Health and safety snoops to enter family homes

[Gary L]

Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.
New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to “collect data� on properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury�.
Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.
The draft guidance by a committee at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has been criticised as intrusive and further evidence of the “creeping nanny state�.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6917328.ece

The council will probably be run off their feet having to bring everything up to safety standards.
private homes? that's not the councils responsibiity is it?

what will the parents be fined for if anything do you think? and I wonder if you have to keep quiet and only speak when you're spoken to when they come knocking?

[squealy]

Apart from the fact that this only appears to apply to "properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury”, it isn't even policy just draft guidance from a committee ie a suggestion.

[Jon T]

All social housing(council and housing association) is already covered by legistlation regarding health and safety.

Local authorities cover private homes with a team that has a name such as "Private Sector Housing", the staff of which are typically Environmental Health Officers. They already have to power to investigate and serve enforcement notices on anything that's deemed contrary to building regulations, health and safetly etc. This is most often used against private landlords, but there's nothing stopping in being used against owner occupiers.

Smoke alarms and stair gates etc, are not legally required to be there, so I can't see what legislation they'd use to enforce their installation.



........however, “greatest risk of unintentional injury” sounds to me like they mean properties that are inhabited by people that are know to social services and other such bodies.

BTW, who's gonna pay for this?

[Peter_]

This would be aimed at housing trusts who rent out property and would therefore be compelled to fit this safety equipment in the same way that they have to be installed in commercial premises.

I rather doubt that this would encompass dwellings that are privately owned.

It is more likely that the costs involved would far exceed the benefits and will in all likelihood be quietly shelved by the government.