Crisis RRO in HMOS

[Midland Retty]

Thats right Tom. Yet again another anomoly in the order. For some reason you can prohibit the use of the said domestic parts of the premises, but just not enter them. Excellent 

[CivvyFSO]

Again, where does it actually say in black and white that we can't enter them if it is necessary?

If an occupier tells you to go away and play with yourself then isn't that potentially just the same as a business owner refusing us entry? Obstruction of an inspector?

[Paul2886]

How does this all apply to fire alarm engineers that need to enter the private sections of an HMO to either find a fault or conduct routine servicing. Know we've been here before but just extending the discussion

[Tom Sutton]

Civvy It doesn't say but it does say "where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force" to me that says you must be invited in.

Yes you could prosecute for obstruction and I would take a RP or person subject to 5(3) to court, but would you take a flat owner?

[CivvyFSO]

I doubt we would, but I still say we could.

Paul, people who need access to maintain equipment are dealt with quite specifically:

17.—(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

(2) Where the premises form part of a building, the responsible person may make arrangements with the occupier of any other premises forming part of the building for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.

(3) Paragraph (2) applies even if the other premises are not premises to which this Order applies.
(4) The occupier of the other premises must co-operate with the responsible person for the purposes of paragraph (2).

It is a toothless comment, as there is no offence directly linked to this requirement. However, if a fire alarm system failed to perform its function, actually creating an offence, and that could be traced back to someone who wouldn't let the engineer in to maintain the equipment, then that tenant could possibly be guilty of the offence. (In a similar way as discussed recently regarding sprinkler systems, and the recent thread regarding a hotel)

[nearlythere]

How does this all apply to fire alarm engineers that need to enter the private sections of an HMO to either find a fault or conduct routine servicing. Know we've been here before but just extending the discussion

Thats why I say that fire safety measures to protect common escape routes should not extent beyond the main entrance to each unit.

[SamFIRT]

Would anyone posting on this thread be happy for a faceless inspector or engineer to enter their home in order to do whatsoever?  

I doubt it. Picture the scene …. Excuse me I want to come in and have a look at your bedroom in order to ascertain that you are safe……or to make sure that your neighbours down the road will be safe if a fire breaks out in a home three doors down from them.

Smacks totalitarianism. We know what is best for you poor people because you live in poor housing.  

The problem with the legislation is it was hastily created by amalgamating several existing pieces already on the statute book. Read the spirit of the order … not the wording.

Simply put common law dictates your home is yours! No one can enter it unless you have sufficient grounds for a search warrant to be issued (with some notable exceptions like rescuing people etc)

[Indiana]

If we take Article 6:



6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).

6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".

And if we now take Article 27:

 27(1)(a) states "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;"


I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).

[nearlythere]

If we take Article 6:



6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).

6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".

And if we now take Article 27:

 27(1)(a) states "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;"

I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).

I would suggest that 6(1)(a) has precedence over 27(1)(a) otherwise the Queen's bedroom is fair game. It is afterall an "any premises".

[Indiana]

I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.

[CivvyFSO]

If we take Article 6:

6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).

6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".

And if we now take Article 27:

 27(1)(a) states "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;"

I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).

I think that is the best argument yet to suggest that we can't enter domestic premises. (Except where 31(10) applies or may apply of course) I still think that articles are being cobbled together a little to suit a side of an argument though. The FP act was very clear about which premises we have powers of entry to, the RRFSO doesn't seem that clear. It wouldn't have hurt to simply give us powers of entry to premises "where the order applies" would it? That would be nice and clear.

I still think that article 27(1)(a)'s line of "any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above" is very wide in scope, and if the definition of 'premises' linked it to places where the order applies then I would say that your answer would be 100% right.

I think we can all agree that it is not 100% clear cut, and I don't want to sound like I am 100% sure that we have powers of entry. The chances are we don't, and we were not intended to, but I think that it could have been made crystal clear and it clearly hasn't.

[wee brian]

Am I missing something here? Just get the EHO to sort it.

[nearlythere]

I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.

6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —

(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);

Therefore domestic premises do not come under the Order for the purposes of anything other than Art 31.(10)
They are not "any premises" because they are not recognised under the Order as anything other than for Art31.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Am I missing something here? Just get the EHO to sort it.

Yeah good luck with that. Dont you mean when you can find one and make sure they are available the same time you are and even then if they can be bothered to take action.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.

6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —

(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);

Therefore domestic premises do not come under the Order for the purposes of anything other than Art 31.(10)
They are not "any premises" because they are not recognised under the Order as anything other than for Art31.

If you follow that line of thinking then you could also say that persons in domestic premises cannot be relevant persons, since the order quite simply does not apply. (Apart from 31(10) etc)