Building regs and fire safety reform

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

How come there several categories of building which have more fires per 1,000 buildings between 11 and 18m tall than there are for all buildings in the category regardless of height?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13/06/2019 17:28, Andy Burns wrote:

It would help to know just which figures you have in mind. But footnote 29 to para 33 seemed to me a reasonable explanation:
"29 The analysis was designed to explore the relative rate of fires across different types of building and did not take into account the number of individual dwellings or occupants within each building. Therefore, although some building types have higher rates of fires than others this is likely to be because of the higher occupancy rates in larger buildings."
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robin wrote:

table A2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmm, well the other report I read obviously based its data on people against size or something. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Statistical problems I'd suggest. I was looking the other day about fatalities in different sized buildings and it seems caravans and temporary buildings are far more dangerous than massive high rise flats. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

presumably because the vast majority of buildings in the category are below 11m and have no fires at all
So what that says is that tall buildings are more likely to have fires (as in occupants in those building who create fires)
That in itself is not a good statistic
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house .......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2019 19:02:38 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

They are, which is why Building Regs for 3-storey houses are more onerous.
For HMOs:
Statistics show that residents are six times more likely to die in a house fire if they live in an HMO. And if the HMO is three or more storeys high, the probability increases to 16 times more likely.
https://www.ifsecglobal.com/fire/houses-in-multiple-occupation-fire-risk-regulation-in-england/
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and houses fire doors protected enclosure.....
because non family members living together don't give a shit .....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is when there is a fire in it, escaping wise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

yes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

if it falls on you it will be
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As usual, not really well publicised so the main people who will respond are those with a vested interest of some kind. Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, 13 June 2019 17:22:06 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

sals-for-reform-of-the-building-safety-regulatory-system

fety-order-2005-call-for-evidence

" We are ending ‘no fault’ evictions under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 so landlords cannot evict tenants for no reason;"
The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad news te nants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of housing areas bein g blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is a very good reason section 21 was introduced.
As for Grenfell related risks, there are way easier ways to deal with that. And submitting a fire report before even getting PP is silly. As is giving tenants a say in the fire safety process, whatever that actually means.
Has the govt really learnt none of the lessons of the past regarding tenant /landlord rights? It seems not. The result is going to be that a) all sorts of people can no longer rent a house or flat b) rents will rise yet again c) antisocial behaviour will increase d) the rentable housing stock will dwindle even further e) homelessness will rise even further
Sadly events like Grenfell, which are fairly easy to prevent reoccurrence o f, seem to inevitably be taken as an excuse for governments to meddle ever more in areas they plainly do not understand. And the result is as ever mor e problems for everyone. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that gover nment is firmly focussed on scamming everyone out of more money any which w ay they can, without much in the way of genuine justification.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:37:03 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow a nd difficult.
If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction? Hav ing been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of e very 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month te nancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what rent).
On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at fault, I say get t hem out bag and baggage in 14 days.
At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England (but thanks to a looph ole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with ex clusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are sti ll at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).
Owain
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2019 13:01:11 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com wrote:

and difficult.
taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with antis ocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

aving been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of every 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month tenancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what rent).
Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get p aid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.
OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should people go bank rupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?

them out bag and baggage in 14 days.

phole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are s till at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat y ou are protected from fees).

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into t he rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.
The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

We also have a housing crisis. Reducing the predatory aspects of private renting is supposed to improve that. Typically the LL is in a much stronger position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for instance).

Because they want to increase the rent?

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession to sell or live in the property).

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have a choice in which agency to use. This is what has resulted in agency fees to tenants skyrocketing.
By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL), competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control. An agency which tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.
Theo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:

we do

Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.
And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.

Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.

to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.

No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.

it isn't

whether they are incorporated or separate makes zero difference to the cost. Obviously incorporating them does not control them. That is the sort of nonsense one hears from politicians keen to smooth through their agenda.

Equally true whether incorporated or not.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it doesn't work like that out in the real world
LL - pay me an extra 50 pound per month in rent or you'll have to pay a thousand pounds to move house
T - perhaps I'll pay you the 50 pounds

you obviously don't live in the real world of renting

you have had it explained to you
Yes it does

It Economics 101 that it does. So it's not even a tiny bit obvious that it doesn't

And you obviously know absolutely nothing about something you have seen fit to come here and discuss
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.