Collateral Warranty

[LFCDA]

Hi,
I need some advice and wonder if any of the experienced guys on this forum can help me.
I have been working with a housing association carrying out what we now appear to call ‘Type 1’ FRA’s (thanks Mr Todd) but the association have 'up'ed the anti' and now ask that the assessments on a sample of properties should include the internal inspection of the flats (type 3)
No problem there, and no surprise either given the conclusions of a recent fatal fire in Camberwell but….. they want the inspections to form part of a legal requirement known as a ‘Collateral Warranty’.
Has anybody any experience of this legal term in relation to Fire Risk Assessments?

[AnthonyB]

Some background: http://www.hklegal.co.uk/2012/05/04/understanding-collateral-warranties/

[kurnal]

Interesting reading. Whilst the collateral warranty appears to be intended to create a contractual relationship where otherwise one might not exist, if I understand LFCDA correctly, in the case of a fire risk assessor working on behalf of a responsible person there would appear to be a clear contractual relationship in place.

I therefore assume the intention of collateral warranty in this case (type 3 assessment) is to create a relationship between the relevant person who occupies the flat and the risk assessor. Is this correct and if this were a tenant would the warranty need to be transferred on change of tenancy?

Has anyone any experience of these and whether PI insurance would or can cover the additional contractual liability that would arise?

[colin todd]

They are common and well known to PI insurers. Thanks for the thanks LFCDA, but no need to thank me, you paid me from your taxes.

[LFCDA]

Thanks Anthony for the link, I may be talking to these guys, they seem to have a better understanding of the pit falls than my PI insurers.

Kurnal, you are absolutely correct in terms of this warranty producing a contract when none existed before but I’m not sure the contractual obligation would be between the assessor and the tenant.
The Type 3 assessment might be a red herring in this and the collateral warranty is designed to introduce the Fire Risk Assessor into the contractual relationship between the original architect and the developers from whom the housing association acquired the building.  The Fire Risk Assessor acting for the housing association who then potentially identifies latent defects with the building, now becomes embroiled in the design & build indemnity by way of a third party collateral relationship to act as a ‘condition surveyor’ in all but name to the housing association or owner of the building.

If, as suggested in the link above provided by ‘AnthonyB’ the collateral warranty states that the original contractors design must be “fit for the purposes expressed in any specification or performance requirement” and the Fire Risk Assessor in his report opines that it is not – does the Assessor leave himself open to legal action from the original design & build team? and if so, should we all be doubling our unit prices for these fire condition surveys/assessments?