am now happy that I can persuade  the landlord to do the work.

Why are you asking the landlord to do the work?

It is the 'supported living company' that seems to be the responsible person.

They lease the premises in its entirety then place staff within that premises.

Even though they then sub-let it to private tenants it is still a HMO within their control. And they are the employer, therefore the Responsible Person.

As the employer of persons designated to work within a HMO and the lease holder. It is up to them to ensure that the premises they lease is fit-for-purpose and that the tenancy/contract agreement details this arrangement. If the premises falls below the standard required, it is up to the occupier to identify this within their risk assessment. If the failures are within the 'control' of the owner it is up to the occupier to either enforce the terms of the lease if the matter is specified. Or, seek permission from the owner for the required alterations (Article 22 co-operation and co-ordination).

ONLY if you could show the occupier had exhausted the above. And could demonstrate the owner was required under contract to supply the required standard, but didn't. (Due diligence) Could you then reasonably persue the owner. Article 3 (b)(ii) applies to premise NOT falling within 3(a).

If after demonstrating due diligence and compliance with article 22 they could show that the owner had failed to provide the arrangements specified within the contract.  The owner could then be treated as a person who has control (Article 5(3)) and enforced upon directly. And even prosecuted.

Having said that. The owner is quite within their rights to refuse the changes if the contract didn't specify the premises as being fit for the occupiers use. And if it is not within the contract, he is not obliged to approve the works required to bring it to standard.

In this instance, the occupier has taken on a premise unfit for purpose. And in absence of the owners permission, will remain unfit for purpose. And unless they can come up with a solution will have to cease being used as a HMO.

[SuzannaC]

I have come across these type of premises as well. Now add an office into the picture as well. The office is only used by the care company. This does change things.

[tmprojects]

I have come across these type of premises as well. Now add an office into the picture as well. The office is only used by the care company. This does change things.

Not really within the scope of enforcement. But different standards may apply. does adding an office mean it is no longer a HMO, but is now a care home? does anyone know the criteria that is applied?