Reg Reform Order clarification please

[colin todd]

Then you must be wrong .

[fred]

I'd appreciate some thoughts on another anomaly with the RRO i.e. the definition of "premises".  The entombment of the FPA next April will also take with it the FPA definition of premises - "building or part of a building".  I guess the FPA Circular guidance and defintion on "buildings" i.e. "vertical imperforate separation" will also be buried.

The RRO definition of "premises" is a "place" or a "workplace" etc etc.  I've got this sinking feeling that occupiers of a multi-occ building could argue that they each occupy a "premises"

If the occupiers of an existing multi-occ building (especially one with no common areas) undertake their risk assessments and take it upon themselves to deal with fire safety measures (in their own occupancy) in isolation from the other occupants of the building, then the building could finish up with several un-linked fire alarm systems.

Am I missing something - or is Article (pig in the sky) 22 Co-operation and Co-ordination the supposed solution?

[pd]

You are right abot the FP Act definition going out and you are also right about the potential for building owners to leave it to the occupiers, (esp. if they are employers).

However, each employer will have to ensure that their 'relevant persons' can not only escape safely from their particular unit but to a place of ultimate safety. Therefore an employer on the 5th floor must ensure that once out of the his/her unit the relevant people are safe all the way down to the ground.

In practical terms this may appear to be overly onerous but the definition of responsible person also includes 'any person who has control of the premises' and finally, 'the owner, where the person in control does not have control...'

It would be a very hard case for an owner/managing agent to argue in Court that they had no responsibility for common areas. or in the example you mention, common systems if those areas or systems impact on safety of others.

[colin todd]

This is not specially different from the situation under the WFPL.

[AnthonyB]

Our main clientbase is owners agents and FRAs are carried out on areas under the landlord's control (common areas and plant) regardless of whether they have caretaker/building manager on site. We also look at systems across the building if a landlord's master. We also visit the tenants for "cooperation & coordination" which in reality is a pile of advice notes and "persuasion" to get their act together as theyare the source of most risks & contraventions.
We do all this based on our interpretation of the Workplace regs & anticipate this continuing under the RRO unless it drops the coordination & person in control bits