FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stewbow on May 16, 2008, 09:24:16 AM
-
A Victorian building has a Ground Floor Flat, 1st Floor Flat and a Top Floor Flat. There is a main front door and a communal area.
At some point in time Georgian Wired Glass partitions have been installed on the staircase ( no Intumescent Strips )
There is no AFD or Emergency Lighting, No Fire Doors at the entrance to the flats and no upgraded floors between the flats.
The local council says that as they are all owner occupied, they do not come under the HMO or the RRO.
The guy in the top flat contacted me as he is concerned about the situation, now more than ever, because an escape route through to next door has just been seeled up.
Allthough there doesn't appear to be a way of forcing the other occupiers to have AFD installed, I would have thought that there could be legal implecations for owners of flats that cause injury to other occupiers, ( if a fire broke out in their flat ) by not having AFD installed.
any comments please?
-
The common areas are subject to the RRO. Whoever has control of the common areas is the Responsible person. That may be a committee of owners, a management company in which the owners are shareholders or some other arrangement.
But the order applies and someone is responsible for ensuring the fire safety of the common areas.
-
Absolute rubbish im afraid.
The common areas ARE encompassed into the RRO. Alot of these type of premises employ a managment agent to maintain the common areas and usually they would be deemed as the responsible person. If this is not the case and the common areas are under the control of all the occupants they would be responsible for the common areas.
Therefore the responsiblity does rely on the occupants to each other as 'relevent persons'.
Sounds like mr council needs some fire safety eductaion.
jay
-
Sorry Kurnal, you got in a few seconds before me.
-
A Victorian building has a Ground Floor Flat, 1st Floor Flat and a Top Floor Flat. There is a main front door and a communal area.
At some point in time Georgian Wired Glass partitions have been installed on the staircase ( no Intumescent Strips )
There is no AFD or Emergency Lighting, No Fire Doors at the entrance to the flats and no upgraded floors between the flats.
The local council says that as they are all owner occupied, they do not come under the HMO or the RRO.
The guy in the top flat contacted me as he is concerned about the situation, now more than ever, because an escape route through to next door has just been seeled up.
Allthough there doesn't appear to be a way of forcing the other occupiers to have AFD installed, I would have thought that there could be legal implecations for owners of flats that cause injury to other occupiers, ( if a fire broke out in their flat ) by not having AFD installed.
any comments please?
Where in the UK is the building?
-
The building is in Colwyn Bay
-
I've just forwarded yor comments to the local council, and there is little panic in the air, phone calls to the Fire Service are being made.
-
The Council have now agrred that it Does come underb the RRO Thank You
So in this type of situation, if 1 or more of the owner occupiers doesn't want to spend any money on installing AFD, who is there to weild the big stick??
-
The Responsible Person has the duty to comply. It may be the chairman of the management committee or the company secretary if they have set up a limited company to manage the common areas, or a managing agent if appointed. If someone wont play ball then leverage may be applied through lease agreements or the original deeds depending on how it was set up, thats really using civil means to enforce compliance by others.
The Fire Authority have the duty to enforce and may serve a notice if necessary on the Responsible person AND IN MY INTERPRETATION through articles 30 and 5 (3) on any other person in so far as the requirements relate to matters under his control .
-
Thank you for your replies. the council, after confirming with the Fire Service, agree entirley with the views posted here, and have appologised.
-
im glad they have seen the light =)
-
The Responsible Person has the duty to comply. It may be the chairman of the management committee or the company secretary if they have set up a limited company to manage the common areas, or a managing agent if appointed.
Just to don my anorak for a moment.
Kurnal the company secretary is not the responsible person. If there is a body corporate that body is the responsible person, not the company secretary.
The notice would be served on i.e given or posted to the Company Secretary but the notice should be made out to the Company. Many FRS are serving notices incorrectly.
-
I wish I had an anorak to match yours Phil. Mine is a bit scruffy and full of holes.
Thanks M'Lud
-
The Responsible Person has the duty to comply. It may be the chairman of the management committee or the company secretary if they have set up a limited company to manage the common areas, or a managing agent if appointed.
Just to don my anorak for a moment.
Kurnal the company secretary is not the responsible person. If there is a body corporate that body is the responsible person, not the company secretary.
The notice would be served on i.e given or posted to the Company Secretary but the notice should be made out to the Company. Many FRS are serving notices incorrectly.
Can you please explain this Phil.
How is the notice served on a company? Surely that would be like issuing a speeding fine to a company and not the driver directly.
Have I totally mis understood you?
Thanks
jay
-
Can you please explain this Phil.
How is the notice served on a company? Surely that would be like issuing a speeding fine to a company and not the driver directly.
Have I totally mis understood you?
Thanks
jay
The notice is made out to the company, on the notice, where it says name, you should put "XYZ Plc", the covering letter should be sent to the Company Secretary of XYZ PLC. So the notice is served on the secretary but the notice relates to the Company.
It is the body corporate that has failed to comply not the company secretary.
-
OK just to add extra spice to the arguement. Yes the body corporate is responsible but under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act the senior management of the company can be prosecuted if their activities cause a death due to a gross breach of the duty of care.
They missed with the left but the right snuck in again!
-
It is the same with a rgeistered partnership or any employer. The organisation that employs the people is subject to the Notice, not a named individual. A Company Secretary handles correspondence form people and deals with that on behalf of a Company. There is out there as well a company of Company Secretaries. Be careful with Tesco though, they may be a Plc but thye trade under different guises and therfore you have to pick the correct Company ie Tesco Stores ro tesco Finance. These are regulatory Financial ideals that FRS have to get around and ensure thhey issue the Notice correctly.
-
OK just to add extra spice to the arguement. Yes the body corporate is responsible but under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act the senior management of the company can be prosecuted if their activities cause a death due to a gross breach of the duty of care.
They missed with the left but the right snuck in again!
You can prosecute the individual using the Order if that is the appropraite course of action 32(8) for senior manager or 32(10) for other individuals.
Sorry for hijacking your post Stewbow.
-
Im sorry Phil I still do not understand where you are coming from.
A notice is surely served on the responsible person as somebody has to be culpable. Ultimately this would be a person with ultimate financial control over a premises.
Surely is why we have access to companies house records in order to indentify that person.
If you wanted to prosecute under the RRO, where potentially somebody could serve a custodial sentence, this prosecution has to be personified.
Am I missing your point?
Jay
-
Im sorry Phil I still do not understand where you are coming from.
A notice is surely served on the responsible person as somebody has to be culpable. Ultimately this would be a person with ultimate financial control over a premises.
Surely is why we have access to companies house records in order to indentify that person.
If you wanted to prosecute under the RRO, where potentially somebody could serve a custodial sentence, this prosecution has to be personified.
Am I missing your point?
Jay
No the responsible person is "the body corporate" i.e. the company. You would take the company to Court. If you felt that the company's failings were the result of the failings on a particular individual, that person, as well as the company could be prosecuted and the individual could receive a custodial sentence.
But, the responsible person, as defined in article 3 is the employer, the employer is the body corporate, not the company secretary.
-
I think you are saying the same thing as me, the only difference is we will personify the resposible person or body.
I fully agree that notice will not be served on the company secretary. However there is ALWAYS somebody responsible.
-
I think you are saying the same thing as me, the only difference is we will personify the resposible person or body.
I fully agree that notice will not be served on the company secretary. However there is ALWAYS somebody responsible.
No sorry FSO I'm not saying the same as you, there is no need to personify anyone, the company can be served with a notice, the company can be prosecuted. Perhaps we should start a new thread on this.
-
Thats not the definition of the responsible person though, to where a notice would be served.
-
Thats not the definition of the responsible person though, to where a notice would be served.
The company secretary is not a responsible person.
If it is a limited company all notices and enforcement action will be taken against "bodies corporate"
The correspondance relating to bodies corporate is ADDRESSED to the company secretary so that it lands on his or her desk - but it wouldn't necessarily be the company secretary in the dock if something went to court.
The Company Secretary ensures that an organisation complies with relevant legislation and regulation, and keeps board members informed of their legal responsibilities.
Company Secretaries are the company’s named representative on legal documents, and it is their responsibility to ensure that the company and its directors operate within the law.
-
Spot on Retty
-
Thats not the definition of the responsible person though, to where a notice would be served.
The company secretary is not a responsible person.
If it is a limited company all notices and enforcement action will be taken against "bodies corporate"
The correspondance relating to bodies corporate is ADDRESSED to the company secretary so that it lands on his or her desk - but it wouldn't necessarily be the company secretary in the dock if something went to court.
The Company Secretary ensures that an organisation complies with relevant legislation and regulation, and keeps board members informed of their legal responsibilities.
Company Secretaries are the company’s named representative on legal documents, and it is their responsibility to ensure that the company and its directors operate within the law.
Yes I totally agree, however you cannot take a piece of paper to court!
-
Of course you can
-
I do it all the time