Crisis RRO in HMOS

[Clevelandfire 3]

The Reg Ref FS Order is not suitable for dealing with HMOS. RRO doesnt allow access into domestic premises. in a hmo that means bedrooms or bedsits. so what power allows fire inspectors to see if an LD2 system is in place? your thoughts.

[SamFIRT]

None

An Englishman’s ( and Irish and Scottish and Welsh etc ) home is his castle and personal space. No one can enter without either being invited ( like a vampire) hence the great lengths CS teams go to, to advertise their services and therefore get invited in to give advice ……

…….or with a Warrant granted by a JP .

With certain notable exceptions like powers of entry to fight a fire etc……

[Beast]

It highlights the need to work in partnership with local authority housing officers.

[Ricardo]

None

An Englishman’s ( and Irish and Scottish and Welsh etc ) home is his castle and personal space. No one can enter without either being invited ( like a vampire) hence the great lengths CS teams go to, to advertise their services and therefore get invited in to give advice ……

…….or with a Warrant granted by a JP .

With certain notable exceptions like powers of entry to fight a fire etc……

Not so in Scotland

[SamFIRT]

Really ..... Why?

[CivvyFSO]

I think that the RRFSO allows us entry in to private premises if it is indeed necessary to enforce the RRFSO.

27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, shall have power to do at any reasonable time the following—

(a)to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;

...

“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any workplace;
(b) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(c) any installation on land (including the foreshore and other land intermittently covered by water), and any other installation (whether floating, or resting on the seabed or the subsoil thereof, or resting on other land covered with water or the subsoil thereof); and
(d) any tent or movable structure;

I don't see where it says we can't enter just because the RRFSO doesn't apply.

[nearlythere]

I think that the RRFSO allows us entry in to private premises if it is indeed necessary to enforce the RRFSO.

27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, shall have power to do at any reasonable time the following—

(a)to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;

...

“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any workplace;
(b) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(c) any installation on land (including the foreshore and other land intermittently covered by water), and any other installation (whether floating, or resting on the seabed or the subsoil thereof, or resting on other land covered with water or the subsoil thereof); and
(d) any tent or movable structure;

I don't see where it says we can't enter just because the RRFSO doesn't apply.

What would be the reason to believe it is necessary? You need to have a good reason.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree with you NT. My explanation would be as follows:

I think that if an LD2 fire alarm is specified in the fire risk assessment as decribed in the first post of this thread, then I may deem it necessary to look in the bedrooms to see that it is there, and that there are no signs of tampering etc. The provision of a residential sprinkler system may be another reason. You could take it further, and in a block of flats insist on seeing the self closers which would be required on all doors. (In reality you would want to see evidence that the RP/Assessor had checked this, so in some respects I might be arguing for something that I might not pursue in 99% of cases)

Most FSO's do not consider that we have rights of entry to domestic premises at all. I believe that this is due to how the FP act was worded, where we had rights of entry to specific premises, detailed in the FP act. It seems that people often think that this is carried over, and some people will also talk about giving 24 hours notice.

The wording regarding powers of entry in the FP Act and the RRFSO are very different, and I think that the wording of the RRFSO does not discount rights of entry into premises where the order doesn't apply providing that (as you say) there is a good reason. One reason could be deemed simply to be 'to see if the order applies'.

I could be wrong, and would appreciate other opinions.

[AnthonyB]

I know of at least one brigade whose enforcement section does not & will not use the RRO against private dwellings in buildings with common areas and will only enforce against the landlord.

Not sure how they approach HMO's though as don't deal with that class of property much.

I think it may be more appropriate for the local authority to use the Housing Act instead, I know of one case I've dealt with where that was the approach taken, the FRS taking an advisory role only.

[Midland Retty]

I dont disagree with you Civvy but playing devils advocate lets say a housing officer contacts you and asks you to visit the premises, and sends you some plans of the property by email before your visit.

As such you already know which bits of the building are covered under the order, and thus which areas you shouldn't enter, even if to check detection is in place.

[nearlythere]

I agree with you NT. My explanation would be as follows:

I think that if an LD2 fire alarm is specified in the fire risk assessment as decribed in the first post of this thread, then I may deem it necessary to look in the bedrooms to see that it is there, and that there are no signs of tampering etc. The provision of a residential sprinkler system may be another reason. You could take it further, and in a block of flats insist on seeing the self closers which would be required on all doors. (In reality you would want to see evidence that the RP/Assessor had checked this, so in some respects I might be arguing for something that I might not pursue in 99% of cases)
Most FSO's do not consider that we have rights of entry to domestic premises at all. I believe that this is due to how the FP act was worded, where we had rights of entry to specific premises, detailed in the FP act. It seems that people often think that this is carried over, and some people will also talk about giving 24 hours notice.
The wording regarding powers of entry in the FP Act and the RRFSO are very different, and I think that the wording of the RRFSO does not discount rights of entry into premises where the order doesn't apply providing that (as you say) there is a good reason. One reason could be deemed simply to be 'to see if the order applies'.
I could be wrong, and would appreciate other opinions.

Might I suggest that in the interest of privacy and Human Rights you would and indeed should not be able to use this legislation in this way otherwise you could use as an excuse to enter any private premises at any time at your leisure. You could say that you want to have a look in anyones private dwelling to see that it is not being used as a hotel, just because you want to rather than having good reason to do so.
Right of entry must only be based on having good reason and if legislation allows unfettered access to anyones private space then the legislation is wrong as is guidance which requires measures to be provided and subsequently policed in private areas.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree that there are better ways of dealing with things such as using the housing act etc.

I also agree that in the case Midland put forward then there would probably be no need.

The privacy aspect of human rights legislation applies to businesses too, and we can enter a business premises at any reasonable time so why (As far as the Human Rights Act goes) would it be any different for domestic? I don't think there is anything in the Human Rights Act which differentiates between the privacy you are entitled to in your private life and the privacy you are entitled to in your business life. Any such invasion of privacy from a public body certainly has to be justified, and to be honest I don't think that a Fire Authority would ever impinge on a persons domestic privacy in this way, as they would not risk the potential PR disaster. If it was abused, and there was no good reason, THEN we have a problem under the Human Rights Act.

I am really arguing from the point of "tell me where it says we can't", and someone might actually be able to show me this.

[Midland Retty]

The trouble is in my scenario the inspector may well have been given a plan, but who is to say that plan is accurate or displays all the information the inspector requires?

The inspector might need to check that detection has been provided in the bedrooms. And this is where the dilema arises. The detection is required to protect the MOE but in theory fire officers are not able to enter the domestic parts (ie bedrooms) to check if it is there or not - which seems rather a crazy situation.

The only place I can see it states that fire inspectors cannot access domestic parts of the building is article 6(1)

You could apply article 27 as Civvy already mentiosn but if you know the part of the building you are about to enter is domestic (i.e; if you have a plan with you, or the landlord or residents tells you that there is a bedroom behind that door) an inspector can't go in. If the inspector wasn't aware I would argue 27 applies and the inspector has done nothing wrong if s/he stumbles across a domestic part of the building.

Seems to me that it would be better if the housing authority be given full responsibility for fire (which they have anyway apart from in mixed commercial situations, or the fire authority be allowed better rights of entry under the RRO)

[kurnal]

Do these help?

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/guidance1enforcement2005.pdf see page 27

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?id=18825

[Tom Sutton]

NT no problem, Human Rights Act don't figure. In the last statement "where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force" so if the occupier tells you to go away and play with yourself you have a pleasant couple of hours ahead.

It appears you can enter domestic premises in HMO if considering a prohibition order. (Check guidance document 1 page 27)