Distance between spindles in a rented property?

jess-the-cat_3

I have recently moved into a rented house where every third spindle up the stairs and across the landing is missing.

It appears that at some point there were those spindles in place as you can just see the marks in the wood through the layer of paint.

I have been told by many that it is actually illegal and upon googling I have read some information that states a maximum distance of 4 inches between each, ie small enough that a child can't get stuck. The distance between each is more than this.

Having small children, upon moving in but before finding out the above, we said we would fit spindles ourselves. In the meantime we have fastened various planks of wood horizontally as a makeshift safety measure.

Can anyone confirm this is a legal requirement in a rented property? From what I have read I understand it is a government legislation therefore must be applied in a rented property?

jc808

No, its only a requirement in newbuilds and major works alterations, you cant enforce retrospectively on older properties

jennifernil

Depending on when the house was built, it may have been a requirement in the Building Regulations at the time.

phill99

The regulation you are thinking of is based on Part K of the Building Regulation requirement. However, building regulations are not retrospective and if the property was constructed prior to them coming into force, then this won't apply.

GDB2222

If it was unsuitable, why did you rent it?

PasturesNew

GDB2222 wrote: »

If it was unsuitable, why did you rent it?

Maybe any combination of:
a] Didn't spot it in the excitement of finding something that wasn't condemned, was in the right area and almost affordable?
b] Had to take what was available, no luxury of a huge choice or time to choose

anselld

It is still required to pass a HHSRS inspection, which is a risk based safety assessment. Any safety hazard can be subject of enforcement action by Environmental Health.

GDB2222

PasturesNew wrote: »

Maybe any combination of:
a] Didn't spot it in the excitement of finding something that wasn't condemned, was in the right area and almost affordable?
b] Had to take what was available, no luxury of a huge choice or time to choose

I have sympathy with a) but if it was b), that's not fair. Somebody has artfully removed every 3rd spoke, so as to create a particular look to the place. Now, the tenant, who may only be there a short time wants those reinstated at great expense to the landlord.

Graham_Devon

GDB2222 wrote: »

I have sympathy with a) but if it was b), that's not fair. Somebody has artfully removed every 3rd spoke, so as to create a particular look to the place. Now, the tenant, who may only be there a short time wants those reinstated at great expense to the landlord.

That's part of being in business.

If it's not meeting safety requirements (which seems vague) it doesn't matter if it looks nice, or that's how the landlord may or may not have wanted it....it's tough. They either want to rent it, or they don't.

GDB2222

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's part of being in business.

If it's not meeting safety requirements (which seems vague) it doesn't matter if it looks nice, or that's how the landlord may or may not have wanted it....it's tough. They either want to rent it, or they don't.

What I meant was that it may be perfectly safe for adults but be inappropriate for people with very small children. Of course, if there is an absolute safety standard the property has to meet, that's clear enough and it has to meet it.

OTOH, if the safety standard is different because the current tenants have small children, the obvious solution for the LL is to fix some planks temporarily to keep the kids safe for the time being, then serve a S21 notice to quit at the earliest opportunity. As you say, that's business.

franklee

GDB2222 wrote: »

What I meant was that it may be perfectly safe for adults but be inappropriate for people with very small children. Of course, if there is an absolute safety standard the property has to meet, that's clear enough and it has to meet it.

OTOH, if the safety standard is different because the current tenants have small children, the obvious solution for the LL is to fix some planks temporarily to keep the kids safe for the time being, then serve a S21 notice to quit at the earliest opportunity. As you say, that's business.

The LL knows the property best (a tenant typically has perhaps one or two short viewings perhaps while the property was still occupied by someone else making it hard to see all details) so in that case why not say unsuitable for small children? For example I'd assume that a family house would be suitable for a family. If it is not then the landlord is cutting down is pool of potential tenants. If OTOH it's a "designer flat" then I would see your point that looks hold out over safety.