FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Northern Uproar on March 14, 2011, 11:28:59 AM
-
Gents,
If you have a three storey office block, protected stairs etc, the risk assessment will identify that evacuation aids may be required if there are disabled persons on the upper floors. Therefore the RP provides suitable evac chairs etc.
If that building is multi-occ, with individual offices as a separate business, and access via landlord controlled corridors and staircases, where does the responsibilty lie for the provision of evac aids? Is it the landlord that is required to provide adequate evac chairs for his area (I am assuming so) and is it up to them to provide adequate staff to use them (this is what I'm more unsure about). Can the landlord provide/maintain adequate refuges/aids and share the repsonsibilty for using them in a fire with the other RP's of the offices (who's staff would be the ones identified as needing assistance)? The CLG guide is not that helpfull.
Thanks
-
In simple terms the individual occupiers should do their own fire risk assessments, and so should the landlord.
Under Article 22 of the RR(FS)O 2005 the occupiers and landlord have a duty to then co-operate and co-ordinate with each other over the findings of their individual assessments.
If all occupiers have identified a need for evacuation aids, it seems sensible they all club together and purchase the necessary equipment between them, with an agreement that all occupiers have access to the aids at all times. They should also ensure sufficient members of staff are trained to operate that equipment.
If however only one of the occupiers identifies a need for evac aid(s) then it is reasonable that the occupier provides the evacuation aid (including sufficiently trained staff).
Whether the landlord has a duty to provide evacuation aids is complex. Generally speaking I would suggest that it is not the landlords responsibility. There are always exceptions, but evacuation aids, unlike a fire alarm system for instance, may not be required for the benefit of all occupiers, so therefore is not a "communal" measure.
It is sensible sometimes to try to get the landlord to take resonsibility for that type equipment, because it can prevent squabbles between occupiers causing problems over the use or access of the equipment!
The lindividual occupiers I would suggest however would be responsible for ensuring they have suffieintly trained staff to assit colleagues whom need assisted evacuation.
-
Not the landlord's problem, the tenant is introducing the employee or visitor, it's their problem to make determine the arrangements required and if the facilities are suitable, not the landlord, who will in most buildings have no one on site anyway to deal with this issue.
More often than not we will remove evacuation aids in common areas not provided by a tenant as there is no landlord staff to use them, it's not their responsibility anyway and they are a liability issue as there is no way of ensuring trained people will use them and they also require maintenance.
We will always actively try and bat disabled evac off the landlord's agent particularly in existing builds as it is a nightmare subject. New builds are slightly different as these have common features such as refuges and communications equipment, but even then a lot of onus is on the tenants.
Also a lot of the time the wrong type of aid is bought- in order to save a few quid it's not uncommon to see ambulance service carrying chairs provided instead of proper evac chairs - the former are very unstable, require at least two well trained & physically capable operators, are slower to move and require lifting.
Some unscrupulous suppliers also sell these chairs as 'evacuation chairs' with no mention of the differences in operation, staffing and physical capacity.
-
My view: both landlords & tenants have the legal responsibility under article 32 to 'co-operate & co-ordinate' as regards identifying & implementing the necessary fire safety measures, so if they comply with that Regulation the decision as to what needs to be provided should be quite straightforward to make. If either party refuses to cooperate & co-ordinate then the other can remind them of their legal obligation & if they get no joy then they always have the option of getting the Regulators involved.
As regards who pays for any kit that’s required & who maintains it - that's a matter that should be covered by the terms of the lease & as a Fire Engineer I always steer clear of providing advice on property law!
-
What's in the lease would be my first question. Often the landlord (in newer builds) would take responsibility for the maintenance of disabled refuges & the respective communication system.
Whilst i agree that the landlord has a duty to co-operate/co-ordinate, the extent of this would be the issue. For example, as i landlord the extent of my involvement may be that i agree to the tenant having evac aids in my building, doesn't mean i have to provide them.
The landlord may be willing to provide and maintain the equipment at a cost and profit (no doubt).
Responsiblity for training would fall on employers as it does for extinguishers. As Anthony points out, the tenant is introducing an employee in that environment as such the arrangements are up to them. A PEEP should be carried out.
-
I’m really not sure that it is legitimate to leave this all down to the tenant to sort out; it’s routine for landlords to furnish buildings with facilities for the disabled (toilets, ramps etc) whether they know there are going to be disabled occupants or not, so why should the provision of a safe means of escape for those occupants be any different?
-
Thanks for the comments - some differences of opinion.
In respect of Article 22, the need for evacuation aids etc would come as a result of a PEEPs, which in turn should have been identified as part of a risk assessment. If landlord, as part of the his risk assessment relating to the areas under his control, did not employ any persons especially at risk, and was not open to the public, he could conclude that he would not require any additional measures for them. So therefore, any MIP's would be introduced as a result of the tennants. I would assume that it would be up to the tennant, under Article 22, to inform the Landlord of any indentified MOE issues -if none of the RP's informed the landlord that there were MIP's in their premises, and no evac chairs etc were provided in common areas, would the Landlord have failed in his duties if he wasn't informed?
-
The workplace extends to the common areas including the staircases (check out definition of workplace) so the employer (RP) duties include the common areas, I think its up to who has control, back to the tenancy agreement.
-
if none of the RP's informed the landlord that there were MIP's in their premises, and no evac chairs etc were provided in common areas, would the Landlord have failed in his duties if he wasn't informed?
Simple answer is no. It would be the responsibility of the tenant (who employed a MiP) to provide the evacuation equipment complete with trained staff to use it.
That evac aid need not be kept in communal areas, it may be quite acceptable for it to be kept in the tenant's occupany.As soon as you place that equipment in a communal area, you are inviting its use by anyone and everyone.
If the tenant did locate it in the communal areas, but didn't inform the landlord as to why it is there, and one day the landlord took it out because he did not understand its relevance, then the tenant would still be potentially at fault.
Article 22 is designed to get people communicating with one another
-
And communicating doesn't happen enough in multi-occ's another reason why we always visit tenants when doing FRA's as many things come to light you'd never know about if you just walked the common parts.
-
I’d have to say that the concept that the disabled or mobility – impaired are “allowed” into a building is somewhat outdated. Is it not the case that if a building (or part of a building) is accessible to people with disabilities then the relevant landlord must assume that such persons will be in that building & must control the fire precautions in the common parts accordingly? It’s not up to the tenants to highlight that they actually have disabled or mobility-impaired people in their parts of the premises (though it might be up to them to physically manage the evacuation of those persons).
As I said, it’s like disabled loos – landlords don’t wait to be told that their tenants have disabled occupants before they put them in – they do it anyway. I’d hazard a guess that if the unfortunate event ever happened where a disabled person were trapped by a fire and through a lack of precautions in the common parts they could not be safely evacuated, I don’t think that the landlord could get away with it by just saying that no-one told them they were there. Just my opinion...
-
Is it a case that if the disabled person is in the common area when an alarm sounds it is the landlords problem or is it the tenant's to whos occupancy the person was or will be visiting?
If I as a unit occupier purchased expensive evacuation equipment would I be wise to place it in a common area when:-
a, it is not for general building use,
b, it is too expensive to leave lying around for anyone to nick,
c, people who don't use my occupancy are not my responsibility,
This is where the co operation and co ordination bit comes in and why lawyers drive big flashy cars.
-
If the person is your employee, they are your responsibility.
-
If the person is your employee, they are your responsibility.
Correct, for your employees but would you put the gear in the landing? What if your occupancy is a shop?
-
Do you expect the landlord to employ a team of staff to be on standby for the one day a year a disabled person may enter the building just in case of fire?
The disabled toilets etc are there because of Building Regulations. On new builds the refuges and communications system is there because of Building Regulations. Correctly as common the landlord will maintain these.
But beyond that any further provision is not feasible for the landlord to implement - they don't have the budget, staffing or control to do so and it's not realistic to do so (if it was it would be in B Regs) beyond helping coordinate and cooperate and maintain common features installed under Building Regs.
Most multi-occupancies are unstaffed and those that do are often single manned and cannot spend all day quizzing everyone entering a building and drafting a PEEP and anyway during an evac they already have too many other key roles to fulfil without running around with an Evac chair under their arm
-
Do you expect the landlord to employ a team of staff to be on standby for the one day a year a disabled person may enter the building just in case of fire?
The disabled toilets etc are there because of Building Regulations. On new builds the refuges and communications system is there because of Building Regulations. Correctly as common the landlord will maintain these.
But beyond that any further provision is not feasible for the landlord to implement - they don't have the budget, staffing or control to do so and it's not realistic to do so (if it was it would be in B Regs) beyond helping coordinate and cooperate and maintain common features installed under Building Regs.
Most multi-occupancies are unstaffed and those that do are often single manned and cannot spend all day quizzing everyone entering a building and drafting a PEEP and anyway during an evac they already have too many other key roles to fulfil without running around with an Evac chair under their arm
Some misinterpretation here; my expectation of a landlord is not that they and they alone are responsible for this aspect of fire safety. It would be that they consult and correspond with all their tenants regarding how the safe evacuation of disabled persons can be managed, in accordance with the relevant good practice (BS 9999; HMG Guides etc). This would normally need to be done wherever a building is accessible to persons with mobility impairments (e.g. wheelchair users), whether such occupants are currently in evidence or not.
This should result in a co-ordinated risk assessment that would describe how disabled persons would be evacuated in acceptable safety, from any location accessible to them, to a place of safety, in case of a fire anywhere in that building. For any individual, the PEEP can then be drawn up referring to the overall strategy. The landlord’s responsibility would be to manage and maintain whatever aspects of the relevant evacuation procedure are under their control (i.e. for which they are the responsible person). What, precisely, those are will depend upon the nature of the evacuation plan, the split in responsibilities and the terms of the lease. In some cases the responsibilities will be significant (where, for example, evacuation or fire-fighting lifts are used); in others they will be minimal (sole occupier in a small, single-storey building). In few cases will they have no accountability, because they will usually ‘control’ some of the risk reduction measures that support the evacuation sequence, be they physical assets or management procedures.
That’s exactly how it works in the several offices we’ve used and occupied in central London – we’ve consulted with the landlord regarding how we evacuate disabled people who are (or who may be) in our tenancies. We provide the manpower to deal with most of the sequence, but the landlord also has a management role to play & they accept responsibility for managing and maintaining much of the kit that supports the evacuation.
In summary, I really don’t think that it’s legitimate to say that this issue is something that any landlord can afford to be unconcerned with. They will usually have some role to play in ensuring that disabled evacuation can be safely managed. Saying that they don’t have the funding to do the above isn’t really relevant; they have to find the funding to do what’s necessary; saying that they couldn’t afford it would be absolutely no use in court.
-
I would say the landlord only has a duty to ensure adequate physical arrangements are available, relative to the premises. by this i mean adequate refuge points, and emergency voice communication (EVC) systems as and/or if required. I would say AD(B) or BS9999 would be a benchmark for this. The location and details of these arrangements should then be clearly communicated to the occupiers.(Art 22.) It would then be up to the occupier to provide their own equipment appropriate to their needs (evac chair), formulate the PEEP's, provide sufficient resources and formulate their Evac strategy in conjuction with the other occupiers and landlord (22 again).
-
I would say the landlord only has a duty to ensure adequate physical arrangements are available, relative to the premises. by this i mean adequate refuge points, and emergency voice communication (EVC) systems as and/or if required. I would say AD(B) or BS9999 would be a benchmark for this. The location and details of these arrangements should then be clearly communicated to the occupiers.(Art 22.) It would then be up to the occupier to provide their own equipment appropriate to their needs (evac chair), formulate the PEEP's, provide sufficient resources and formulate their Evac strategy in conjuction with the other occupiers and landlord (22 again).
Yes - that's how I see it.
-
I would say the landlord only has a duty to ensure adequate physical arrangements are available, relative to the premises. by this i mean adequate refuge points, and emergency voice communication (EVC) systems as and/or if required. I would say AD(B) or BS9999 would be a benchmark for this. The location and details of these arrangements should then be clearly communicated to the occupiers.(Art 22.) It would then be up to the occupier to provide their own equipment appropriate to their needs (evac chair), formulate the PEEP's, provide sufficient resources and formulate their Evac strategy in conjuction with the other occupiers and landlord (22 again).
I disagree. The occupiers should assess whether or not the premises are suitable prior to occuapation. Fire risk assessment is about taking measures which are resonably practicable. So what if the premises dont have suitable refuges? You gonna ask the landlord to sort it out?
-
i take your point that the occupier should consider the suitability of the premises prior to occupancy.
But this doesn't remove from the fact that the Landlord needs to have done his FRA. and as such would identify the occupancy use and its requirements. and as such would be required to put in place adequate arrangement (that would be considered reasonable adjustments given the premises).
because they don't employ disabled persons doesn't remove their responsibility to consider them. they control the Mof E for premises they want to rent! how many businesses do you think would rent if they knew they where unwilling to make provisions for disabled persons? Landlord suicide?
Sure, with all this in mind if it wasn't 'reasonable' then, if this was apparent to the prospective occupier, either they would have to cough up for the changes or find somewere else.
-
But they don't sadly :(
Nor do they do occupancy calculations before leasing a floor in an office block, changing the purpose group from office to assembly for one use as of these various chains of 'college' springing up everywhere and quadruple the numbers thus outstripping the stair capacities and their own MoE......
-
because they don't employ disabled persons doesn't remove their responsibility to consider them. they control the Mof E for premises they want to rent! how many businesses do you think would rent if they knew they where unwilling to make provisions for disabled persons? Landlord suicide?
Unwilling isn't the word. Unable is the correct phrase. It is not for the landlord to try and cover every possibility. It is for the tenant to decide if it is suitable or not. Simple as that. It is whatever is reasonably practicable. Im a landlord and rent you a five storey office block you then tell me a certain percentage of your workforce is mobility impaired and demand I sort it out? I dont think so somehow - do you?
-
As 'i hope' i had made clear, it is all about what is reasonable.
if you rent a central london 'town house style' 5 storey 18th century single staircase building. then yes its not down to the landlord. any prospective tennant with half a brain could see that it wasn't suitable if they were to expect disabled persons on a regulare basis. Hence my original point 'reletive to the premises'
your view of unwilling/unable seems to be a peronal view and as such do not dispute what you say. if you rent a premises that is clearly unfit for day to day access of disabled persons then you should have the right to stipulate that in any contract as it is may not be a 'reasonable adjustment' to make.
BUT if it is reasonable, then you should make the arrangemetns for DDA compliance should you not?