RRO and the Housing act

[kurnal]

Nellie
I dont know if you are familiar with the Building Regulations Approved documents but if not I recommend that you down load a copy of Approved Document B1 volume 1 from the www.communities.gov.uk website- follow the building regulations links.
This document can be used as a basis for the design of dwelling houses including HMOs for up to 6 persons.
First read the guidance relating to HMOs at the top of page 5 and note that the local authority may impose additional conditions at their discretion.

Then read the guidance for houses with no floor more than 4.5m above ground level page 17 para 2.4 et al. You will note that window exits can be permissible in lieu of a protected staircase. Now this is for a private dwelling for a single household. We know from fire statistics that persons are much more likely to be killed or injured in a fire if they live in a HMO and do not constitute a single household. Statistics also indicate that young men late teens to late 20s are at greatest risk (cant remember the actual ages but the main problem is alcohol, substance abuse, unemployment, deprivation )

Now if I were you I would consider the whole picture and my risk assessment would probably include management controls to ensure that I carefully selected the persons who live in the HMO to disallow those at high risk, maintained a no smoking policy, and either banned deep fat or provided proper thermostatically controlled deep fat fryers, safe heating systems, and a few other common sense measures. I would then present my risk assessment to the enforcement agencies.

I bet my shirt ( Aint got any money) that it will be accepted for a two storey building if you meet the Approved document standard.

[CivvyFSO]

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.

What 31(10) is saying that just with reference to article 31 we have full powers as inspectors, i.e. We can enter domestic premises (as long as it is not a single private dwelling) at any reasonable time, take samples, ask for records etc, and we can prohibit the use. It doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the articles apply.

[CivvyFSO]

Statistics also indicate that young men late teens to late 20s are at greatest risk (cant remember the actual ages but the main problem is alcohol, substance abuse, unemployment, deprivation )

You could have cut a lot of that sentence away by simply saying "Students."

[Big A]

My first thought was, why is a fire officer getting involved at all? Does that FRS not have any higher risk premises where the level of risk can be reduced?
The I thought, isn't it contrary to the guidance from govt for two different enforcing authorities to be inspecting and issuing (different) requirements. If our opinion on the fire safety in a building differs from that of the Local Housing Authority, we should be consulting with each other.
Notwithstanding the various sections and schedules it seems that this bi-lateral approach is contrary to the spirit of the law. Does that count for anything? (I'm not sure)

[jayjay]

for Information there is Consultation Document available for download at this link
http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Housing/Draft_protocol_for_consultation.pdf
The dociment is in DRAFT format and issued by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers
as a proposed "Protocol between Local Housing Authorities and Fire
and Rescue Authorities" it does explain the types of housing and who would be the enforcing authority.

Any one not able to download email me and I will send a copy.

[val]

Jayjay

The protocol has been developed by a working group set up with representation from the CIEH, CFOA, LACORS, DCLG (CLG), HMO Network and Landlords representatives.
It represents a pragmatic attempt at plotting a reasonable and legally defensible path through conflicting legislation.
Feel free to comment

[Midland Retty]

This is a good one isn't it?!!

I sight here the age old argument about who is responsible for what areas of a HMO - FRA the common areas and Housing Authority the private areas?

The answer is now that the FRA can enforce on any part of the building!

Yes I did say ANY part! God how contreversial I am... I think not!

So long as its not a single domestic dwelling a FRA (in my honest interpretation) could gain access to even the private areas of any residential premises and insist on standards because certain precautions may be needed to protect the common means of escape!

A fire officer somewhere in England (cant give any further details as its an on going case) has issued notices against a resident of a flat for storing his motor bike in the flat - it isn't even a HMO - its a private block flats and the resident is the owner not a tennant. Is it a single domestic dwelling? His flat might be but alas it is part of a much larger building with other single domestic dwellings within it!

This will be a test case and if the FRA win its going to cause a big snowball effect.

Another resident has been issued with a notice for keeping his motorbike in the common areas - again this is a test case for the brigade concerned.

So now lets apply that to the orginal topic of whom should enforce and inspect what? In our local authorty the Housing Team leave fire safety standards to the FRA and any deficiencies found are passed onto the council for information but it's the FRA who take action

It works well...

[jokar]

Ahh,

I thought a Englishmans home was his castle but obviously not any more,  Eric Blair got in right in his novel about Big Brother.  next thing will be gatsco cameras recording movements in our HOMES, thats right our HOMES.  Born free and taxed to death, we can now add to that born free and legislated to death.

[PhilB]

This question of powers of entry really isn't that complicated but there appears to be a misundertanding among many on here.

Can a FRS enter a single private dwelling?......... yes but only for prohibition/restriction purposes.

Can a FRS enter a premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling...no.

In plain engish they cannot enter your house, unless your house is a house in multiple occupation, and then only if they believe that the risk is so serious that the premises should be prohibited or restricted.

[Pip]

This question of powers of entry really isn't that complicated but there appears to be a misundertanding among many on here.

Can a FRS enter a single private dwelling?......... yes but only for prohibition/restriction purposes.

Can a FRS enter a can a frs enter a premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling...no.

In plain engish they cannot enter your house, unless your house is a house in multiple occupation, and then only if they believe that the risk is so serious that the premises should be prohibited or restricted.

just to qualify that, a Fire Safety inspecter may possibly enter at other times, but not under the FSO, but via the Landlord/RP rights:re legal advice recieved:
''a while coming but I will keep the advice given brief:
1)As we all noted, with the exception of prohibition notices-no power of entry under FSO.
2)access may be possible with managing Agent/landlord/RP under their right of entry under lease, tenancy or other agreement.The scrutiny committee considered the courts would be likely to find a RP had statutory rights of access for the purpose of articles 17 (maintenance) and 38 (maintenance of measures to protect firefighters)
3)The owner/occupier, if they do not co operate,could be prosecuted under Article 32(10)
so the 'right' of entry, is now thru other means i.e. the landlord/managing agent/housing officer.Any detector in a non shared area that is part of a larger system has to be maintained.A lot of landlords/housing Assoc/councils now looking at 'front doors' to see if they are suitable.Apparently a case to go before high court to determine who pays for upgrading, or replacement of such doors-tennent/landlord or RP etc.''

[AnthonyB]

My first thought was, why is a fire officer getting involved at all? Does that FRS not have any higher risk premises where the level of risk can be reduced?

I don't think he has a choice as he was formally requested by another agency, so now has to see it through - unde rother circumstances he may never have visited the place (or known it existed!)

[nelliedean]

You are quite right, Anthony B, this fire officer would not normally have visited the property.  Also, as it is now no longer classed as an HMO because there are only 2 people living at it (previously there were 3), the Housing Officer is no longer particularly interested in it.  
BUT - and this is a big BUT - now that the fire officer has seen it, he is basing his opinion on his handbook and the interpretation of what is classed as  'a single private dwelling'.  His interpretation is that the RRO applies to 2 or more unrelated sharers.  However, he has since stated that his local authority is currently 'expecting guidance ...... with regard to the standards that we should be applying, but, as yet, they have not been published'.  
IF the applicable number of occupants is 2 rather than 3 (as with HMOs), this really complicates matters.  He further states that 'there are 2 pieces of legislation that apply to this type of property, the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, RRO. Both acts impinge on each other with the Housing Act taking primacy'.  The Housing Act I can deal with - the RRO is much too complicated for the likes of me!
Hopefully, the number will be agreed as 3 and then I will know where I stand!

[val]

nelliedean

Please can you direct me to where the 'housing act takes primacy' is described.

Practically this may be the case but I would like to see the legal argument.

[PhilB]

..... he is basing his opinion on his handbook and the interpretation of what is classed as  'a single private dwelling'.  His interpretation is that the RRO applies to 2 or more unrelated sharers.  However, he has since stated that his local authority is currently 'expecting guidance ...... with regard to the standards that we should be applying, but, as yet, they have not been published'.

Please someone tell me why this confusion still exists!!! ......................Single private dwelling......forget that term...not really very relevant........The Fire Safety Order is not applicable to DOMESTIC premises.

However it may be used to prohibit or restrict the use of domestic premises ....but only if those DOMESTIC premises do not consist of, or are not comprised in a HOUSE which is occupied as a SINGLE PRIVATE DWELLING.

Therefore.......an HMO....or an Hostel....or .......a private flat in a block of flats......or even an hotel room......may all be single private dwellings........the Fire Safety Order does not apply to any of these...however....... it could be used in relation to all of them....but....only in the scariest of situations..... to prohibit or restict their use.

Val you must be aware that the Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation for dwellings.....but also be aware of and read Articles 43, 44 & 47 of the FSO....they disapply certain provisions if the problem can be sorted with the FSO....but nothing in the Order disapplies the Housing Act.

[PhilB]

Jayjay

The protocol has been developed by a working group set up with representation from the CIEH, CFOA, LACORS, DCLG (CLG), HMO Network and Landlords representatives.
It represents a pragmatic attempt at plotting a reasonable and legally defensible path through conflicting legislation.
Feel free to comment

Why does the document not cover the duty imposed on Housing Authorities by Article 42? This could create an unecessary burden on both enforcing authorities if not adequately managed and in my opinion should be included in the protocol.