The “responsible person” and legal responsibility

[Les Potter(elementalfire)]

My interpretation is that the owner has a duty of care for all people that are within the common areas until such a time as they enter the flats when they then become the resposibility of the tenant. in that manner the common areas form part of the workplace for any contractors, managing agents etc and the guidelines given in the RRO should be applied.

[terry martin]

The owner may still have responsibilitity. let me give you an axample.

a building has multiple occupants, there are no common parts. the building has a fire alarm systems which covers all occupants.

In the terms of their lease, the occupiers are responsible for the general maintenance of there respective areas, but, the Fire alarm remains the responsibility of the 'owner'.

lets say the alarm was in disrepair. the occupiers have shown they have tried to get the 'owner' to repair the alarm but to no avail, in this situation you would not serve an enforcement notice on the occupier, instead the following would be relevant.

(3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.

and on this basis the enforcement notice would be served on the owner.

on the other hand the owner may place responsibility for the alarm within an occupiers lease agreement. and have no responsibility at all.

it really comes down to the terms of the lease

[David Cutting]

Interesting discourse.

There is an old addage: "if it looks like a duck and it quacks then its probably a duck"

Application: if the defendant looks like the responsible person and behaves like the responsible person then they are probably the respnsible person.

I am in court today and have been told that one of the issues which will be contested is the 'responsible person' issue - i.e. that the defendant claims not to be the responsible person. How will I deal with this pragmatically? Well, I shall point to the numerous vists of the officers and the defendant's clear interaction and liaison on several occassions with the officers - even supplying a hurridly completed [phoney] Fire Safety Risk Assessment. But before that I shall enquire simply as to whether the defendant wishes to enter a 'not guilty' plea so that we can move to a trial if the issue is contested. That should focus the issue.

Happy to discuss.

[kurnal]

David
Thanks for your posting. We are sadly in desperate need of some case law to untangle and test aspects of  the RRO and this case sounds like it has potential to give us some very useful outcomes. Please keep in touch. And we would very much welcome your opinion in any of the other threads runing on this forum. Theres one started today on corporate manslaughter that may be of interest to you.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal

I agree with you but the chances of getting case law are very remote; these cases rarely get passed the magistrate court. What should be considered is something similar to the "FPA 1971 Circulars" which could base its advice on any relevant evidence including any court cases.

May be the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Guidance Notes are a start?

[val]

There is absolutely no legal process for NOMINATING a responsible person. The definition exists in law and it is for the enforcers to seek, using their powers, to identify the RP and the Courts to decide if they have got it right.

I repeat, you can nominate who you like to be responsible, but the RESPONSIBLE PERSON may not be that person.

David, you 'defendant' may well have a case. We would normally prosecute the corporate body, (if there is one), and see the director or company sec stood in the dock in their offical capacity. Even if you were prosecuting a fire alarm engineer which is pretty exotic, the company would retain vicarious liability.