staircase bannister, building regulations rental property

[PongoBertie]

HI everyone. Our staircase had no balustrade leading down to a drop down into the hallway. My other half crafted one when we had kids to prevent falls. Now we want to rent the house and I said we should remove it because I doubt it's up to building standards. He thinks we should leave it. It has been fine for us and is very sturdy, if ugly. But I still think it should go and put the house back to how it was originally. What do you think?

 

[johnny2007]

Unfortunately you can't rent the house with that balauster or you'll be at risk of being sued if there's an accident.
The rule is that you must have a balauster if drops are over 600mm (for single family property).
Balauster must be 900mm high at least and a 100mm sphere must not pass through any gap.
So your one is almost good, apart from the gaps.
You could simply screw plywood to that existing frame and paint it white.
Or add a couple of horizontal (angled really) pieces of wood to close the gaps.
If you remove it, you will need to build another one which complies with the regulations.

 

[PongoBertie]

Thank you for your reply. So you think that this bannister could be salvaged with more horizontal (angled) slats that follow the full length of the stairs to close the gaps.
I was also worried that there is no big square post at the bottom of the stairs drilled into the floor.
Lastly are horizontal slats still OK rather than vertical spindles?

 

[johnny2007]

Yes, horizontal are ok, as long as any gap is smaller than 100mm up to 900mm height.
The string is secured to the floor, so no need for a newel post.
Just add some timber to it and paint it.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Unfortunately you can't rent the house with that balauster or you'll be at risk of being sued if there's an accident.
The rule is that you must have a balauster if drops are over 600mm (for single family property).
Balauster must be 900mm high at least and a 100mm sphere must not pass through any gap.

Incorrect, the house can be rented with a handrail that is no less compliant than the one that was first fitted to the house. You're quoting Building Regs for new staircase which do not apply here. Unless the house is to be rented as an HMO in which case the rules set by your local authority for HMO's should be observed as they may go further than 'no less compliant than the one that was first fitted to the house'.

@PongoBertie Anyway that said it would be wise and the decent thing to do to make the handrail as safe as is reasonable and adding some plywood infill panels as mentioned would seem to fit the bill, ensure the handrail is also not climbable, eg avoid horizontal strips with gaps creating a kind of ladder for kids.

 

[noseall]

Incorrect, the house can be rented with a handrail that is no less compliant than the one that was first fitted to the house.

..except when a child dies from a broken neck as a direct result of a non-compliant staircase.

 

[PongoBertie]

Thanks for your replies. The house is ex-housing association and the staircase was fully open when built in the 70s.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

..except when a child dies from a broken neck as a direct result of a non-compliant staircase.

I think case law would prove otherwise.

 

[noseall]

The house is ex-housing association and the staircase was fully open when built in the 70s.

You know yourself that you need to make that staircase safe, particularly if you rent it out to a young family.

 

[SimonH2]

My approach to legal compliance is along the lines of ...
Some people will look for any opportunity to "make a quick buck" - and as a landlord, having anything not up to current standards gives the unscrupulous something to try and use to my cost and their gain. So for example I had RCDs on every circuit (actually RCBOs) before they effectively became required, and both our properties go beyond the minimum requirements for smoke and CO alarms. It doesn't stop people being a nuisance, but it certainly makes it a lot harder. Apart from that, I work on the basis that keeping the property up to date and in good condition helps get better, happier, tenants - and happy tenants tend to stay longer which reduces the costs of finding new ones.
So personally, whether legal or not, I'd be upgrading to something fully compliant with current building regs, just to cover my backside in case I come up against such a toerag. We did once have a toerag of a tenant. They scammed a significant amount off the neighbour (or rather, the neighbour's insurance) with what was obviously a fabricated claim - the damage claimed could not have been done by the neighbour without altering the laws of physics that make solid walls impervious to cars (think twin-leaf party wall separating the parking bays, and how one car can damage the other with that wall in between.) After the tenant had left, I found a letter while cleaning up showing that they'd tried to scam off the local council by claiming damage from a bin lorry at their previous address.

 

[johnny2007]

Incorrect, the house can be rented with a handrail that is no less compliant than the one that was first fitted to the house

Then when the landlord gets sued for an accident because of the "as built" balauster, they'll need to sell the property to compensate the injured (or dead) tenant.
And don't mention landlord insurance, they'll be all over the regulations and h&s rules to avoid paying out.
I used to maintain properties for landlords and appeared a few times in court as witness.
Tenants like to sue landlords and insurance companies wash their hands off as soon as there's a little dodgy thing in the property.
Remember, it is a duty of every landlord not only to comply with regulations, but also to make sure the property is safe and in good state of repair.
The fact that the op is asking about that balauster, indicates that they know it could pose a risk.
For the cost of some timber and some paint, I wouldn't risk.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Rubbish, more Jonny baloney.