Control by others

[lyledunn]

Mike, that's the thing. There is a right of way through the car park but no written down legal agreement on how it should be maintained.

[col10]

Door hoops might be a sufficient deterrent and they might also be  needed under the equalities act for cane detection for visually impaired as part of an access audit . It might be possible to fix projecting hoops to the wall. At least the hoops might stop the doors being completely blocked.
The numbers in the club could be restricted under the entertainment licence, based on the number of exits available minus the EE in question, and let the neighbours sort out a permanent solution.

[Fishy]

In response to Fishy it would be very difficult for the fire service to take action or even lean on a third party under article 22 without mirroring this action or greater action against the Responsible Person. Otherwise the RP could have a powerful defence should they open the club with an obstructed exit and slope shoulders of their responsibility to maintain the means of escape or at least have considerable grounds for mitigation if they operate the club with inadequate MOE and if the fire service have difficulty in enforcing action against other persons having control.

I am sure that in the event of a fire the Beak would suggest that the fire service had failed in not using their powers to reduce the risk directly 

In summary its my view the Responsible Person (employer) will always have primary responsibility and whilst other persons may have an element of control, I cannot envisage action being taken against a PHC under article 22 in isolation.   

...but might not the other party also arguably be a Responsible Person, to the extent they have control?  We all know that you can (and often do) have more than one RP per premises, & if someone has control over an existing MofE then they might be an RP (even if they don't inhabit the building)?

I take Kurnal's point about a new build, but this is existing (I think), which is a little different?

[Messy]

I cant see any cash strapped fire authority risking a prosecution under Article 22 for such an issue - albeit the case law that may result would be useful.

If the authority lost the case, they may be liable to costs, so as a Chief Officer, why would I take such a financial risk when the RP could take action privately at their own risk

[kurnal]

We all would agree that an obstructed fire escape has potential to put relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire. This woud be an offence.

The responsible person to the extent of their control has no control over the times of opening of the club or the numbers admitted. There would only be a risk to relevant persons whilst the premises were in use.  Whereas the RP for the club would be clearly negligent or reckless if they opened  for business whilst the exit was obstructed.

As the role of the fire service is enforcement, then I still contend that they could not take formal enforcement action against the responsible person to the extent of control without taking parallel action against the Responsible Person.  

That leaves the fire service the option of  informal action to intervene in respect of the right of way. It might be  worth a try in some peoples opinion but not in my experience which mirrors Messy's. And always  subject to an exit strategy in case the efforts failed. And what timescale would be allowed? Is it safe to allow an obstructed exit at any time let alone carry the risk for a month or two? I think not.

[mikemo]

Hi All,
I just came across this thread and have little or no experience of the fire safety legislation outside of Scotland, but worked for 13 years as an IO in Scotland and came across this scenario on a number of occasions. It was often useful to mention section 74 of the Fire Scotland Act 2005 to the third party (the person obstructing the exit door) which details the "act or default " of any other person (other than a dutyholder), this person shall be guilty of an offence.
It was often quoted in relation to parked cars etc obstructing final exit doors............

Doubt if the fire service would have referred it to the PF as they are generally big fearties.............

Still it usually helped to sort issues such as the one mentioned.................