Distance between spindles in a rented property?

jess-the-cat_3

Thankyou for the links.

So I take it the answer to my actual question was "yes"?

GDB2222

jess-the-cat wrote: »

Thankyou for the links.

So I take it the answer to my actual question was "yes"?

Yes, probably. You can download the safety manual and form your own view.

G_M

jess-the-cat wrote: »

...
So I take it the answer to my actual question was "yes"?

You are asking for a legal opinion on a public forum used by (for the most part) non professionals, on an issue which is open to legal interpretation.

Expecting a simple yes/no answer is unrealistic, unfair, and unreliable.

The key legal statutes, regulations, controls etc (Building regs, HSE regs, etc) have been offered, and discussed, together with links.

A judge could give you a definitive yes or no, if the case came before the court.

Or a barrister with experience and knowledge of relevant case history could give an expert opinion on whether yes or no was more likely.

Either take what's been offered and form your own view, or ask a solicitor to brief a barrister to give you an opinion....

[Deleted User]

As the stairs have already been partially boarded up, so its a 'looks' problem rather than a safety issue.., I am a little surprised u are prepared to make such an issue out of it. Surely its better to have a house with a few missing but boarded up spindles than be evicted? I assume you are under at least a 6 month AST so u can't give notice until the tenancy time period is up. The landlord can't evict u within that time period either.

Surely you have better things to do with your time?

I doubt replacing the missing spindles would cost more than a tenner (ebay). But insisting the landlord does it could cost you your tenancy (if I was a LL and I had a tenant insisting on such a small issue, I doubt I'd want them to stay).

jess-the-cat_3

G_M wrote: »

You are asking for a legal opinion on a public forum used by (for the most part) non professionals, on an issue which is open to legal interpretation.

Expecting a simple yes/no answer is unrealistic, unfair, and unreliable.

The key legal statutes, regulations, controls etc (Building regs, HSE regs, etc) have been offered, and discussed, together with links.

A judge could give you a definitive yes or no, if the case came before the court.

Or a barrister with experience and knowledge of relevant case history could give an expert opinion on whether yes or no was more likely.

Either take what's been offered and form your own view, or ask a solicitor to brief a barrister to give you an opinion....

I've had the answer thanks with regard to the questions I asked.

deannatrois wrote: »

As the stairs have already been partially boarded up, so its a 'looks' problem rather than a safety issue.., I am a little surprised u are prepared to make such an issue out of it. Surely its better to have a house with a few missing but boarded up spindles than be evicted? I assume you are under at least a 6 month AST so u can't give notice until the tenancy time period is up. The landlord can't evict u within that time period either.

Surely you have better things to do with your time?

I doubt replacing the missing spindles would cost more than a tenner (ebay). But insisting the landlord does it could cost you your tenancy (if I was a LL and I had a tenant insisting on such a small issue, I doubt I'd want them to stay).

Not making an issue - are you getting me mixed up with another poster? I was asking where I stood legally.

tbs624

martindow wrote: »

I think this is the case in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

Thanks for your response but the latter part of your assertion is not correct.

All properties in E and W which were built or "substantially modified" post 1992 must , as I said, have an interlinked hard wired smoke alarm set up.

In Scotland, the obligations on smoke alarms are covered under the Repairing Standard


See also this page from Crisis for further info

tbs624

jess-the-cat wrote: »

... I was asking where I stood legally.

If you want a precise answer then get the local Council to undertake a check on the property under HHSRS ( Housing Health and Safety Rating Sytem) as has been suggested to you.

Unfortunately, there is no legislation in place to prevent a retaliatory eviction after the end of your tenancy's Fixed Term should the LL be idiot enough to want to kick you out for daring to flag up a potential safety issue which would probably also be of concern to other potential Ts who had small children.

GDB2222

tbs624 wrote: »

If you want a precise answer then get the local Council to undertake a check on the property under HHSRS ( Housing Health and Safety Rating Sytem) as has been suggested to you.

Unfortunately, there is no legislation in place to prevent a retaliatory eviction after the end of your tenancy's Fixed Term should the LL be idiot enough to want to kick you out for daring to flag up a potential safety issue which would probably also be of concern to other potential Ts who had small children.

One of the issues about HHSRS is that the results of the check depend on who is living there. "The dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants."

So, a wide gap in the banisters would obviously not be of significance to adult occupants, and maybe the LL was aiming the property at that market, or would prefer to do so in future to avoid spoiling the look?

To be fair, the guide also says: "In short, a dwelling should be able to supply the basic needs for the everyday life of the range of households who could normally be expected to live in a dwelling of that size and type"

tbs624

GDB2222 wrote: »

One of the issues about HHSRS is that the results of the check depend on who is living there. "The dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants."

So, a wide gap in the banisters would obviously not be of significance to adult occupants, and maybe the LL was aiming the property at that market, or would prefer to do so in future to avoid spoiling the look?

To be fair, the guide also says: "In short, a dwelling should be able to supply the basic needs for the everyday life of the range of households who could normally be expected to live in a dwelling of that size and type"

You seem to be having a discussion with yourself there GDB222

You may be interested to read in the Operational Guidance that

"The underlying principle of the HHSRS is that –
Any residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor."

and

"Hazard
2.12 Any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier that arises from a deficiency."

(My underlining)

Source

GDB2222

I was just trying to be fair and present both sides of the argument.

'Potential occupier', if taken literally, could mean a 90 year old with osteoporosis. That might mean installing double handrails on the stairs etc. In practice, from my very, very limited experience, the system seems to work on the actual occupiers. Otherwise, it would just be ridiculous.

The guide specifically mentions the distance between stair spindles, btw. 100mm, ie 4 inches, which was mentioned before.