The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

phead

Is this any different to a normal leaseholder/freeholder relationship?

I'm wondering why a normal section 20 notice was not used, and why you are expected to pay an individual rate when the other tenants (effectively) got a bulk rate.

If it was me I would be asking the leasehold advisory service for advise on how to play this one.

vaio

I suspect you'll find the "bulk rate" the council pays is more expensive that the rate an individual could get it done for.

paulmapp8306

As per Roger 196 - it does not seem to apply to privately owned flats. Quote that to the council.

Id also ask them if its so important - why a 2005 order is only being implimented in 2012 - some 7 years later !!!

anotherbaldrick

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

As per Roger 196 - it does not seem to apply to privately owned flats. Quote that to the council.
!!!

But it does apply if the front door opens onto a common area, read the whole of the regulation and the foregoing posts to this thread

paulmapp8306

Nobody has posted the whole regulation. I havent looked myself.

Id still be asking why its 2012 and a 2005 order is only now being acted upon - and why (given that lag) I have to comply in such a short time.

paulmapp8306

Umm - had a read and I would take it as not applicable due to:

This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);

Where:

“domestic premises” means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden, yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling);"

My reading is that the "door" is part of the falt and is NOT used in common with other occupants. Whether the corridor is, is niether here nor there as thats not part of the flat. The door in question is NOT used by others - so is exept from the order.

The exception in article 31 referes to houses in multiple occupance, and must pass one of 3 tests depending on type. In this case the standard and flat tests:

The standard test
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]This test covers the majority of HMOs, e.g. bedsitting room accommodation, shared houses and hostels. To pass the test the building or part of the building must consist of one or more units of living accommodation that is not a self-contained flat or flats. The living accommodation must be occupied by more than one household[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]who share one or more of the basic amenities (toilet, washing facilities and cooking facilities) or the accommodation is lacking in one or more of these amenities. The occupiers must occupy the living accommodation as their only or main residence[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]4 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]and their occupation must constitute the only use of that accommodation. At least one of the occupiers must pay rent or provide some other consideration in respect of their occupation. [/FONT][/FONT]

The self-contained flat test
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]This test is concerned with flats in multiple occupation. The only difference between this and the standard test is that the relevant premises for consideration must be a self-contained flat rather than a building or part of a building. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Arial]Taking all that into account ic can be argued that the flat is NOT a HMO, and therefore the Order does not apply as it is a domestic premisis.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]I susspect if you really wanted to fight this - suitable legal representation would be able to make a winning case. Of course this is really going way too deep, and Im being a little padantic maybe. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

paulmapp8306

What I susspect has happened here - and explains the timescale from the Order to the work as well, is that initially the council deemed the Order not applicable to the flats as they are residential premesis. Recently someone else has taken over the relevant job - and in their opinion it IS relevant so has had the work authorised to tennants and issued the instructions to the owners.

It will be one persons opinion/reading of the order that has led to this change in stance and the letter. So, If the OP really doesnt want to get the door changed at his expense, Id seek legal advice over this one from someone with experience in the area.

anotherbaldrick

What has happened is that across the country some lives have been lost because the doors were not 1 hour protection and the brigade did not have the time to evacuate occupiers who were trapped in the property. I think this has prompted a re-reading of the satutes by Chief Fire Offices and put pressure on Council Leaders to make the upgrade orders.