Posted By Crim The "fsrro sleeping accommodation" states "HMOs and flats and maisonettes are covered by two pieces of legislation, the Order and the Housing Act 2004. Can anyone please suggest how exactly the Housing Act 2004 affects fire risk assessment in that type of premises?

Posted By Crim Thanks Shaun you have helped a lot. Now then, if I am carrying out a fra under fsrro do I have a duty to cross the boundary into the Housing Act or is that for another "authority"?

Posted By Adrian Watson Whilst you are generally correct, the front door is part of the domestic premises. As the RR(FS)O does not apply to private domestic premises, Art 6(1), this means that it does not apply to the front door. Regards

Posted By Shaun Doyle The front entrance door is a fire door and protecting the shaft in the building being used as the means of escape for all persons. Therefore if it was not there then the means of escape is at risk. The protected route is affected. The front entrance door is crucial and effectively subject to both the Housing Act as well as the FSO. This view is supported in the document http://www.communities.g...ance1enforcement2005.pdf This document is issued by HM Government to give a uniformity of approach for the fire service (and other enforcers) to enforce and provides information more generally. See paragraphs 83 to 87 for the maintenance angle. I have copied paragraph 83 below. The term “common parts” is key to this. (See paragraph 19 which I have copied below). It recognises that the interface between the legislation is complex as is the application in practical terms. The “common part” being the front entrance door / fire door. Further information can be found also in the LACORS document. 19. The Order does not apply (except in relation to article 31) to private dwellings. However, residential premises e.g. blocks of flats and HMOs are covered by the Order to the extent that they comprise common parts and systems (e.g. stairs, corridors, shared kitchens, bathrooms and lounges etc) which are used by the occupants of more than one dwelling. This is a complex area which will be addressed in more detail in separate guidance. 83. The responsible person must ensure, where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, that the fire precautions are maintained in good working order (see also article 38, about protection of fire-fighters). This includes any facilities which have been provided under Building Regulations, the Housing Act 2004 or other legislation such as local Acts; and including any enactment repealed or revoked by the Order. Risk assessments, as required by article 9, should include references to maintenance. Enforcing authorities must consider the suitability and sufficiency of any risk assessment that does not address the matter of maintenance where there is the possibility of persons other than the employer/occupier being capable of omissions affecting and negating the effectiveness of the fire precautions. It is suggested that in such instances enforcing authorities could reasonably expect that any contract or tenancy agreement would contain such clauses that would enable the responsible person to show that acts or omissions which cause the effectiveness of fire precautions to be negated, and which place relevant persons at risk, may result in criminal liability. When a fire risk assessment is being undertaken, it is assessing the doors and checking it is maintained to a fire door standard (FD30S) in majority of cases? It is also a common part. Adrain, I therefore disagree with the simple statement that the front door is not subject to FSO as it “domestic”.

Posted By Shaun Doyle Crim, The fire alarm system is a whole raft of complex issues depending on the design , layout, types of systems, construction, evacuation strategies, use and occupants. This is illustrated as per the following: See FSO guide sleeping risks http://wales.gov.uk/dsjl...ping/guidee2.pdf?lang=en See Table 1 and notes and the section generally. In terms of audibility this will also be in keeping with the complex nature as it is depending on who the warning is for. I wouldn't automatic discount the Housing Act but consider what is reasonable. The trend lately is to keep to a BS 5839 Part 1 in the common parts if there is a reason to provide i.e. automatic opening ventilation trigger, automatic doors and a BS 5839 Part 6 in the apartments. This prevents things like a full evacuation for the burnt toast syndrome! See by way of another illustration see Note 4 for example; for purpose built flats there doesn't need any fire alarm in the common parts. Hope this helps, Shaun

Posted By Adrian Watson Shaun, I do not disagree that the front door is important to fire safety; however, it is part of the domestic premises and not part of the common parts for the purposes of the RR(FS)O 2005. Under the Housing Act 2004 it is made part of the common parts by regulation 8(6)of the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions)(England) Regulations 2007 which defines “common parts” as meaning (i) the entrance door to the HMO and the entrance doors leading to each unit of living accommodation within the HMO; and (ii) all such parts of the HMO as comprise staircases, lifts, passageways, corridors, halls, lobbies, entrances, balconies, porches and steps that are used by the occupiers of the units of living accommodation within the HMO to gain access to the entrance doors of their respective unit of living accommodation. However, this definition does not apply to the RR(FS)O and consequently as the front door is part of the domestic premises it does not come under the RR(FS)O, as the the order does not apply to domestic premises. Regards Adrian

Posted By peter gannaway through painful first hand experience I can assure you that the enforcing authorities consider the front door of flats onto escape routes as being to be part of the fire safety system of the common areas and the responsibility of the landlord. we carry out monthly checks of doors and closers in sheltered housing monthly. it isn't reasonably practicable to do so in general needs, but we do make sure residents are aware they can only replace a door with another which is simarly rated.

Posted By Messy Shaw Although I accept that I am not a legal expert, I do find myself agreeing with Shaun that it is most unlikely that you can simply copy a definition of a word or term from one piece of legislation and paste it into another. I have discussed the matter of FS in residential premises with score of FS professionals both before and since the FSO was enacted. Some were enforcers, some consultants and one was instrumental in the writing of the Order. The subject of separation and specifically the issue of the risk critical front door of the premises is often raised at such discussions and I have never heard of the opinion that the door is excluded from the FSO (in terms that is part of the dwelling) In any case, with regards to enforcing the Order, it is perhaps immaterial whether the door is or isn't included in the definition of 'common parts'. If an enforcing authority were of the opinion that a door posed a significant risk to others, they would still be able to enforce a Prohibition Notice (article 31 applies) on the premises until that risk was removed or controlled. From that viewpoint, surely the front door must be included in a FRA as I know that any customer of mine would be rather upset if, after paying me for a FRA in which I ignored the front doors, their building subsequently had a A31 Prohibition notice slapped on it!!

Posted By Messy Shaw I am hoping it's the doors to the individual flats or I too will be confused!!