definition of a 'building'

[jokar]

Steve,

All the FPA Circulars were withdrawn on the 1 October, nice to have a definition but as regards RR(FS)O it perhaps doesn't help.  Whilst it is easier to deal with buildings, the future is premises, and each of your examples above are premises and as such the RP has to deal with their own demise taking into account the egress and any other parts they or the staff, if this applies have access to.  So a multi occupied premises with 10 tenants will have as a minimum 11 FRA, 1 for each tenant and one for the shared accommodation/common parts.  Minimum of 10 as lease may create further and the owner may have to do one as well.  Nothing simple as 1 for the building which would probably suit all concerned.

[kurnal]

One for all can and does work in  cases where the landlord is prepared to take the lead and organise the risk assessments on behalf of all occupiers, and to share the cost and the significant findings between them. I have done this in a number of shopping centres and industrial units in old mills.
So you end up with a (fire certificate!!NO) a risk assessment in which there is a schedule of occupiers and responsible persons and the significant findings are listed in a further schedule with the occupier reference against them as appropriate.
But you only need one to want to go their own way and you are snookered.
Then an annual audit of  occupiers /RPs is carried out and the lndlord or agent co-ordinate the review with a simple checklist.

[AnthonyB]

Lucky you (all that extra work)! In a perfect world the landlord in a multiocc would look after and recharge appropriately for almost everything fire safety related in a multiocc & in former BR buildings up until a year or two ago that continued.

But most will stick to their minimum responsibilities and only assess & maintain the common areas and send us into the tenants to coordinate and police them, with the tenant arranging their own FRA, EL & AFA testing, PFE etc......

Mind you, shopping centres take long enough just monitoring tenants without doing their FRA! But well done for getting your client to see the upside of taking the lead

[terry martin1]

thanks again for the comments.

with your views in mind and strictly looking at this from the point of view of the RRO, i should audit the 'workplace' and it's common parts and ensure they and the RP for the common parts for that 'premises' have sufficently liaised with all other RP's.

as long as the 'workplace' has liaised sufficiently and in doing so taken into account all relevant persons (including those in the other 'premises' i.e those who may have to enter their 'premises' as an alternative MoE) then i believe they have fulfilled their requirements under the RRO.

[steve walker]

Steve,

All the FPA Circulars were withdrawn on the 1 October, nice to have a definition but as regards RR(FS)O it perhaps doesn't help.  Whilst it is easier to deal with buildings, the future is premises, and each of your examples above are premises and as such the RP has to deal with their own demise taking into account the egress and any other parts they or the staff, if this applies have access to.  So a multi occupied premises with 10 tenants will have as a minimum 11 FRA, 1 for each tenant and one for the shared accommodation/common parts.  Minimum of 10 as lease may create further and the owner may have to do one as well.  Nothing simple as 1 for the building which would probably suit all concerned.

Jokar, if the occupants of a building are imperforate to each other - do not share common parts - do they need to co-operate and comunicate with each other?

[jokar]

No, after all a multi storey multi occupied building is only a high street in the air and as such shops are often imperforate to each other.  The need to co-operate is about multi use of an area and the need for egree and access to ensure evryone can leave or use.

[steve walker]

Ok, well that is a change from pre-FSO.

I don't think that it is quite like a high street because fires still tend to burn upwards and collapse still tends to happen downwards. Premises above a fire will be an greater risk than those to the side.

However I would say that the communication and cooperation would be minimal with this arrangement. Perhaps just making arrangements to confirm that the FR construction was being maintained and how other occupants would know about a fire. What would be recommendation and what requirement would depend on the circumstances.