re-wire imminent - some questions, any help appreciated
- Thread starter bludclot
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Probably not, but it would be a matter for whoever (local council in the first place, judge it it went that far) to look at the facts of the case. In other words, does the way they live look like they are a couple, or just two people sharing a room.Do the rules define 'a couple'?
In the hypothetical case you raise, it wouldn't matter as the property would be an HMO either way - anything between 4 and 8 "families". But in other cases (such as the one raised by the OP), it could make the difference between the property being an HMO or not.
All very difficult and an area I'm personally not involved in (nor do I plan to be).
Exactly - hence my question. One can imagine landlords inducing pairs of strangers to have a 'one night fling' in order to reduce the number of "households" in the building!
It wasn't actually me who introduced the hypothetical 8-person case. However, as you say, the importance would be in cases like that described by the OP - when it could make a difference.
However, we are now being told that all the people in the house we're discussing are related - so maybe the HMO status, at least at present, is rapidly disappearing over the horizon! Who started all this about HMOs?
Kind Regards, John
I'm quite intrigued by these HMO requirements.
I thought it just depended on the building in that if it were rented to several - I don't know how many - people who had to share a bathroom and kitchen then the building was an HMO which required more stringent safety regulations presumably because none of the tenants would actually care about the place.
I did not realise it could depend on people's relationships.
That is whether, say, four people are just four people or two couples.
I am wondering how this is determined in these times when people's sexual preferences are supposed to be of no consequence to anyone except themselves.
Not that you'd realise that from watching television.
So -
could such people have to prove one way or another to some jobsworth from The Council in order that this jobsworth is satisfied that an inconsequential deception is not being perpetrated?
I wonder what is the salary of the
Head of the Directorate for the Homosexual Adjudication Panel.
I thought it just depended on the building in that if it were rented to several - I don't know how many - people who had to share a bathroom and kitchen then the building was an HMO which required more stringent safety regulations presumably because none of the tenants would actually care about the place.
I did not realise it could depend on people's relationships.
That is whether, say, four people are just four people or two couples.
I am wondering how this is determined in these times when people's sexual preferences are supposed to be of no consequence to anyone except themselves.
Not that you'd realise that from watching television.
So -
could such people have to prove one way or another to some jobsworth from The Council in order that this jobsworth is satisfied that an inconsequential deception is not being perpetrated?
I wonder what is the salary of the
Head of the Directorate for the Homosexual Adjudication Panel.
Sponsored Links
Or care about the welfare of the other people in the building when there was a fire or similar life threatening incident. They could just get out without alerting any of the other residents.
Me too!
Quite so. If it really is as it appears to being decribed to us, it's even more daft than some bits of BS7671
Kind Regards, John
Ultimately it would be the local council.
Yes, it's not so simple for some of the edge cases.
I strongly suspect that most properties are simple - they are obviously either HMO or obviously not. And example of obviously HMO would be a house generally rented out to (say) four students. In the general case, that'll be four individuals. It might happen that several people from the same family rented it - in which case for that year only it would cease to be an HMO but in practical terms there'd be no saving for the landlord to re-declare it for one year.
The stuff about family members is obviously there to deal with the cases given - multiple generations sharing a house etc.
As to the council sticking their noses in, I suspect in most cases it'll be clear - council points out to landlord that it's an HMO, landlord accepts it, no further prying needed. Only if the landlord decided to fight it would they need to peek into private lives - and I've no information on what happens then. I imagine they'd look at who claims to be what relation, and whether the signs support that.
I've not heard of any such cases, it's probably very rare. In any case, if it's that borderline, then it's probably easier (cheaper) for the landlord to just treat it as an HMO than to fight.
Surely if there are regulations designed to safeguard people living in HMOs then it would be a good idea to follow them anyway, when the nature of the occupation is the same but it does not count as an HMO because of family relations between the occupants and financial arrangements?
Exactly this. Also this is not an insignificant amount of work, so its probably better to get it compliant with the HMO regs, this way in the future it can be sold as such, or offers an oppourtunity to be fully let should the situation change.
Is anyone sufficiently familiar with the 'HMO regs' to give us a very brief overview of the main issues (or potential issues) as far as electrical installations are concerned?
Kind Regards, John
Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance for
Landlords and Property Related Professionals and is available as a free download. In the
CLG guidance, Section 23 (Electrical hazards) and Section 24 (Fire) provide information
relating to the hazards associated with electrical installations and measures to lessen
the likelihood of occurrence and reduce harm outcomes.
It seems, as is typical, there is no black and white answer to the question "what are the regs". There are so many variables, guidence and legislation, that a straight foreward answer is impossible.
Landlords and Property Related Professionals and is available as a free download. In the
CLG guidance, Section 23 (Electrical hazards) and Section 24 (Fire) provide information
relating to the hazards associated with electrical installations and measures to lessen
the likelihood of occurrence and reduce harm outcomes.
It seems, as is typical, there is no black and white answer to the question "what are the regs". There are so many variables, guidence and legislation, that a straight foreward answer is impossible.
That, IMO, was a big legacy of the previous government (not just in this field, but in others I have an interest in). Legislation so often now says "you will make a risk assessment." - sold as making things easier, but in reality it's a part of "Step 6".
The reality is that you can make a risk assessment, there is no official way to have someone in authority pass comment on it, and the only way to know if you got it right or cocked up is when stood in court if something happens and you're charged with getting it wrong.
Surely if you do not have reasonable grounds to believe that you are competent to make risk assessments for things like electrical installations, fire precautions etc then you ought to have the smarts to not DIY.
And if you don't have the grounds, and you do go ahead, then you deserve to be slapped if you screw up.
And if you don't have the grounds, and you do go ahead, then you deserve to be slapped if you screw up.
Thanks. Section 23 (Electrical Hazards) of that Guidance document seems to essentially consist of just this:
With the possible exception of the last one (Lightening Protection Systems are not common in residential properties), I think I would probably struggle to see how those requirements differ significantly from, or exceed, the requirements of Part P/BS7671 in relation to any residential property. Am I missing something?
Kind Regards, John
Ah, Mr Black and White spouts off again
It doesn't work like that. You can be competent, not screw up, but still take the blame if something goes wrong. The end result is that a lot of consultants get cushy work doing assessments that most of us are competent to do - but a "professional" is employed simply as an a**e covering exercise (as in "I employed this highly qualified consultant and he said ..."). You know as well as the rest of us that most of this is not "rocket science", and that some of these "highly qualified consultants" are far from highly qualified. Just as "Part P" suddenly created "5 day wonder" courses to make people "competent" to do electrics, when the fire regs shanged, a lot of "consultants" suddenly appeared - and I bet a lot of them had just done a one day course.
Knowing what the manager of the building we rent space in at work gets told, some of these consultants come up with complete drivel - just like a recent thread here recently about 3 double sockets on a 3P supply ? Seriously, you would not believe some of the drivel - the manager is afraid to wedge an OUTSIDE door open when he's due a visit for fear of a black mark for leaving a fire door open ! WTF !
And then she used to have some nice foliage above the main door - there's a sort of small mezzanine floor in the corner above the revolving door. She had to take it all down, because she was told it's illegal because it needs ladders to access. She wasn't told that precautions and safe working practices were needed and given that option, just told that "it's illegal" ("Elf n Safety" strikes again).
I'd love to "bump into" the guy when he's spouting some of this drivel and give him the "benefit of my opinion"
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
