FSO and residential landlords

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Surely the contents of Article 20 of the RRO apply .......

20.—( 1) The responsible person must ensure that the employer of any employees from an outside undertaking who are working in or on the premises is provided with comprehensible and relevant information on—

(a) the risks to those employees; and

(b) the preventive and protective measures taken by the responsible person.

(2) The responsible person must ensure that any person working in his undertaking who is not his employee is provided with appropriate instructions and comprehensible and relevan tinformation regarding any risks to that person.

(3) The responsible person must—

(a) ensure that the employer of any employees from an outside undertaking who are working
in or on the premises is provided with sufficient information to enable that employer to identify any person nominated by the responsible person in accordance with article 15(1 )(b) to implement evacuation procedures as far as those employees are concerned; and

(b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that any person from an outside undertaking who is working in or on the premises receives sufficient information to enable that person to identify any person nominated by the responsible person in accordance with article 15(1 )(b) to implement evacuation procedures as far as they are concerned.


Opinions?

[fred]

I think the 5 employees rule is just a relic from the H & S Management Regs bundled with the WP Regs and then thrown into RRFSO.  The dilemma can be resolved the same way as Article 17 on maintenance (which also does not have to be recorded) - if you haven't recorded it how can you show that you've done it ?

[wee brian]

cos it still works?

[jokar]

brief and to the point.

[wee brian]

dats me - economical

[Martin Burford]

jokar

You know as well as I do......one legal bod says one thing.....and another says something opposite....you pays you money [ and a lot] and takes your choice........There's fat too many assumptions on here over the RRO.....wait for case law.... and by golly it will soon come!
Conqueror

[wee brian]

Your quite right. But in the meantime we all have to try and pick our way through the mire. Having open debates on firenet is good practice for us all and even somebody as clever as me occasionally learns something.

[Martin Burford]

Wee Brian
Your to modest!
Conqueror

[fred]

re posts 2# and 3# regarding 5 employees the following is an extract from the latest draft Enforcers Guidance

"The Order retains the requirement to record the risk assessment if five or more persons are employed in order to maintain consistency with health and safety legislation.  Under the Order, the threshold of five or more persons includes those employees who may work from or in another place away from the premises concerned, for example an employer with three shops, each of which has two staff would employ six people and thus be under a duty to record the risk assessment for each shop."

.... someones taken over the asylum - and it ain't the management.

[Martin Burford]

fred

I agree this is crazy..... so if these people never leave their shop, your saying that the FRA needs to be recorded because the owner employs in excess of 5 persons..... whoever decided that needs to be in the asylum!
Conqueror

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

It's that phrase "5 or more persons are employed" ...... thats in total on the payroll ......... not in one premises.

Perhaps that should be made clearer?