FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: chrpay on September 09, 2013, 03:44:50 PM
-
I understand the term in single occupied premises. I also I understand it if it is multi-occupancy and the Landlord is represented on site.
What if the premises is multi-occupancy, and the Landlord's representative is not on site?
Is there such a concept of "Site Responsible Person"?
Or is each occupier has such a person and they all must co-ordinate and co-operate?
A case in point is who should report to IP when alarm activates in the absense of Landlord's representative?
We have a difficult occupier.....
-
I understand the term in single occupied premises. I also I understand it if it is multi-occupancy and the Landlord is represented on site.
What if the premises is multi-occupancy, and the Landlord's representative is not on site?
Is there such a concept of "Site Responsible Person"?
Or is each occupier has such a person and they all must co-ordinate and co-operate?
A case in point is who should report to IP when alarm activates in the absense of Landlord's representative?
We have a difficult occupier.....
Do you need that specific occupier to be cooperative in order for the landlord to comply with his duties? Is it a case that he/she or it is not reporting an issue in their occupancy that no other occupier is able to?
-
Hi nearlythere
One occupier appears to want the landlord's representative to be on site 24/7. This is not practicable. Under such circumstances, who is site responsible person? Who would take lead at evacuation? Who would report to fire brigade o i/c? I know they would only want one conversation.....and not talk to representatives of all occupiers. My view is that this should form part of co-operation and co-ordination and an agreement be reached between occupiers. One occupier is not playing ball
-
My view is that this should form part of co-operation and co-ordination and an agreement be reached between occupiers. One occupier is not playing ball
That would be my view also. You cannot expect the landlord to be reponsible for the evacuation procedure within each occupancy. That would be each RPs responsibility. As long as the landlord has provided and maintains the common MOE. And, as you say, each occupier, including the landlord, must co-ordinate and co-operate. If your RP needs a person on site it could show a weakness in his evacuation procedure. Who, other than each RP, to know who is in his occupancy on an outbreak of fire. No reason why each should not report to the FS in a co-operative and co-ordinated way.
-
I agree with Nearlythere and find that the OP strangely reflects rather closely a question I was asked outside of the forum recently....
It's hardly proportionate for every landlord with a commercial property with some form of communal area to employ someone on site at every building 'just in case' of a fire.
If the premises are such a communal security officer/receptionist/building manager based on site is deemed necessary for the effective management of the premises (overall not just fire) then of course they can provide a useful coordinating role.
From experience evacuations fall down more on the inaction of the tenants wardens than any issues on the landlord side - even when you have a landlord/agent appointed co-ordinator they are useless if tenants representatives do not report in promptly (or at all).
I've done some awful drills in buildings with a common coordinator, yet some perfect ones where there are just the various tenants on site, it's not a clear cut issue
-
Check out the definition of a Workplace (art2) and it includes the common areas so the employers (RP’s) are responsible, under the RR(FS)O, for the whole of the building, not the landlord. They must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with (art 5.1). Therefore they must co-operate with the other responsible person’s concerned so far as is necessary to enable them to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or under the RR(FS)O (art 22). The RP's must Co-operate and co-ordinate no choice.
You could make an argument that the landlord could be a RP if he/she has a workplace in the building (boiler room) and would be included with the rest of the RP’s. Also the landlord could be a Person Having Control (PHC) under art 5 (3), if for instance he/she was responsible for the maintenance of the fire alarm or FFE in the common areas and therefore be subject to art 13.
-
My view is that there is no such thing as a 'Site Responsible Person' in the FSO.
As I read the Order the Responsible Person is a concept to actually pin the responsibility on. Part of the issue with the old Fire Precautions Act was that it could be very difficult to find a person to prosecute. Hence the new definitions of the Responsible Person.
If we take the case of a chain of stores, hotels etc. The general manager of a particular store cannot be held to be responsible for everything unless they have total control of the store. So that it is up to the general manager whether they want to spend £20,000 putting a new fire alarm system in for example. Normally this type of expenditure would have to be sanctioned by head office. Hence the Responsible Person has to be the owner/managing director/chief executive officer.
So the site responsible person is a non starter. However the FSO does in section 18 does state that the Responsible Person can appoint Competent Persons to assist him in his duties. This Competent Person does not have to be an employee of the Responsible Person.
So one of he answers could be for the landlord to appoint a 'Competent Person' for the building to assist him and this could be one of the people working in the building, obviously the requirement to co-ordinate and co-operate would apply.
-
dont confuse "responsible person" with "a person who has responsibilities".
The first is the legal term that points towards a person or body co-orporate who is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance.
The latter is a person, or people who do the stuff that needs to be done. You can organise this how you like, as long as it works.
-
so much for the RRO cutting through all the crap...confusion still reigns after 7 years
;)
-
Multi occupied premises are always a headache
If any of the occupants (tenants) employ people they will be a responsible person by default. (see Article 3(a) of the Order )
The Freeholder (landlord) will be the RP for the common areas, and normally all of the common precautions - however sometimes this depends on the lease.
If any occupants are sole traders and therefore do not employ anyone then they woud be persons having control of their particular part of the building (see article 5(3) of the order)
For example take Woolworths Plc as was. Woolworths Plc as body corporate would be the responsible person, one of it's store managers would be a "person who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." under article 5(3)
-
The Freeholder (landlord) will be the RP for the common areas, and normally all of the common precautions - however sometimes this depends on the lease.
Midders the RP's workplace extends to the common areas that is available to his employees, including any access or egress from his place of work so what is the landlord RP of, somebodies workplace? (Check definition of workplace art 2)
-
Before going off on a tangent on the RP, I strongly suspect that the OP is using 'site responsible person' in relation to fire evacuation coordination and not the RP under the FSO which as you say has different implications
-
Point of clarification for me Anthony, who or what is the OP?
-
Thomas the OP is the original poster who started the discussion
-
Thanks Kurnal I think we should have an area for abbreviations for old farts like me, I usually give it in full and abbreviate afterwards.
-
The Freeholder (landlord) will be the RP for the common areas, and normally all of the common precautions - however sometimes this depends on the lease.
Midders the RP's workplace extends to the common areas that is available to his employees, including any access or egress from his place of work so what is the landlord RP of, somebodies workplace? (Check definition of workplace art 2)
Indeed so Tom and as a result if the communal MOE for example was insufficient the tenant (RP) would need to take measures to protect his or her employees, however the action required to sort the MOE maybe beyond his or her control and may fall back to landlord. If landlord won't rectify any problems the tenant can be left with a few problems to say the least
-
Anthony I think the OP is saying if there was a 'site responsible person' there would be no problem its because it is up to the RP's and consequently the RR(FS)O there is a problem.
I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.
Providing the RP's took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by tackling the landlord, they have their "get out of jail card" art 33.
-
Providing the RP's took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by tackling the landlord, they have their "get out of jail card" art 33.
Absolutely Tom if the landlord is neglecting his responsibilities by failing to maintain FA or EL in common areas of blocking escape doors or whetever. But it would be different if the RP of the occupency did not want to have any responsibility for the evacuation of persons from his unit.
-
Agreed NT the Person Having Control (PHC), landlord in this case is subject to individual articles but the RP's are subject to articles 8 to 22 which will include article or articles the PHC is responsible for, but they do have a defence if they can prove they have done all they can not commit an offence.
-
Chrpay. After reading the posts who would you consider is causing the problem?
-
I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.
Hi Tom - no 5(3) wouldn't come into play in that sense as this landlord is an RP in his own right - he is not a "person having control"
Tenant RPs still have a duty to protect their staff even if Landlord is failing to co-operate and co-ordinate.
-
Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)
-
I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.
Hi Tom - no 5(3) wouldn't come into play in that sense as this landlord is an RP in his own right - he is not a "person having control"
Tenant RPs still have a duty to protect their staff even if Landlord is failing to co-operate and co-ordinate.
I agree with that last statement J and if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?
-
Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)
Look at the definition of Responsible Person.
I think I have caused confusion with what I call the "person having control" because Article 3 defines a Responsible person using this term.
In this Order “responsible person” means—
(a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; .
(b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— .
(i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or .
(ii)the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking. .
The terms above shouldn't be confused with those used in Article 5(3) which talks about any person who has to any extent control of the premises.
See my posts above about sole traders, and local branch manager of Woolworths and it should hopefully make sense as these are Article 5 Persons whom have to any extent control, whereas the landlord and any tenants who employ people of course do have control over the premises but are de jure Responsible Persons and there are differences between the persons described in Art 3 to those in Art 5
... if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?
Yep spot on - if the landlord is a numpty of course!
-
Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)
Look at the definition of Responsible Person.
I think I have caused confusion with what I call the "person having control" because Article 3 defines a Responsible person using this term.
In this Order “responsible person” means—
(a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; .
(b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— .
(i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or .
(ii)the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking. .
The terms above shouldn't be confused with those used in Article 5(3) which talks about any person who has to any extent control of the premises.
See my posts above about sole traders, and local branch manager of Woolworths and it should hopefully make sense as these are Article 5 Persons whom have to any extent control, whereas the landlord and any tenants who employ people of course do have control over the premises but are de jure Responsible Persons and there are difference between the people descirbed in Art 3 to those in Art 5
... if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?
Yep spot on - if the landlord is a numpty of course!
Ah! See you big man. You're just trying to throw us cos its Friday and that new scots mug person has started a new slate in the bar. Race you!
-
Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)
They are an extension of the workplace and as such the Tenant RPs will need to consider those areas in their assessments and to ensure they are safe to use by their employees, visitors, rel. persons etc.
However the power or authority to rectify any faults or failings in the communal areas may be out of their control. And thats the difference. They may not be able to influence what goes on in the communal areas. So if landlord blocks up a final exit one day the tenant couldn't simply phone a builder and got the expense to re-instate it, he would have to go through the landlord and request it be brought back into use. If the landlord says "sorry chummy on your bike I'm not re-opening that exit cos its a security risk" then the tenant RP has a problem, and as NT above states it might mean he has to up sticks and vacate the premises. (In the real world I doubt that would ever happen but thats the theory)
For example lets say that in the tenancy agreement all structural repairs or alterations in the building are down to the landlord as is the maintenance and repair of common fire precautions (such as the fire alarm system which covers multiple occupancies and several RP tenants) the tenant RPs cannot have any control over the common fire alarm system!
-
All the premises in the building extending to the common areas have RP’s, which premises is the landlord the employer of? Art 3 (b) doesn't apply because they are workplaces unlike the common areas of blocks of flats or empty premises/buildings.
For example lets say that in the tenancy agreement all structural repairs or alterations in the building are down to the landlord as is the maintenance and repair of common fire precautions (such as the fire alarm system which covers multiple occupancies and several RP tenants) the tenant RPs cannot have any control over the common fire alarm system!
I agree the landlord has control of those items, not all of arts 8 to 22 in the common areas, therefore he is a Person Having Control (art 5(3)) unless you can make him a RP under art 3. I believe if certain condition exists you can. (Boiler room or empty premises/unit in the building)
-
Look at Article 3(a).
In this Order “responsible person” means—
(a) in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control;
To any extent under his control is the key word. If the tenant RP has no control over what goes on in the communal areas or any activity another occupier or landlord carries out therein then he is not the RP for the communal areas.
That means non of the "tenanted RPs" cannot be the RP for the whole of the communal area because they may not be able to:-
1) Make any changes, repairs in those areas,
2) Control the actions of other RPs / occupiers / landlord in that area
Even though communal areas may form part of the workplace for occupiers they are not under their total control unless the terms of the lease identify one or more occupiers being responsible for the whole lot, which is rare as I doubt any tenant would wish to be saddle with the expense of looking after those areas.
So the landlord must be the RP for the communal areas - they own the building (see definition again in article 3 which states the owner is the RP when the other criteria isn't met) They have total control over the whole of the communal area.
-
We deal almost exclusively with clients who are either landlords or managing agents on behalf of landlord and can assure you that enforcement authorities will treat them as RP's for communal issues - sometimes they will even lump in tenant caused issues as it's easier for them to serve a notice on one landlord/agent than many separate ones to all the different tenants....(leading to a swift appeal!)
-
So the landlord must be the RP for the communal areas - they own the building (see definition again in article 3 which states the owner is the RP when the other criteria isn't met) They have total control over the whole of the communal area.
If I accept your argument the landlord is the RP pf the common areas then under art 5 (1) the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises (common area).
How many FRA's of the common areas of workplace buildings, done by the owner or his representative, have you audited?
-
OK Tom you are missing the point (in my opinion) so we will have to agree to disagree on what's been said... I would also disagree with Anthony B's comments. But we all have our thoughts and opinions which makes Firenet all the richer ;D ;)
-
I will go along with that Midders its all about interpretation and we will have wait for legal precedence, if ever. ;D
Sorry chrpay if I hijacked your thread but I think your query was answered within the fire page. :'(
-
It's not me you are disagreeing with, I merely stated what enforcement officers are often churning out in respect of multi-occupancies from experience, rightly or wrongly. And some have tried to stick the landlord/agent for thing's that actually aren't their responsibility when they should have gone for several different RP's
-
I am very grateful for the comments......
The tenant is wanting Landlord to discharge duties that are impossible to deliver as they are not on site 24/7.
FRAs have been done to for common parts and are suitable and sufficient albeit Art 22 needs work to ensure tenants play ball (well one of the tenants).
If Tom Sutton could steer me to "fire page" it would help.
-
Sorry chrpay its a typo, should have read first page. (of this thread) How you get RP's to conform to art 22 I do not know other than to involve the FRS, which I am sure you do not want to do, but in there lies the answer.
-
I am very grateful for the comments......
The tenant is wanting Landlord to discharge duties that are impossible to deliver as they are not on site 24/7.
FRAs have been done to for common parts and are suitable and sufficient albeit Art 22 needs work to ensure tenants play ball (well one of the tenants).
If Tom Sutton could steer me to "fire page" it would help.
What are the duties the occupier wants the LL do chrpay?
-
We hold....or are invited to...."user group meetings"
Fire and H&S on agenda......and we take it from there.
Evacuation strategies "honed" in this environment and tested by drills. Mostly works ok subject to the odd "learning point" that arises
Working relationships built up tiron out any challenges.
Fire Authority have indicated that it is a way to apply principles of Art 22.
One occupier seems to think Landlord should have representative on site 24/7 and take lead at fire evacuation.
-
One occupier seems to think Landlord should have representative on site 24/7 and take lead at fire evacuation.
I suppose you could create a new post of onsite RP. 4 persons each doing 42hr shift. On minimum wage that should be around £55,000 at the very least. Divide that by the number of occupiers and you have your professional onsite RP 24/7,
or, slap the idiot about a bit until he sees sense (not really recommended),
or, as Tom says you could consult F&RS regarding co-operation and co-ordination.
-
Chrpay check out art 15. - (1) The responsible person must - (a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;
To me that says the RP's have to establish an evacuation procedure, in the event of a fire and test it, not the owner or his representative. Ask them where in the order does it say the owner has any responsibilities.
-
we will have wait for legal precedence, if ever. ;D
But we won't my dear Thomas - the Order is quite clear on this, legal precedence is not required.
To answer your question (which I missed first time round) all of the multi-occs I have ever dealt with have had a fire risk assessment for the communal areas completed by the landlord or their managing agents (or atleast they have completed one after my intervention)
Only once have I encountered a multi-occ where one of the tenants have been named specifically in the terms of the lease as responsible for communal areas as they occupied / rented 98 % of the building, with another couple of sole traders renting two very small offices on the ground floor. It began life as simply one occupier renting the entire building.
So why is that so rare? It's common sense - If all the tenants are made collectively responsible for the communal areas (through the terms of their individual leases) then you can soon see the amount of squabbles that would ensue. It would get incredibly complex in large multi occs
Who has the lion's share in terms of decision making? Who is going to take time out of their busy schedule to phone around getting quotes to arrange for the communal heating to be fixed for example ? One occupier might do something that occupiers object to.Its just not practical. Furthermore the landlord won't want people knocking his or her building about without permission, or making repairs that are substandard or not to their liking, so that is why finding a multi occ where tenants are fully responsible for communal areas is extremely rare.
If I'm renting office space in a multi-occ then part of the rent I pay will include service charges for the upkeep of the building. This is normally divided between all tenants proportionately.The landlord will then use that to maintain the building - so say if the heating or the fire alarm packs up I pick up the phone, report it to landlord and he has it repaired.
In the space I rent I exercise a certain level of control over what takes place in there. I can't alter the building without permission as I don't own it.
I can control my stock, my staff, production levels, in the space I rent / occupy - But I don't have any control over Joe Blogg's mob who works down the corridor who share the communal areas of the building with us - So if they start storing boxes in the communal corridor I could go and have a word and ask them to shift them, but they could in turn tell me to "go away".
Instead I would call the landlord and get them to deal with it - because they own the building and can exert full control over the communal area and what goes on in there. Non of the tenants are fully in control of the communal areas - they exert control in their own occupancies not communal areas
Look at the definition of responsible person again, and look at what it states about levels of control. As a tenant you will agree I have no control over the communal areas and therefore by default cannot be the responsible person for them.
If Joe Bloggs blocks the communal means of escape with his boxes of fireworks, and my employees are put at risk then yes as a responsible person (because I am a employer) I would need to take some form of action to protect my staff.
But that action may mean I have to send my workforce home for the day until the means of escape issue has been dealt with because for example Mr Bloggs is most unreasonable and doesn't like being told to shift his boxes by the likes of me so i have to wait for the landlord to intervene!.
-
Retters, if the premises are a workplace the RP doers not have to have control. he is unconditionally responsible for the safety of his employees, and the workplace includes the means of access to, and egress from, the workplace.
-
Midders it cannot be that clear if we are still arguing about it.
As I have suggest before, check the definition of a workplace it includes the common area, staircases until you reach the public road and that is how far the RP's FRA should extend. My opinions are based purely on the order and not on practical considerations so I intend to call it a day as we will continue to go around in circles. I rest my case m'lord on previous submissions. :-*
-
Retters, if the premises are a workplace the RP doers not have to have control. he is unconditionally responsible for the safety of his employees, and the workplace includes the means of access to, and egress from, the workplace.
Yes he is and I acknowledge that Sir Col in my previous post.... but accordingly you will agree RPs have varying levels of control especially in multi occ scenarios!
So come on uncle Col you tell me then... is it or is it not true that landlords can be an RP of the communal areas for which I am trying to show the good Mr Sutton can be the case...or not? Can a landlord not be an RP of the communal areas Sir Col?
-
Midders it cannot be that clear if we are still arguing about it.
As I have suggest before, check the definition of a workplace it includes the common area, staircases until you reach the public road and that is how far the RP's FRA should extend. My opinions are based purely on the order and not on practical considerations so I intend to call it a day as we will continue to go around in circles. I rest my case m'lord on previous submissions. :-*
Oh Tom really! Ok not to worry I tried just remember that ! ;D ;D
-
Retters, the common parts of a multi occ office are a workplace by virtue of being the means of access to or egress from the workplace. If the premises are a workplace, the RP is the employer, which potentially means every tenant. It is only if the premises are not a workplace that the RP is the PHC.
The landlord is potentially an A5(3) person by virtue of control which means he has same duties as the RP (to the extent of his control) but he is not the RP-he is a person with responsibilities or a duty holder to use the much more sensible scottish terminology. Anyway , Retters what do you care, you should be gearing up for coming out with the bruvvers, overthrowing democracy and causing rivers of blood on the streets. The revolution is nigh, Retters, so stop worrying about this rather dull fire safety and protecting the public stuff.
-
Sir Col
The occupiers/ tenants (if they are employers) will undoubtedly be RPs and I have never argued otherwise that is a given - its what the order says - I get it !!!.
What I am discussing with Tom is the issue of whom has control of the communal areas. There has to be an RP for the communal areas.
The tenants however will, by factors such as the terms of the lease, be unable to influence or control what goes on in the communal areas (see my earlier scenario regarding occupier storing boxes in the communal areas)
Remember Art 3 describes an RP in relation to a workplace, as being the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; [/u] The communal areas are not under his control in a multi occ. despite it forming part of his workplace. He cannot stop the L/L from making alterations, nor Joe Bloggs storing his boxes if he wishes to do so.
The Order is explicit on this, it comes down to the extent of control.
Your landlord is not an Art 5 PHC he is an RP by virtue of Article 3(b) or even 3(a) if he employs someone such as maintenance chappie or cleaner at those premises. Simples!
-
The stairway is part of each tenant's workplace, which, as a totality, is to some extent under the tenant's control.
-
Yes it is but if the employer (rp) on the ground floor decides to store fireworks in the lobby at the foot of the single staircase the employers on the upperfloors (also rps) have few options if the ground floor chap refuses to co-operate and remove them.
So then we rely on the landlord (as either a rp if he employes people or a phc) who is the the only person apart from the enforcers who can bang heads together - and as a rp or a phc he has a duty to do so!
-
The other tenants have a duty to cooporate. If they don't play ball then call in the enforcers (or get your lawyer to write a stroppy letter etc etc).
All this stuff should be covered in tenancy agreements, that's what lawyers are for.
-
Sorry all cannot say away.
The RP is responsible for article 8 to 22 in the workplace which includes the common areas and he will have control of most of those articles, so the workplace is to any extent under his control. Those he does not have control of, a PHC will be responsible for, which doesn't make them the RP’s, as this is a title defined by A3 and not a literal statement. The PHC can be a number of people which IMO does include the owner/representative.
If the RP finds a problem in the common area, say the staircase needs repair, which is not under his control, but the owner/rep. He and his fellow RP’s should try to get the owner/rep to repair it. If he refuses, he needs to be told he is a PHC and the FRS will sort him out or he could be prosecuted under 5(3) as a last resort. (The RP’s need to do that to comply with article 33)
If another RP cause a problem in the common areas then his fellow RP’s should try to get him to sort it out, if he refuses he needs to be told, the FRS will sort it out and he could be prosecuted under the appropriate article, as a last resort. You could also try to get the owner/rep to sort it, even when he does not have any legal responsibility /control and in many cases he most probably would try, however the final action is the big stick.
In chrpay case the RP’s are subject to Art 15 and 22 alone and the RP’s are legally responsible therefore they need to sort it out between them. The owner/rep has no legal responsibility/ control regarding these articles and could get involved if he chose, but I would expect him not to, because I think it an unreasonable request by one of the RP’s.
-
If the RP finds a problem in the common area, say the staircase needs repair, which is not under his control, but the owner/rep. He and his fellow RP’s should try to get the owner/rep to repair it. If he refuses, he needs to be told he is a PHC and the FRS will sort him out or he could be prosecuted under 5(3) as a last resort. (The RP’s need to do that to comply with article 33)
And in the meantime the RP is exposing his employees to risk because of the defective stairway which needs repaired and will be responsible if someone falls through it. What the RP should do is assess if he and his staff require the stairway as a means of escape and if so to cease use of the occupancy until the matter is sorted.
-
I often find in these multi occupied premises that the landlord is more switched on than the tenants and initiate the fire risk assessments of the communal areas to identify the risk control measures and the relevant issues to incorporate in the tenancy agreements. I can think of several evamples where fire services have served enforcement notices on landlords of multi occ premises to carry out a S&S fire risk assessment and produce a written emergency plan.
And many landlords would be apopleptic if the tenant RPs called the fire service in.
It is not fair or reasonable to expect a tenant employer to send his staff home and damage his business just because of another tenants failings. The person having control of the communal areas and tenancy agreements would and should bang heads together without wasting the time of the fire service to sort it out.
The most common arrangement in multi occ buildings is for the Landlords to carry out the assessment of the landlords and communal areas and communal systems and for the tenant to carry out the assessment of their own demise only. If each tenant who was an employer included the communal areas as part of their risk assessment it would lead to chaos if they disagreed over standards.
-
That's right, Big Al, let's not bother the poor dears in the fire service with doing their jobs as enforcers, attending AFAs, etc, no no no no, the wee souls are busy collecting firewood for the braziers.