Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a friend who rents the upstairs flat in a converted Victorian terrace. The downstairs flat is occupied by its owner. The upstairs flat is owned by friend's landlord. One day the downstairs person decided to bring his two bikes out from the cold and keep them in the communal hallway. Problem being it's not the widest of hallways so you have to squeeze past if you have any shopping to carry and frequently end up with ripped bags, caught clothing, bruises etc. When my friend asked the guy if he could store the bikes in his garden instead, being so much in the way, he refused, and with regard to being a safety hazard in the event of a fire, he said his fire service mate had said they posed no risk. Can this be right? Is he bluffing? Anyone got any experience dealing with this kind of thing?

LOL nette.....


As the upstairs flat is rented and the hallway is communal it WOULD come under fire safety legislation as designated under the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Safety Order) 2005.


Landlords are required to satisfy a whole range of requirements which includes any passageway that may constitute a means of escape.


Here is a link to the document the fire service uses. It clearly states that stairways and hallways that are means of escape should be kept clear of obstruction.


LACORS fire safety


Paragraph 32.4 couldn't be clearer I think and it a legal requirement of your landlord to ensure this is the case.


Give a copy to your neighbour and get your own fire safety inspection done if he won't move the bicycles. Hope that helps.

The fact that ordinary homes don't have fire exits doesn't mean that ordinary exits shouldn't work as exits when there's a fire, and landlords have a duty to keep common areas that act as exits, even if they're not fire exits, clear. That applies even when the landlord can claim to be 'resident', the tenancy isn't assured, the home isn't either a purpose-built flat or a house of multiple occupation and the lousy council can't even be bothered to run a register or organize routine inspections (it's not, admittedly, a legal requirement. Not outside most civilised countries, at any rate).


Where the landlord is right is in that bicycles are not a particular risk in a fire - the tyres aren't likely to burst explosively, and most bicycles don't burn very well. But we're not talking obout the risk they pose in a fire, it's the risk they pose in a fire exit. I am sure the landlord won't have consciously worded the question so weaselishly, but that sort of occupational habit becomes quickly ingrained.


The problem is what to do about it. The first bit, complaining to the landlord, has been done. In the old days, you would next complain to the environmental health department who would send a letter to the landlord requesting an appointment, at his or her convenience if it wasn't too much trouble, and when they hadn't got a reply then, with the full force of the law behind them, would forget the whole thing safe in the knowledge that, in the meantime, the landlord would serve a notice to quit, pocket the deposit and stick the rent up in time for their next victim. That happened to me twice.


Environmental health aren't even that useful now. And housing offices have their own death traps to sort out. The fire brigade might helped once, but they're now targeting 'vulnerable' people, and aren't likely to see view lives of ordinary tenants as a particularly high priority.


The best I can find is a reference to a 'private tenancies team' on the council's website. They claim to offer advice, though it's not clear if that's just for people in private tenancies obtained through the council, or for those suffering with their own money, too. I doubt their advice will be very helpful, unless the tenants haven't already thought of moving house, but it's probably worth trying. They're coy and confusing about contact details, but they're supposedly on 020 7525 4113.

Ah so, lots of food for thought here. I like your thinking, folks ;-)


DJQ, thanks for that link. These points are particularly apt, and may put my friend in a stronger position than he realised:


32.4 Escape routes:

must be free from obstruction at all times, and

regular checks should be made to guarantee this;

there should be no free storage on the escape

routes;

there should be no trip hazards such as trailing

electrical leads or worn carpets; (which might apply to bicycle wheels and pedals particularly as the bikes are just propped against the wall)


Burbage: Thanks for your points, however, in this case the issue isn't with my friend's landlord who owns the upstairs flat, it's with the owner-occupier of the downstairs flat. He really seems to resent having anyone living above him and has at times made life there quite unpleasant. My friend's landlord is OK, but a bit hands-off, so if it can be resolved this without getting him involved, it might be easier all round.

We had this problem for a while in our hallway, and it was solved by using one of these wall mounted bike racks to lift one bike up whilst the other rested on the ground underneath. Cost about ?15. If one of these could be installed, then you'd have one bike up on the wall and one on the ground which should give you enough space to get past. Might be the easiest solution.

Can't he be persuaded to buy a bike rack and hang them off the wall/ceiling? That removes them from being an obstruction in the hallway and you're all friends again?


ETA: ah Twirly beat me to it. There are ones that suspend off the ceiling too, if there's sufficient height; which clears up all the floor space and stops you banging into things.

Check out the legal situation first, and have some evidence that he's in the wrong. Present him with the bike rack solution, and if he prevaricates, then tell him that if he's not willing to do this, then you will have to take it further. If he still objects, then show him printouts from wherever that shows that the exit should be clear. If all else fails, get your landlord involved/check it out with the CAB. Good luck!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...