« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Rosepark Update  (Read 6107 times)

Offline jayjay

  • New Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
Rosepark Update
« on: July 09, 2007, 12:51:54 PM »
For information, latest news cuttings from Scotland state that the owners of the Rosepark Nursing Home have been cleared following the recent appeal. Not sure what legislation the charges were brought under.

links
 http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1014502007

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=home-fire-three-in-the-clear--&method=full&objectid=19369111&siteid=66633-name_page.html


The resons are that the family were partners of the company and not the employers. No observations on who are the employers.

As the RRO is based round the responsibilities of the employer any comments on what effect will this decision may have?
I realise that  Scotish Law is independant of English Law. Any one have more details, perhaps our members from over the border can provide more information.
Logged

Offline Redone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Rosepark Update
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2007, 06:15:35 PM »
Cheers for that info Jayjay.

Maybe all the staff are agency... Self employed, or working for free!
Logged

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
Rosepark Update
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2007, 10:34:16 PM »
The RRo is about "responsible persons" it dosnt matter if they are employers or not (which is a good thing)
Logged

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Rosepark Update
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2007, 09:11:40 AM »
Quote from the Scotsman "Care Home in Uddingston in January 2004 in which 14 elderly residents died" was this not before the current legislation was in force?
Logged
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
Rosepark Update
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2007, 09:50:37 AM »
Your right - but surely the lawyers could sort this out.
Logged

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Rosepark Update
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2007, 09:56:41 AM »
This case was brought under the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation.  Somehow or other, the prosecutors got it all wrong with the charges against the employers when they were in fact a registered partnership.
Logged

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Rosepark Update
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2007, 11:15:12 AM »
It clearly demostrates the importance of serving notices on the correct person, an area in which many brigades will get their fingers burn't if they do not provide adequate training to their inspectors.
Logged

Offline Pip

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Rosepark Update
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2007, 04:50:44 PM »
Quote from: PhilB
It clearly demostrates the importance of serving notices on the correct person, an area in which many brigades will get their fingers burn't if they do not provide adequate training to their inspectors.
As it can at times be difficult to do this,as either incorrect or misleading info may be given at time of inspection,some brigades are sending out section 27 letters (inquiry to ascertain identity of 'Responsible person')as standard practice before sending out enforcement letters.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »