Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Fire safety standards that apply in one street to HMO’s but can be ignored in another or differ in other London boroughs make no sense, i suspect there is no written approval (big difference from just consulting) from the LFB that you can show granting or accepting Southwarks proposals, but please post away – open hands dealing n all that

There are mandatory conditions for HMO licensing set by the HA 2004 one of which relates to smoke alarms and the HA requires local authorities to set conditions as required for their operating area. The act seeks to address a wide range of issues including, specifically, fire safety. One of the reasons the HA introduced licensing was to address poor fire safety standards in HMO.

The HHSRS system addresses fire specifically as well.

All London Boroughs have HMO standards and having reviewed a number I don’t think we are proposing anything more onerous than the average.

So, on balance, we are not changing fire safety standards.

Please can you post the link to the unified code you mentioned earlier.

Lets have sight of the written LFB approval that Southwark obtained for the glass kitchen doors in non-commercial premises first – then LL’s can agree Southwark are not changing fire standards to suit themselves via additional licensing schemes.

not sure you’ll get your scheme anyway given the recent events in the RCJ –

Yesterday, the application by Constantinos Regas to bring a judicial review against Enfield Council’s landlord licensing scheme was listed to last just half an hour at the Royal Courts of Justice. After four hours of arguments by Queen’s Counsel for each side, Mr Justice Ouseley reserved judgement until today. He has today ruled that one part of Enfield’s landlord licensing scheme is arguably unlawful.

The borough is already subject to “mandatory HMO licensing”, which is a national scheme applying to large houses in multiple occupation, comprising two or more households, 5 or more persons sharing amentities and three or more storeys.

Enfield’s landlord licensing scheme originally designated the whole borough as being subject to the new regulations from 1 April 2015. The effect of the “additional HMO licensing” scheme would be to extend HMO licensing to any dwelling with two or more households sharing amenities. A separate scheme, known as “selective licensing” would license all single family homes in the private rented sector. Mr Regas was challenging both schemes.

The judge has ruled that the selective licensing scheme is lawful. However, he found that the local authority has not applied its mind to the requirements for additional [HMO] licensing. Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that Enfield Council’s cabinet decision was “arguably unlawful” and that it should not be visited upon the landlords of Enfield. Mr Regas was therefore granted permission to proceed with a judicial review of the additional HMO licensing scheme only.

Enfield Council had originally claimed that both schemes were necessary, in order to prevent perverse incentives for landlords to switch from letting out single family homes to letting out HMOs.

Mr Regas said “This is bitter-sweet news for landlords and tenants. It would be wise for everyone to sleep on this judgment and to fully consider the policy implications before making further decisions.”

If Mr Regas continues with his judicial review, it is likely to be heard in November.

LA’s can set their standards as they require, so long as the mandatory conditions are included. There is no requirement to seek the approval of LFB for licensing conditions.

The LFB role is to ensure that the LL complies with the RRO and have their own enforcement powers, which are rather more effective than those available to the local authority.

And the unified code does not appear to exist. Does anyone else have a view ?

If you need to find the code ask the LFB – they were the ones who told me about it, and as a reasonable request whilst you’re at it can you please ask them for their official response to all the Southwark fire proposals, seeing as you consulted with them they must have one its just i couldn’t find one in the files you put up.

If you have never seen this document how can you express an opinion on how our proposed HMO standard complies or deviates from it.

Hi John

What is your position at Southwark Council?

John – you want Southwak LL’s to get behind the scheme right?

So all you have to do is show then that there is approval from the LFB that the proposed Southwark changes to force LL’s to install glass panel fire doors in all kitchens for additional HMO properties is accepted by the LFB as a sound one. As you say Southwark consulted with the LFB so lets have their offical position on your fire safety proposals.

Not sure why the council is having such difficulty with this reasonable request.
Look if you don’t have their written approval just say so and we’ll take that as the offical Southwark position – I’ve no reason to doubt who you say you are in much the same way i have no reason to doubt my contact at the LFB – I can’t be fairer than that.

Hallo again John.

Thanks for your clarifications regarding the proposed fire doors standards.

A) ‘RRO 2005 Sec 14 Para 2 d’ which is the supporting legislation you mentioned (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/article/14/made) uses the following wording with the regards to implementation of fire doors opening into the escape route:

……………(2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises WHERE NECESSARY (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons— …………………………

B). I have again checked this issue with the London Fire Brigade, Southwark Fire Safety Team, and have been told the following: “in buildings with fewer than 50-60 people CAN BE ACCEPTED based on a number of circumstances that fire doors do not need to open into the escape route because (for example) in doing so somebody may be knocked over”. Furthermore according to the Southwark Fire Safety Team, it is correct that the INDIVIDUAL FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT should decide the correct implementation of the legislation.

John, unless I did not read correctly the proposed new standard, you are seeking COMPULSORY implementation of the condition that ‘fire doors should open into the escape route’. This of course would mean substantial costs for LLs and the added accident risk that LFB highlighted.

Can you please confirm that you are looking for mandatory implementation of this condition regardless of the individual fire risk assessment (which you also require in your proposed standard).

many thanks