Office based in a wing of a historic house

[kurnal]

Colin

I refer to articles 3(a) and 3(b)(i). And for the avoidance of doubt I also refer to the Guidance Note No 1.
As I interpret paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and  38 of thr RR(FS)O 2005- guidance note No 1 the old chap is a responsible person. And so is the head teacher who in this case is the employer.

In accordance with paragraph 36, the premises are a workplace but are not under the employers control. As the old chap rents part of the building to the school but retains responsibility for maintenance he retains control and is therefore a responsible person.

Or have I missed something?

[colin todd]

Yes you have. It is to any extent under their control. The employer clearly has control to some extent and therefore as it is a workplace they are the RP. The old geezer is not the RP but another person having control of the premises.

[kurnal]

The critical words in 3(a) being "to any extent".  (though these are not repeated in the guidance)

So for example if an employer has the teeniest element of control by leasing this tiny room in this rambling stately home he is the responsible person but the person who rents him the room and who keeps possession of the rest of the building and the common areas and toilet which the employer and his staff will use- he is not a responsible person but just a person who has control?

This appears to disagree with para 35  and 36 in the guidance note No 1 -  36 says that if the premises (aah!!) are not a workplace, or are a workplace but not under the employers control the rp is detrmined by whether the person who has control over the premises does so in connection with the carrying on of a trade, business or undertaking(whether or not for profit). If so article 3 (b) (i) provides that the person with control is the responsible person.

Well Colin it appears to me that the old geezer has control of the majority of the building and the common areas and  isnt renting out rooms for the sake of his health- any agreement to rent must surely be a business undertaking???

Is the Law an ass? Or is it me? Or maybe both.  Wheres Phil B when I need him???

[colin todd]

Surely the school is a workplace.

[Tom Sutton]

Colin check posting #15 Kurnal has already said that.

My understanding is, an Employer; a Person who has control, or the Owner any one could be the RP or all three it all depends on who has control. In this case the old geezer as you put it, is the owner and appears to have control, the employers (board of Governors if there is one) do not have any control and the Head Teacher doesn’t have control so shirley the old geezer is the RP.

[colin todd]

This is a common misunderstanding. Its a pyramid. Once you find a level you dont need to go further down. Persons other than the employer only come into the frame as the RP if the premises are not a workplace. They may however come into the frame as the PHC.

[nearlythere]

This is a common misunderstanding. Its a pyramid. Once you find a level you dont need to go further down. Persons other than the employer only come into the frame as the RP if the premises are not a workplace. They may however come into the frame as the PHC.

When you say workplace employer do you also include a manager?  And if so, in addition to or instead of the actual employer?

[David Rooney]

Well this is a good example of how clear the FSO and all the guides are when the top people in the land can't even agree who's responsible for what....

No wonder the Barristers laugh their wigs off all the way to their off shore accounts.......

[kurnal]

Colin
I still have a problem with this concept - I cannot see why you are reluctant to recognise persons other than employers as responsible persons.

Please go back to the situation described in the first post in this thread- the recluse who lets out an office in his stately home to help make ends meet. He agrees that the tenant may use common areas to access the office and kitchen and toliet facilities but the tenant rents only the office. The tenant is an employer and so without any doubt a responsible person under the FSO.

If I read you correctly you are saying that the recluse is not a responsible person under the Fire Safety Order. He is simply a Person Having Control (PHC). You are reading Article 3 (a) - "to any extent under his control" literally as meaning because the employer has responsibility for a little part of the premises he is THE responsible person for the whole shooting match whilst other persons may have some control.  But para 36 of guidance note no 1 reads differently.  It provides for the employer not having control over all parts of the workplace and where this is the case, paragraphs 37 and 38 go on to explain that other people, for example agents or owners are the responsible person.

If we follow your line, I think it leads to difficulties in respect of Article 29.

Lets now assume that times get harder and our recluse lets out more rooms in the stately home to other employers. We now have many employers and all will be Responsible Persons.  But if you are right  our recluse, who retains control over lettings, new lettings and common areas is still only a PHC.

The Fire Authority start to get a little concerned that the  business use is growing like topsy and look to their options for control. They decide to issue an Alterations Notice in accordance with Article 29. But an alterations notice can ONLY be served on the responsible person (article 29(1) makes no mention of PHC even though this seems to be contradicted by  para 130 of guidance note No 1)   If the Recluse is only a PHC they cannot serve an alterations notice upon him, and can only instead serve it on one or all of the responsible persons- but the responsible persons who are employers cannot control how many rooms are let or the purpose for which they are let.

I agree that employers are ALWAYS responsible persons. But I still feel that other persons having control can also be responsible persons and that having identified an employer in the building we do not have to stop there.

[colin todd]

His flat is a private dwelling. When he leaves it, as I understand your description, he is entering a workplace.

[kurnal]

Yes, and the only person who has control over these parts of the workplace is the owner. My only point is that the owner is the responsible person of the common areas and it is appropriate to use the term responsible person rather than PHC. I disagree that we should stop at the employer -  unless that employer has control over the entire workplace.

In Multi occs a pyramid is appropriate.  Any thoughts on article 29?

[AnthonyB]

The domestic flat for the landlord is confusing the issue it seems.

The old geezer, being the landlord and in control of the fire alarm system, has a responsibility and could be given a notice for failure to co-operate and coordinate fire safety matters in the premises as well as the inadequate fire warning system. In theory the school could also be issued a notice for the fire warning being inadequate, but they do not have control as the landlord must presumably sanction/license works even if the school wanted to put a new system in off it's own back.

Notices have been served on landlords as 'persons with control' despite not employing anyone on the premises for fire alarm, cop & coord and MoE issues in multiple tenancy & single tenancy sites we've been brought into help with. The fact it may not be economically viable to comply and no cheaper alternative solutions can be used doesn't matter the enforcing body - they are only bothered about suitable minimum provisions. When running a business or investing in property you sometimes win some, you sometimes loose some, that's life.

What about a simple conventional twin wire? Or would even the costs of that be too much?

I could utter the blasphemy of a Part 6 system incorporating control point and manual break glasses as well as smoke alarms - at least then you get the back up power & AFD where required and even though the cable might not be FP it would be equal to the existing which may not be FR anyway if it's any old enough system - an affordable risk based solution?

[Tom Sutton]

This is a common misunderstanding. Its a pyramid. Once you find a level you dont need to go further down. Persons other than the employer only come into the frame as the RP if the premises are not a workplace. They may however come into the frame as the PHC.

Thanks, I now have a better understanding having looked at article 3 more closely and it is reasonably clear, 3(a) in my opinion, in a workplace the employer will always be the RP because the employer will always, to some extent have control. 3 (b) If it is not a workplace then a PHC or the owner is the RP.

Then I look at Guidance Note No 1 and I am back to square one. Take paragraph 36 states “a workplace but not under the employer’s control” but the order say’s “if the workplace is to any extent under his control” and as an employer will always have managerial control for instance, has the power to conduct a FRA or a fire Drill then has some control. Also any other persons having control can be culpable and have duties imposed upon them by virtue of Article 5 but they are not RP’s, maybe duty holder would be a better definition.

Is there any chance of getting a place at the home for the extremely bewildered?

[colin todd]

You will find that the Order and guidance tries to cater for situations that in practice are likely to exist but needed loopholes closed just in case they ever did. A classic example is the owner as RP. The ODPM more or less admitted that they could not ever envisage a real situation in which the premises were not a workplace AND no one had control so that under the Order the RP would then be the owner. But the lawyers felt it was needed as a just in case. Now people write tosh about how the owner is RP because they do not read the Article correctly.

[kurnal]

Colin
Please help me to understand the mystery of the RP.
I have always tried to understand my subject and "Because I say so"  or "Because the ODPM more or less admitted " does not help me to understand the underlying logic. And I know I am not alone and that many of those who try to look wise and all knowing but stay silent dont understand either.  I believe there is huge benefit in ensuring that people know the reason for a rule rather than seeking blind obedience with it.
 
Are paragraphs 36,37,and 38 in Guidance Note No 1 wrong? They appear to clarify article 3 but as they use different language they change the literal meaning significantly. If the Guidance note is wrong in this is it also wrong where it "clarifies" article 29?

The only possible explanation that I can see would be that the term Responsible Person has been coined in an attempt to draw a demarcation between National and European influences to the fire Safety Order. If the term Responsible Person is only to be used in those elemnts of the Order intended to implement the European Workplace Directive - ie applying only to Employers- why cant they say so? It still leaves the issue over aticle 29 though. 


This situation must arise in many multi occupied premises - for example parts of privately owned stately homes open to the Public, former Mills subdivided into business units owned by a private landlord, places like antiques centres where the owner of the building sells space to tenants. I cannot see what is wrong- or any disadvantage-  with the concept of the owner being a "responsible person"  rather than a "person having control".