Multi occupied buildings and common areas again

[kurnal]

Thanks for your input.  I realise I have a habit of labouring these issues to the point of irritation and if you have reached this threshold please forgive me.

But I still think the Landlord has an element of control and could be found wanting unless they put measures in place to audit the activities of the tenants.

Yes if there is no clause in the tenancy agreements he is probably on a sticky wicket but I think any diligent landlord would put such conditions and monitoring in place.

Otherwise when disputes arise he just slopes shoulders and says tough its your problem nowt to do with me- complain to the fire authority and they will do my dirty work for me. Thats the position of the current managing agent. Thanks for your rent,  heres your unit theres your exit but dont come moaning to me if the chap on the other side has locked it. Ker-ching.

Now as I said the cellars actually run under the common escape routes so it may also be reasonable for the Landlord to check the condition of the fire resisting ceiling in the let basements?

Anthony raised the issue of maintenance of a common fire alarm which would clearly be the remit of the Landlord. I see the ceiling in exactly the same way. The ceiling is a common element just like a shared staircase.

So taking it further why is the Landlord a Responsible Person in respect of the fire alarm and the ceiling but not in respect of an exit door between two tenancies?

[AnthonyB]

In your Scenerio I would also want to visit the units and would also comment on the exit and yes some LL's/agents would rather I didn't. Many of ours would be interested and would show due diligence by corresponding with the tenants although ultimately it isn't strictly their problem.

The fire alarm and ceiling issues would affect the main building above and the LLrd would have interest as a relevant party as it would could affect their areas - but an exit serving two independent units would only ever affect those two units.

If you wanted to give the landlord due diligence responsibilities over all parts of a multi-occupancy then you are back to issuing them a fire certificate with occupiers holding subordinate copies relevant to their area.

In those days a landlord had to have some oversight over the whole building as often they would land a copy of the notice or goodwill letter in addition to (or sometimes more rarely instead of)the occupants even when the source of the problem was in their tenants area. One landlord even got prosecuted & lost their subsequent appeal for fire cert breaches in a premises where every breach was in a tenants area, not a communal one.

But whilst you have responsibility determined by employment or control you are always going to get a potentially confusing mish-mash of different responsibilities for different elements in the multi-occupancy.
I regularly have to refer back to leases and trace wiring and distribution boards in a building (or at least require this be done) to determine who looks after what.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thanks for your input.  I realise I have a habit of labouring these issues to the point of irritation and if you have reached this threshold please forgive me.

But I still think the Landlord has an element of control and could be found wanting unless they put measures in place to audit the activities of the tenants.

Yes if there is no clause in the tenancy agreements he is probably on a sticky wicket but I think any diligent landlord would put such conditions and monitoring in place.

Otherwise when disputes arise he just slopes shoulders and says tough its your problem nowt to do with me- complain to the fire authority and they will do my dirty work for me. Thats the position of the current managing agent. Thanks for your rent,  heres your unit theres your exit but dont come moaning to me if the chap on the other side has locked it. Ker-ching.

Now as I said the cellars actually run under the common escape routes so it may also be reasonable for the Landlord to check the condition of the fire resisting ceiling in the let basements?

Anthony raised the issue of maintenance of a common fire alarm which would clearly be the remit of the Landlord. I see the ceiling in exactly the same way. The ceiling is a common element just like a shared staircase.

So taking it further why is the Landlord a Responsible Person in respect of the fire alarm and the ceiling but not in respect of an exit door between two tenancies?

Labouring the point? Nah

But I  have to say I do think you are totally wrong in your assumption.

[Tom Sutton]

So taking it further why is the Landlord a Responsible Person in respect of the fire alarm and the ceiling but not in respect of an exit door between two tenancies?

I think we have had this discussion before Kurnal and IMO the landlord is not the Responsible Person as regards to the fire alarm he is an "other person" (5.3)(5.4) and can be prosecuted under art 32(10). He is not a RP because it is definably a workplace which extends to the common area to the front door. (see definition of workplace)

[Midland Retty]

Thanks for your input.  I realise I have a habit of labouring these issues to the point of irritation and if you have reached this threshold please forgive me.

Not at all - its good to have debate and discussion on things like this

[graz]

what if the door is a common area and in itself it is not a workplace then under A5,2 the RP must ensure it is correct. Unless a lease states otherwise then the RP is the person who has control or the owner. this would make the employers RPs under either A 5,3 or 5,4.
But the owner as the person who has control is the RP.

[Tom Sutton]

what if the door is a common area and in itself it is not a workplace

What part of the common area would not be a workplace. (Check out definition of a workplace art 2 Interpretation)

[kurnal]

Thomas I thank you for your diligence  in correcting my careless use of what is after all a legal definiton. You are absolutely right in your interpretation of articles 3 and 5 and yes we did discuss all this to a conclusion in the past.

Why do so many of us keep falling into this trap and use the term responsible Person so carelessly? Well in defence I would point out that the Order itself leads us  into doing it, because  article 3 defines the responsible person and article 5 imposes the duties of the responsible person under articles 8 to 22 on "other persons" without defining them again. Note that nowhere in the Order do any of the definitions have a capital letters so it can be quite difficult to identify the context as a legal definition.

We then see the term responsible person repeated in each article time and again, when they really mean dutyholder,  and that would have made life so much clearer.

This is clarified in Guidance note No 1

"Article 5(3) extends the responsible person’s duties to include any other person to the extent
that they have control of the premises. Under Article 5(4) any person who by virtue of any contract or tenancy has obligations of any extent in respect of maintenance of the premises (and anything in them) or the safety of the premises is to be treated to that extent as a person who has control for the purposes of Article 5(3). Enforcing
authorities should note that due to the reference to the term “any contract” is not intended to be limited to those in respect of the occupation of property, eg a lease or licence to occupy, but would include, for example, a contract for the installation and/or maintenance of a fire alarm system or a fire sprinkler system."

39. In many cases there will be more than one person subject to the obligations of a responsible person for premises. The level of responsibility will vary according to the employment position (total responsibility for an employer) and the degree to which the eperson can exercise control over safety in the premises. This is a deliberate aspect of the Order to allow enforcement action to be taken against the person who is culpable and/or in a position to remedy contraventions."

In the case in point:

The Responsible Person  is the employer (i.e. each shop keeper) in accordance with article 3 and on the face of it the Landlord is just another person who has to some extent control of the premises (Article 5(3) ). The Landlord (5(3)) has some obligations for the maintenance, safety and repair of the premises in that they choose tenants, instruct new tenants on the safety arrangements,  carry out regular condition surveys and charge remedial work to the tenants. (article 5(4))

............... but ..................

The managing agent is also an employer- a very large one in this case- and receives the rack rent, (definitions "Owner")  may employ the cleaning staff in the common areas and certainly employs agents to liaise with the tenants, inspect defects and carry out condition surveys from time to time.   Oh dear. Still I guess I have answered my own question.

[Tom Sutton]

Alan I fully agree with you and I believe the Scottish and NI legislation is much better on this point, despite previously arguing the contrary with CT, who is usually right, I think.