RRO and the Housing act

[PhilB]

Big A, the RRO requires the Housing Authority to give the enforcing authority an opportunity to make representation before issuing license(Art.42).
Does that mean you send plans of each HMO to FRS for approval before issuing license??

It will be for each FRS and Housing Authority to establish procedures but it could have serious implications for FRS workload, as could the new Licensing Act.

[Big A]

Although sending licence applications for consultation is required, a quicker way may be to return to weekly/fortnightly/monthly meetings where a pile of applications can be discussed and approved (as Mr Todd described earlier in the thread). After all it doesn't take long to check the FS measures in a three-storey house. This was our experience with the Licensing Act - there were significant numbers of jobs but a great many were relatively small and involved premises where we had previously had involvement.

More on the subject of staffing implications - I don't think this is being seriously considered but there are some who think that we may be heading down the HSE road and will primarily enforce reactively (i.e prosecute after the event) with a small number of inspectors.

[nelliedean]

I have a property which is an HMO (with 3 occupants so does not need to be licensed) but required a visit from the Local Authority in respect of the Housing Health & Safety Rating System.  The Housing Officer was not sure what recommendations to advise to conform with the HHSRS but gave an indication of requirements which fortunately would be affordable.  However, she called in the senior Fire Officer from the region for further advice.  He told me that the house comes under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 because it had 2 or more unrelated occupants and thus would not be classed as a single private dwelling.  He based this on the wording in the Order which states it includes domestic premises 'other than premises  consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly'.  In fact, he was working from a new handbook for the area which had been issued to all fire officers after the effective date of the order (October 2006) and said this was their sole reference point for all future fire safety issues.  He recommended a minimum of 5 fire doors for the property, a 12.5mm plasterboard staircase with special fire bars fitted, an immediate Risk Assessment to be done, etc, etc.  This will be very expensive to do and I have been told that I have currently broken the law by not having a current Risk Assessment on the property.  I have looked at the wording of the Order and there is no definition of 'single private dwelling'.  In the Housing Act 2004 there is a clear definition of 'single household' in order to implement HMO legislation and during a chat with the Fire Officer he said that various authorities were defining 'single private dwelling' in various ways but his handbook states it applied if the property was not occupied by a family unit.  If this is so, I will not put unrelated occupants in any of my properties!  I would imagine othere landlords would do the same and there will be a flood of Section 21 Notices being issued and lots of Tenants not being able to find a property to rent.  Has anyone else encountered this interpretation of the Order or can offer any advice?

[jokar]

The terminology "A single private dwelling" has been borrowed from other legislation and is that which currently applies as people living in their own home.  Under the RR(FS)O the common parts or shared accommodation has to be Fire Risk Assessed by the Responsible Person, an employer, a person in control or the owner.  This assessment has to be risk specific to fire, reduce risk, prevent fire occurring and initiate preventative and protective measures where necessary.  The fire authority enforce the legislation for the common parts and can issue notices for you to have work completed to their satisfaction.  However, your Fire Risk Assessment may differ from their prescriptive requirements and therefore you have the right to only undertake the works that your fire risk assessment dictates are necessary and you can appeal against any notice the fire authority issue, to a Magistrates Court and the judiciary will decide who is right.  Their are guidnace documents issued by the government to assist you and if you visit www.communities.gov.uk and go to fire and resilience and then fire law you are able to download the information specific to your case, in this case Guidance note 3 sleeping risks.

[nelliedean]

Thanks for your comments but this just seems to show how convoluted the situation is.  The Housing Officer was assessing areas common to the 3 people sharing the house, ie mainly the Kitchen, as a potential source of fire in context of the house being an HMO.  This meant the task of complying would not be so onerous.  However, the Fire Officer was assessing the sleeping areas and a safe means of escape, hence his requirement for all the fire doors and protecting the staircase.  As an alternative, he said that a fire sprinkler system could be installed or the occupants could sleep downstairs to avoid the need to protect the staircase!  Obviously, this is conflicting advice and both are being ruled by different pieces of legislation, namely the Housing Act 2005 in terms of the Housing Officer and The RR(FSO) 2005 for the Fire Officer.  In the meantime, I am at a loss at to which advice I should conform to.  Also, I have no desire to go to Court to pursue the matter!

[kurnal]

It is a difficult one to comment on without seeing the circumstances of the case. Is it a two or 3 storey building?

I would comment that if you do not need a licence under the Housing Act then according to the Fire Safety Order  there is no need to record the significant findings of your risk assessment. You carry one out- but dont have to write it down unless a licence is in force ( again very loosely defined)  or you employ 5 or more people in your business, wherever they may work.

[CivvyFSO]

Thanks for your comments but this just seems to show how convoluted the situation is.  The Housing Officer was assessing areas common to the 3 people sharing the house, ie mainly the Kitchen, as a potential source of fire in context of the house being an HMO.  This meant the task of complying would not be so onerous.  However, the Fire Officer was assessing the sleeping areas and a safe means of escape, hence his requirement for all the fire doors and protecting the staircase.  As an alternative, he said that a fire sprinkler system could be installed or the occupants could sleep downstairs to avoid the need to protect the staircase!  Obviously, this is conflicting advice and both are being ruled by different pieces of legislation, namely the Housing Act 2005 in terms of the Housing Officer and The RR(FSO) 2005 for the Fire Officer.  In the meantime, I am at a loss at to which advice I should conform to.  Also, I have no desire to go to Court to pursue the matter!

Sounds to me like the Housing Officer was in the process of getting it wrong. The common areas consist of the entire kitchen, hall, landing area. (Possibly living room if there is one) So on the first floor, as soon as you are out of one of the bedrooms/flats, that is a shared area and as such needs to be protected from a fire in any of the other rooms. Circular 12/92 sets some standards Housing Officers sometimes use, and protecting the staircase on 2 storeys and above is always the case. I would expect to see fire doors even in a single storey building if there was one shared hallway to escape.

[CivvyFSO]

It is a difficult one to comment on without seeing the circumstances of the case. Is it a two or 3 storey building?

I would comment that if you do not need a licence under the Housing Act then according to the Fire Safety Order  there is no need to record the significant findings of your risk assessment. You carry one out- but dont have to write it down unless a licence is in force ( again very loosely defined)  or you employ 5 or more people in your business, wherever they may work.

If I saw a 2 storey HMO building, sleeping risk, no fire doors, I would soon be questioning the validity of any risk assessment, recorded or not.

Not having to record the risk assessment is often used as an excuse for not doing one. It is sometimes quite easy to see through.

[nelliedean]

Thanks for all the comments.  This house is a 2 storey building and although the Housing Officer was dealing MAINLY with the kitchen she was taking into account the other areas as well.  The senior Fire Officer said he would not class it as a high risk property & would not normally have visited such a property - he only visited at the request of the Housing Officer.  She was encountering difficulty of giving advice under the HHSRS legislation for HMOs due to the fact that the property it quite individual in its internal layout.  
As an additional complication, although there were 3 people sharing the house on the first visit by the Housing Officer, one has subsequently left and so there are now only 2 occupants.  The second visit which happened several months later was at the stage of there being 2 occupants.  Based on this, the Housing Officer said her recommendations would only be applicable if a third person lived at the property.  However now the Fire Officer has been, his recommendations would apply to 2 or more people living at the property - whose advice do I follow?  Also, I do not employ anyone.

[CivvyFSO]

Look at schedule 14 of housing act. "Buildings which are not HMO's for the purpose of this act:" - "Buildings occupied by 2 persons who form 2 households."

It seems that with just 2 people living in the property it is simply classed as a rented house, good old 'single private dwelling' now applies. As an FSO the only excuse I could have for entering that house is to see if the Fire Safety Order applies and at the moment I would say it doesn't. Local Authority still enforce certain standards but not as strict as HMO.

[nelliedean]

Thanks for the update.  I realise the property would not be currently classed as an HMO with 2 occupants - hence the comments from the Housing Officer saying that her recommendations would only apply if there were 3 occupants.  
The problem is that the Fire Officer does not class 2 occupants as a 'single private dwelling' based on the information contained in a handbook issued to him by the Local Authority.  Their interpretation is that if the occupants are not a family unit, it is not classed as a single private dwelling.  I have since found out that the interpretation of what is classed a 'single private dwelling' various from Authority to Authority.  Until it is challenged in Court, it looks like these variations in interpretation will continue.

[CivvyFSO]

The handbook has maybe not taken schedule 14 into account. In the earlier part of the act, Section 254, there's "meaning of 'house in multiple occupation'" and this says a building meets the test (i.e. IS a HMO) if: the living accommodation is occupied by persons who do not form a single household. There is a definition of household which is as you would expect really. i.e. A normal family home, someone living with a partner, family with adopted kids etc etc etc. That is probably what the FSO's information is reference to, ask him to check schedule 14 and then get back to you regarding your new circumstances.

I would say you are in the clear, but look carefully in the housing act, as that is the true definition. ("A bloke on firenet says so" is not a good defense.! The problem is, (IMO of course) despite technically 'getting away with it' that house you are talking about IS a house that is in multiple occupation, at your own admission really. I think the whole '2 households' thing was put in to stop people getting away with having HMO's and getting out of having to make the building up to a standard by using single rent books and 'clubs' and other tricks.

I would expect that if someone rented a house with a friend that is ok, but if you look at it from a common sense view, (i.e. Ignore the legislations definitions etc) what is happening in yours is basically a HMO that is not fully occupied, so check carefully.

Doing my part as an FSO I would rather be telling you to put those fire doors on to make the premises safer. (And get AFD, sprinklers, plasterboard everything, risk assessments etc etc etc)

[kurnal]

I sometimes wonder if my family home with teenage kids constitutes a single household? It often doesn't feel like it. More like an HMO but the landlord pays the rent.

[Pip]

and dont forget all the others who stay on'sleepovers', not to mention the landlord is often not made welcome in his own home!Single family unit-humbug!!!!!!!!!

[nelliedean]

Nice to see little humour being expressed - thank you for the light relief!

I think as far as the Fire Officer is concerned, whether or not the property is an HMO is irrelevant.  He is purely going by his handbook's interpretation of what premises the the RRO applies to, namely as per the wording of the Statutory Instruments relating to the Order where I found the following details:-
'6. —(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);

Under article 31(10) it states
    (10) In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly.

At the moment, the house is being occupied by 2 friends who work together - the third friend also work with them but found a property for herself and left.  There will not be a replacement third person going into the property.