UKH

I saw this, where people we told to evacuated their flats at an hour's notice due to a fire risk

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-10-09/shock-as-residents-told-to-evac...

Under what power is this enforced? 

I don't know but it's a complete arse covering over reaction. You can't disrupt people's lives like this. Fire watchers would be more proportionate.

In the UK it generally isn't, it's just very strong advice usually worth taking as you have a reasonable chance of dying if you don't.  In stuff like floods, there is usually someone who stays.

Though in this case it appears they are going to apply for some sort of injunction, but based on the dates noted it appears that was going to take about 10 days.

Gosh. It looks like a prison! 

Usually "The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005"

While residents will have been given an hour, this is more likely have been on the property owners desk for months if not years. The article states "independent fire safety advisors" own investigation the building never met building regs, these can take months and weeks to conduct.

As for the comment below, arse covering possibly, but isnt that what all enforcement action is? Otherwise we'd do what ever we liked and if someone dies, someone dies.

A waking watch may have been in place, but if they haven't complied with building regulation, why would they comply with organising a waking watch (usually minimum pay, and asleep in a security office somewhere, has no understanding of building services etc, 99% they're useless to oncoming crews) 

If this place went up like Grenfell, and brigades knew about it the public would be out for blood. Who in their right mind would take that lightly. 

Interesting, thanks. Also interesting it doesn't seem to apply to single domestic premises. Quite a big implication for living in a flat that you can be abruptly ordered out 

There are a million reasons why leasehold flats provide very poor security of tenure - this isn't by any means the most likely one!

It doesn't seem the regulation was going to take force for ten days, anyway, not an hour.

Maybe if the powers that be enforced these things more, then there would be less evasion and more understanding of responsibilities. I am thinking of Grenfell in particular. 

True - I was more idly wondering

Other reports have the 1 hour thing - apparently on a Friday evening.

It reads to me like it was a bit like the imposition of COVID restrictions - "we want you to do this now, but the legal basis for it will be along in a few days, but please do it now anyway because there is danger to life".

First and foremost 

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 section 7

7Fire-fighting

(1)A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—

(a)extinguishing fires in its area, and

(b)protecting life and property in the event of fires in its area

And then section 5a

5A

Powers of certain fire and rescue authorities

(1)A relevant fire and rescue authority may do—

(a)anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of its functions (its “functional purposes”),

(b)anything it considers appropriate for purposes incidental to its functional purposes,

(c)anything it considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to its functional purposes through any number of removes,

(d)anything it considers to be connected with—

(i)any of its functions, or

(ii)anything it may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and

(e)for a commercial purpose anything which it may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose

By order of the Mancy Firefighters. 

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to non-domestic buildings 

That building, the way it's designed, built, approved, owned and leased, and what it must be like to live in, sums up all the ills of new housing provision in the UK.

That's incredibly broad!

Yep. 

But fire / RTCs etc are incredibly dynamic situation - and when they start to go tits up the go very quickly and in very big way. 

It wouldn't be possible to draft descriptive legislation 

They do raise an interesting, and rather worrying, point though. It looks like the original developer built it outside its actual specification and also outside building control standards. The building was then signed off by building control, even though it should not have. The freehold was then purchased by another company, and people bought leaseholds. There doesn’t appear to be any action against either the original developers that effectively defrauded their customers, nor whoever signed it off.

What’s the point of even having building standard sign offs if they can’t be trusted to have done their job?