Question 1

Fire Regulations Responsibility

Accepted Answer

We have had a Fire Risk Assessment undertaken with a recommendation for a smoke Fire Alarm System to support the smoke detectors. As we don’t own the building does the ground landlord to whom we pay the ground rent have any responsibility if the building does not conform to the Regulations? Is it the residents’ who should pay for this please? The FPRA Replies: As Chairman and the voluntary advisor on fire safety matters for the FPRA I have consulted our legal advisor Dr Nick Roberts who has had a look at your lease dated 11th June 1976 and it seems to us a fairly typical tripartite lease (i.e. a lease between a ground landlord, a residents’ management company, and an individual leaseholder) which I have for my own block. As is usual, the landlord’s obligations are limited, and are confined to the matters contained in Clause 7 on p.15. In particular the landlord takes on no repairing obligations, or obligation to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements, and these would not be implied. The landlord does, however, have the power (Clause 7(4)) to take on the Management Company’s responsibilities if it fails to carry them out: this can be a useful provision, particularly if the Management Company should fail to make returns to Companies House and get struck off, or if it goes into liquidation. Although I would advise your Directors to not do nothing in this situation waiting for the Landlord to step in. All the obligations in respect of the common parts are cast upon the Management Company, and are contained in Clause 4. One often sees a covenant requiring the Management Company to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements: this is not included here, though Clause 4(9) on page 13 would surely cover complying with fire safety requirements, even if there is an element of improvement there. If there were a dispute and the matter went to a Tribunal, I would expect the tribunal to interpret the clause, if possible, in such a way as to avoid the outcome that there would be no one to organise and pay for necessary work on fire precautions as clearly your Directors are in a position to do so. Once work falls within the scope of Clause 4, then the expense automatically becomes chargeable to the service charge account, under Clause 1(i) of the Sixth Schedule. Under this lease, technically the ground landlord remains in legal possession of the common parts: sometimes one finds that this is subsequently modified by the ground landlord granting a separate lease of the common parts to the Management Company. I am presuming that this has not been done here. The Management Company is, however, given the right to enter the common parts to carry out its functions. I am assuming that at the moment the proposal to upgrade the fire alarm system is a recommendation, rather than a requirement having the force of law. I would advise that you check with your local fire authority what would happen if your Directors rejected this recommendation and also your insurance provider as I suspect in the worst case scenario an insurer may well reject a claim if there was a fire and people were unable to get out of the building safely due to there being no alarm warning? If the Management Company carried out the work, then I think that they would have the power to add the cost to the service charge. If it got to the point were a requirement was made that the system be upgraded, then one would need to check the relevant statutory basis for the requirement to see whether it affected the ground landlord or the Management Company: I would expect it to be directed towards the person with control of the common parts, which is likely to be the Directors of Management Company under the Fire Safety Regulatory Reform Order. In most cases and I know this to be the case in my own block the overarching intention of most long leases is that the ground landlord should not be under any financial liability towards the property, and that, if expenditure on the common parts is required, it will fall on the leaseholders as part of the service charge. This answer applies to a specific location and may not apply in all cases.

Question 2

Fire Regulations Responsibility

Accepted Answer

We have had a Fire Risk Assessment undertaken with a recommendation for a smoke Fire Alarm System to support the smoke detectors. As we don’t own the building does the ground landlord to whom we pay the ground rent have any responsibility if the building does not conform to the Regulations? Is it the residents’ who should pay for this please? The FPRA Replies: As Chairman and the voluntary advisor on fire safety matters for the FPRA I have consulted our legal advisor Dr Nick Roberts who has had a look at your lease dated 11th June 1976 and it seems to us a fairly typical tripartite lease (i.e. a lease between a ground landlord, a residents’ management company, and an individual leaseholder) which I have for my own block. As is usual, the landlord’s obligations are limited, and are confined to the matters contained in Clause 7 on p.15. In particular the landlord takes on no repairing obligations, or obligation to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements, and these would not be implied. The landlord does, however, have the power (Clause 7(4)) to take on the Management Company’s responsibilities if it fails to carry them out: this can be a useful provision, particularly if the Management Company should fail to make returns to Companies House and get struck off, or if it goes into liquidation. Although I would advise your Directors to not do nothing in this situation waiting for the Landlord to step in. All the obligations in respect of the common parts are cast upon the Management Company, and are contained in Clause 4. One often sees a covenant requiring the Management Company to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements: this is not included here, though Clause 4(9) on page 13 would surely cover complying with fire safety requirements, even if there is an element of improvement there. If there were a dispute and the matter went to a Tribunal, I would expect the tribunal to interpret the clause, if possible, in such a way as to avoid the outcome that there would be no one to organise and pay for necessary work on fire precautions as clearly your Directors are in a position to do so. Once work falls within the scope of Clause 4, then the expense automatically becomes chargeable to the service charge account, under Clause 1(i) of the Sixth Schedule. Under this lease, technically the ground landlord remains in legal possession of the common parts: sometimes one finds that this is subsequently modified by the ground landlord granting a separate lease of the common parts to the Management Company. I am presuming that this has not been done here. The Management Company is, however, given the right to enter the common parts to carry out its functions. I am assuming that at the moment the proposal to upgrade the fire alarm system is a recommendation, rather than a requirement having the force of law. I would advise that you check with your local fire authority what would happen if your Directors rejected this recommendation and also your insurance provider as I suspect in the worst case scenario an insurer may well reject a claim if there was a fire and people were unable to get out of the building safely due to there being no alarm warning? If the Management Company carried out the work, then I think that they would have the power to add the cost to the service charge. If it got to the point were a requirement was made that the system be upgraded, then one would need to check the relevant statutory basis for the requirement to see whether it affected the ground landlord or the Management Company: I would expect it to be directed towards the person with control of the common parts, which is likely to be the Directors of Management Company under the Fire Safety Regulatory Reform Order. In most cases and I know this to be the case in my own block the overarching intention of most long leases is that the ground landlord should not be under any financial liability towards the property, and that, if expenditure on the common parts is required, it will fall on the leaseholders as part of the service charge. This answer applies to a specific location and may not apply in all cases.

Fire Regulations Responsibility

Search

Articles Archive