HMOs & Converted Premises

HMOs and converted premises occupy a specific and demanding position in fire safety law. The risk profile — sleeping occupants in shared accommodation, frequently converted Victorian and Edwardian stock with compromised original compartmentation, unpredictable occupancy patterns, high turnover of residents unfamiliar with escape routes, and shared means of escape that serve multiple households — creates a combination of factors that a generic assessment methodology is poorly equipped to address.

Enforcing authorities — fire and rescue services and local housing authorities — give this sector particular attention. The statistics are not reassuring: fire fatalities in the private rented sector are disproportionately concentrated in HMOs and bedsit-type accommodation. An adequate fire risk assessment is not a bureaucratic requirement in this environment; it is the mechanism by which the occupants' ability to escape is evaluated and protected.

The Responsible Person — typically the landlord or managing agent — carries full legal accountability. An inadequate assessment, or an assessment that is not reviewed when the premises or occupancy changes, creates personal criminal liability. It also creates significant exposure under the Housing Act 2004 HHSRS framework, which operates in parallel and is enforced by the local housing authority independently of the fire and rescue service.

Every assessment is carried out personally by Brian Neat. Not sub-contracted, not delegated. The report you receive is based on direct observation of the specific premises on the day of the assessment — not a standard form completed from photographs sent in advance. Landlords and managing agents with HMOs in Hampshire are covered locally from Petersfield; portfolios elsewhere are assessed nationwide.

The standard HMO assessment is a Type 1 non-destructive inspection covering the common parts only — entrance hall, corridors, stairwells, landings, common rooms and the external envelope. The front doors of individual letting units mark the boundary of the standard assessment. Access beyond those doors is not normally available and is not required to discharge the Responsible Person's duty under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended) in relation to the common parts.

Where a Type 3 assessment is required — covering access to a sample of individual dwelling units, for example where the condition of compartmentation within units is uncertain and directly relevant to the risk in the common escape route — this can be discussed and scoped separately, subject to access being arranged with occupants.

Findings are proportionate to the actual risk identified. In sleeping risk premises, compartmentation deficiencies, fire door failures and detection inadequacies carry greater weight than they would in a daytime-occupancy commercial building — because the ASET (Available Safe Escape Time) is fundamentally compressed when occupants are asleep and unaware of a developing fire. That relationship between the finding and its consequence for occupants is made explicit in every relevant finding.

The action plan is prioritised and actionable. Items that require immediate attention are clearly distinguished from those that can be addressed on a planned basis. The Responsible Person receives a report they can act on — not one that lists every theoretical deficiency at the same priority level.

Brian Neat created and led Hampshire FRS's dedicated fire safety enforcement and prosecution team — one of the earliest in the country under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended). As a Group Manager and A31 signatory, he held the authority to issue enforcement and prohibition notices. He has assessed the same categories of premises from the enforcer's perspective, and understands the framework within which enforcement decisions are made.

That background is directly relevant to HMO clients. Landlords and managing agents who receive an enforcement notice from either the fire and rescue service or the local housing authority need an assessor who understands how that notice was generated, what a proportionate and compliant response looks like, and how to demonstrate to the enforcing authority that the risk has been addressed — not merely that action has been taken.

It is equally relevant to landlords who have not yet received a notice. An assessment produced with an understanding of the enforcement framework is an assessment that will withstand scrutiny if that scrutiny ever arrives. The value of getting it right is not abstract — it is the difference between a straightforward compliance position and a prosecution.