Licensing Consultation in Southwark

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.

We are consulting on the proposed standards, just the same as any other LA seeking a licensing designation, we draft our proposal, make them public and ask for responses and then draft a scheme.

The LFB is a stakeholder, we ask them their views, because we work closely with them we have a good idea what they think. If they respond asking us to change something, then we will take that into account when finalising our scheme. There is no requirement for some stakeholders to give prior approval.

OK so Southwark spoke to the LFB (clearly about fire issues) and despite asking them for their view they didn't proffer any response or comment to your proposals to mandatory change all small HMO kitchen doors to the glass panel type.

Victoria asked them (LFB) the other day and she said on here that it wasn't required - seems odd they didn't offer this view during the consultation - but given that this is stated position of the LFB will Southwark ever withdraw the proposals when the LFB say doors of this type are not required?

The consultation does not finish until the 19th December, why would we expect to have any views at all at this point ?

Will Southwark ever withdraw it's proposals to change standards when the LFB say doors of this type are not required?

this view from the LFB is in the public domain and has been given to you an officer of the council, i expect you've passed it on or is that not going to happen?

Chris,

Where did the LFB make this statement ? On this forum ? Where ? I can't see any attributable comment from any named person because there hasn't been one. Some people have reported off the record comments which you have to accept are not any kind of record of the formal views of LFB.

Anyone can make anything up here and state it's the advice of the fire service and there is no possible way to check that. No rational person would accept that as evidence.

If an actual representative of LFB under his own name made a statement here I would still have to refer the comment into the consultation process.

The opinion of LFB has been sought formally and when we recieve their official response it will be recorded and acted upon. It will also be available for everyone to see in the consultation report

Does anyone else need any clarification of this point ?

Bit harsh to hint at Victoria as a fake poster - she took you at face value (can't see why you won't reciprocate unless you don't trust landlords?) and she pasted the details of her LFB advice/call on page 2. so maybe as a suggestion acting on this tip off you call the LFB and check it out, so what if they've given a view to a local HMO LL before you at Southwark - are we all just to sit back and ignore it because its not on your terms, this is serious stuff not kids mucking about on facebook.

Hi John
Your response seems confrontational as do several of your comments on here.
From a council consultant this seems inappropriate.

You are hired as a consultant to the council to bring in a licensing scheme.
This is public information yet you seek to hide it with confrontational comments.
One wonders if failure to bring in the scheme is failure of the consulting agreement.
That may or may not explain your approach to perfectly reasonable comments.

These are questions we are entitled to ponder given Southwark Council is a body using public funds.

Hi John. Thanks for your clarifications.

1. Fire doors opening into the escape route. You have clarified that your proposal refers to 'doors on corridors' and exclude room doors. Based on your explanation of what 'doors on corridors' mean, I believe the proposal makes sense and is fully in line with the view I had from LFB. However, the actual proposed standard does not include the full explanation you posted here, and 'doors on corridors' can be interpreted as 'all doors that lead to the corridor and including room doors'. It is the latter interpretation that is potentially dangerous according to LFB.

2. Fire doors to kitchens to be fitted with observation panes. To put the record straight, the comments I had from LFB and which I posted earlier do not refer to this issue. I believe the question I posted regarding this issue is not answered directly. On the other hand, in your detailed explanation earlier on, you do say that the proposed standard is actually a GUIDE, that it relies on LACORS guidelines, and that the landlord may decide NOT TO FOLLOW your proposed standard but ultimately he/she is responsible for the implementation of the law. I also add that your 'proposed standards' includes the requirement for the landlord to have a professional fire safety assessment carried out. If I put all this together, let's say a landlord hires a fire risk assessor, the assessor states that observation panes to kitchen doors are not necessary and the landlord indeed does not fit the panels. Would the Council rule against the professional risk assessment ? (keep in mind fire risk assessors are normally LACORS accredited).

Generally speaking, you require landlords to carry out a professional fire risk assessment. You are clearly stating in the 'proposed standard' that the fire prevention measures are just a 'guide' but your are not stating clearly that the fire risk assessment (which is also a mandatory requirement) should rule the actual implementation of the fire prevention measures.

The landlord will be torn between implementing the conclusions of the fire risk assessment and the Council's guidelines. I don't see many LLs implementing the former if they differ from your guidelines.

thanks Victoria for your concise post - as you've spotted Southwark "guidelines" and any failure of it on your part means you could be lumbered with a criminal record and a fine and lose your licenses for all your other HMO's. Given that i think it should really be called a "criminal code for Landlords".

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "10/10/2014 - 20:17":

Hi Victoria,

Perhaps it would all be clearer if we work through what should be happening and why.

The law requires a fire risk assessment (FRA) for all the common areas in a residential property. That duty ends at the front door of the actual dwelling. We do not require an FRA to be prepared by an external consultant,

In a very simple dwelling anyone with basic common sense and an understanding of the guidance can create the FRA. However the requirement is that it be adequate for the property concerned and as the property gets larger and more complicated the level of skill and experience required increases rapidly.

Inside the let property the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the dwelling is safe to occupy. The LA use the HHSRS system to assess risk.

At Southwark we give advice and guidance to landlords in order to help them comply with the various confusing and sometimes contradictory items of legislation.

Because we recognise that we are not the authority for fire safety, before we make a landlord do anything in order to comply with licensing or regulatory intervention we check our opinion with the fire service and they approve or revise our requirements.

If a landlord has a current FRA which is suitable for the property and all the recommendations for action on it have been addressed and there are no HHSRS hazards within the property we then have no cause of action. Simply because there are no grounds we can use to take the matter forward.

So in every case with regard to fire our guidance is just that, the law takes precedence over anything we might require or advise.

At the end of the day our objective here is to ensure that the letting is safe to occupy. As a landlord I would surely be keen to see that as well, given the liability that could come out of a fire. And also because we know lettings have a higher fire risk and any fire event has enormous costs and disruption to the business.

Does that clarify how we approach this ?