Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 16 September 2005 11:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gary Cutter I could really do with some help. I need to know what exactly is a “single private dwelling”. I can find definitions for “dwelling (approved document B ADB) “domestic premises (HASWA 1974)”, “house (loads of case law)” “flat”, “HIMO”, etc. However, the only place I come across the term “single private dwelling” is in fire legislation and I can’t find a definition as to what it means. According to ADB 2000 the guidance suggests “it is possible to treat an unsupervised group home with up to 6 residents as an ordinary dwelling” This being the case then a dwelling could provide a home for 6 unrelated persons thus making it a HIMO. It would also be classed as a domestic premise by virtue of the definition under HASWA 1974. However, if my inferences are right then I believe that the guidance within ADB leads me to gather that a dwelling could be both HIMO and domestic premises but still be a “single private dwelling”. Am I correct?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 16 September 2005 12:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis This is a little bit complex but will have a stab on the basis of my understanding. The term essentially is designed to exclude any premises where the occupied volume is split into discretely privately occupied rooms or groups of rooms. Thus appartment blocks, hotels and the like are NOT single private dwellings even where they are converted from what was a single private dwelling. One expects to see the residents of a single private dwelling using the dwelling as a single accomodation unit and there to be unrestricted access to all rooms. If any rooms are defined as private or have restricted access by invitation then it becomes a HIMO again. Hope this makes the mud a little clearer Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 18 September 2005 11:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Gary. In answer to your question, may I suggest that you consider the following? And please forgive the rather pedantic approach but it's the only way to effectively identify and address the currently rather disconnected strands that must be considered. HSWA provides a specific definition of single private dwelling in S53; and in S51 identifies that the HSWA does not apply to the employment of "domestic staff". "HSWA S53 [extract] - “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), and “non-domestic premises” shall be construed accordingly." This clearly allows that all such private accommodation in any building, whether it be a single, detached house or a block of flats, are domestic premises but that any public or multi-tenant/occupant parts are not and are therefore defined as being workplaces. Also, it should be clearly understood that this exclusion does not, in itself state that a domestic premises cannot be a place of work per se; it simply identifies that HSWA doesn't apply DIRECTLY to such premises because the HSWA is clearly indended to include those affected by those at work. "HSWA S51 Exclusion of application to domestic employment Nothing in this Part shall apply in relation to a person by reason only that he employs another, or is himself employed, as a domestic servant in a private household." The definition of "domestic servant" has been quite narrowly defined over the years and is essentially a "live-in" servant who live as part of the overall family rather than a "daily". The Fire Precautions Act S2 currently defines places to which a FP Act does not apply as "No fire certificate shall by virtue of section 1 of this Act be required in respect of premises . . . (a)-(d) . . . (e) . . . consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling." Sub-sections a-d having been repealed. The Fire Precautions [Workplace] Regs specifically identify that the HSWA S53 definition excludes the FP[W] from application to singley occupied domestic premises and applies to all other places. The incoming RRFSO uses the same definition of domestic premises in S2 to exclude application of the RRFSO from general application to such premises but, in Article 31 narrows that definition in regard to the application of enforcement notices by including all but single, detached premises. Therefore, blocks of flats are liable to enforcement under the RRFSO. Building Regs don't actually address the differences in concept of "workplace" and "domestic premises" in any useful manner relevant to the application of H&S or F legislation. A "House in multiple occupation" is not the same thing as a block of flats and will be treated differently by the RRFSO as such premises are not excluded from the full application of the RRFSO. Scots have a history of calling a flat or apartment a "house" and this accords well with the legislative approach. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#4 Posted : 19 September 2005 13:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis From your context Gary the best way to look at this can be summarised as follows a) Are there multiple private rooms with restricted access? b) Are there common areas shared with other occupants who have private rooms If the answer is yes to either or both you do NOT have a single private dwelling. The question about HIMO and apprtments is to an extent an irrelevance as there needs to be an appropriate fire plan in place whatever the actual definition. Many of the drug and other rehabilitation charities have wrestled with this and none have arrived at a single private dwelling solution other than when you have a form of family home situation. If it is possible to identify a potential tenancy of a particular room(s) then multiple occupancy of some form exists, this is why the control of privacy is such an issue. Thus locked doors with common areas mean no single private dwelling exists. Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 19 September 2005 15:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gary Cutter Thhnks everyone for their help. Really appreciated.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.