RRO and the Housing act

[kurnal]

Phil
I cant understand how a hotel room, even if occupied on a long term basis can be classed as domestic premises for the purposes of fire safety enforcement.

The old FP Act was a little ambiguous over the definition of a  hotel or boarding house but the RRO is even worse in not clearly defining domestic premises. Taking dictionary definitions - " pertaining to the home or home and family life" does not help at all.

So my starting point is that carrying on the trade or busness of a hotel or boarding house keeper involves the provision of rooms, the offer of rooms to persons, and subsequent letting of rooms to  guests in order to carry out that business  and is regulated by a number of clearly defined other laws and regulations.  

The rooms are therefore hotel rooms and not domestic premises as I see it.

[PhilB]

Yes fair point Kurnal...highly unlikely but if the room was on a very long let and no-one else shared it...it could come into the definition of domestic premises used in the Order. But agree that the Order would most probably apply.

The same problem can exist in HMOs and Hostels.,..some parts may be for the exclussive use of individual residents e.g. their bedrooms while others shared parts such as kitchen and lounges are subject to the Order.

The inspector, as you know could always enter single private dwellings (except houses) under the 71 Act but needed to give 24 hours written notice. There now is no such power except fro prohibition or restriction.

[Big A]

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.

This seems to be what some of our local councils believe. A lawyer friend of mine told me that 'an Act' would take primacy over 'an Order' if there was a conflict in court. Only hearsay evidence but it sounds reasonable to me.

[nelliedean]

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.

This is a direct quote from the reply from the fire officer who visited the property so he obviously has been instructed by his local authority that 'an Act' would take primacy over 'an Order' if there was a conflict in court (as suggested by Big A).

[val]

No 'Act' takes primacy over 'the Order'. They are both the same in law. There was some discusssion about whether the FSO could over-rule any legislatation that had come into force in the two years previous to the Oct 2006 enactment date, but I think even this does not hold water.

I was specifically told by ODPM that the FSO has the same basis in law as any other Act or Order.

Indeed, in this situation you could argue that the FSO disapplies under Article 42 and 43 the registration aspects of the Housing Act, (in common areas of HMO's). Now that does wind up the Housing Authorities. I don't see any exemption for Housing.

[wee brian]

Law is either in force or it isnt - there are no peking order rules.

[Big A]

Indeed, in this situation you could argue that the FSO disapplies under Article 42 and 43 the registration aspects of the Housing Act, (in common areas of HMO's). Now that does wind up the Housing Authorities. I don't see any exemption for Housing.

It has indeed ruffled a few feathers. Some of our  LHAs have accepted our version but others are still applying prescriptive standards as conditions of the licence (wrong on two counts) and will continue to do so until they are challenged at a tribunal.

It is also causing some discomfort in the (liquor) licensing departments.

[bolt]

Sorry to liven up an old thread  again but its very relavent to what im going through now. I started it on another thread but i just pick up some points here. Im currently challanging that the building converted into 5 self contained flats on 3 stories completed just 12 months ago may actually need common escape AFD on the basis that something of an AFD system is currently in place. It contradicts the App Doc B thats states its not needed IF the building meets those standards. So the FSO visits first at my request. Not being technically minded he cant really see the problem and is permitted entry to the flats by the landlord serving permission notice to the tenants even though this is an RRO enquiry i feel its essential one can see the big picture. ie check the flats. Next the FRS attends on the same remit. They are given entry to the flats by landlord invitation for building evalution 24hs notice required. There is no need for enforcement access you just knock on the door and ask:)

However only BCO has the technical knowledge in this situation becuase they have access to construction certificates and are now stearing this under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This triggers a building audit because they have total building powers not just common parts. However, the LA and the FRS work in tandem on this otherwise potentially someone could be actually be prosecuted twice for the same defects which of course is not the object if they were not singing from the same hynm sheet.  The BCO should be able to provide evidence that the building is compliant to App doc B ie 60 min rated. If he can not be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the survey and certificates are lacking integrity then the building may be down graded to 30 min rated. Once that happens AFD common areas is then ESSENTIAL and worst still it becomes a licensable HMO!  There is a lot more clarity now as from 6th of April 2007 should follow the guidance contained in the new Approved Document B (Volumes 1 and 2). The distiniction is much cleaner as either its a DwellingHouse vol 1 or its not Vol 2. Blocks of Flats or flats conversions are not DwellingHouses becuase they are multiple dwellings contained inside a common areas wrapper. So they are in Vol 2.

[kurnal]

I think you have it right Bolt but I dont pretend to be well up in the licensing side of HMOs under the housing Act- whether the LA have any discretion as to the way they licence premises and the ability to set local criteria or licencing conditions. Any EHOs on the forum?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

My understanding is as follows:

If the premises is two storeys, it is registered as a HMO whereas if it is three storeys, it is licensable.
A shared house, such as a terraced property being shared by students who live as one unit, is not classed as a HMO and is not licensed as such although it should be registered.

[kurnal]

Who decides whether the students live as one unit? My Daughter shares a student house with 5 others sharing all bills. But there are three  subgroups within the six- a group of 3 who share their cooking and shopping, a group of two and a single independent minded individual. I dont think they would be classed as a single household- they just sleep under the same roof and share the basic facilities in a 3 storey terrace house.

[firelawmac]

Correct me if I am wrong, however I believe the criteria is a 'single FAMILY unit',

[firelawmac]

Shared housing doesnt come under the RRFSO in any case. According to the draft enforcers guide.

[jokar]

Ae not the Enforcing Authorities responsible for the shared/common areas of housing under the RR(FS)O?

[firelawmac]

Only if rackrent is payed, i.e rent not less than two - thirds of the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, free from all usual tenants rates and taxes, and deducting from it the repairs, insurance and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the property in a state to command such rent,

as far as i can see, therefore most student/shared houses dont come under the order.