RRO Guidance Note 1 enforcement

[terry martin]

they have release guidance on the enforcement of the RRO.

there is some good clarification of the RP's, and of the articles for enforcement

link below

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/guidance1enforcement2005

[finsp]

Yea only a year late, thanks terry.

[JC100]

I've been reading through the guidance note and i've noticed this.

The Order does not apply (except in relation to article 31) to private dwellings.
However, residential premises eg blocks of flats and HMOs are covered by the Order to
the extent that they comprise common parts and systems (eg stairs, corridors, shared
kitchens, bathrooms and lounges etc) which are used by the occupants of more than
one dwelling. This is a complex area which will be addressed in more detail in separate
guidance.

Does anyone know what seperate guidance they are refering to?

[val]

Hi smokescreen,

The government never has, and is never likely to address this issue. It is a bit of a dog's dinner and they might as well let the courts sort it out eventually.
Having said that they have supported the LACORS guide to 'fire safety in certain residential housing' and this is probably as close to official guidance that you will get. The LACORS guide contains the earlier protocol which tries to bring some semblence of order to the overlap between the Housing Act and the Fire Safety Order.

[stevew]

I have read the Guidance Note and am interested in the interpretation of the 'responsible person'.

I have recently found two large councils who, in my opinion have mis-interpreted the RRO and the
Guidance Note on Enforcement. 
They both refer to the RRO as allowing them to pass the role of RP in the workplace, with all that the role
entails to the unit/building manager.

What is interesting is that each have, until recently had a local fire authority officer on the payroll with
the remit to set up and oversee the RRO.  One authority has even put out a document to all managers with incorrect
and misleading information. 

My interpretation is that the Guidance Note is specific in that in the workplace the RRO does NOT permit the
employer to pass the RP role onto an employee.

Your thoughts or experiences on this matter would be appreciated.   

 

[jokar]

)n Article 5(3), the RP can nominate a person of his behalf who can become the RP but ultimate rersponsibility lies with the European definition of an RP in Article 3.

[nearlythere]

I have read the Guidance Note and am interested in the interpretation of the 'responsible person'.

I have recently found two large councils who, in my opinion have mis-interpreted the RRO and the
Guidance Note on Enforcement. 
They both refer to the RRO as allowing them to pass the role of RP in the workplace, with all that the role
entails to the unit/building manager.

What is interesting is that each have, until recently had a local fire authority officer on the payroll with
the remit to set up and oversee the RRO.  One authority has even put out a document to all managers with incorrect
and misleading information. 

My interpretation is that the Guidance Note is specific in that in the workplace the RRO does NOT permit the
employer to pass the RP role onto an employee.

Your thoughts or experiences on this matter would be appreciated.   

 

Doesn't the RP (employer or person with duties) have to nominate someone (Nominated Person) to assist him/her carry out his/her duties which could be Unit/Buildings Manager?

[Tom Sutton]

Doesn't the RP (employer or person with duties) have to nominate someone (Nominated Person) to assist him/her carry out his/her duties which could be Unit/Buildings Manager?

I agree NT but in my opinion in a workshop, only the employer can be the RP, and you used the word nominated person I would have used Competent Person or Persons.

[stevew]

Hi NT

Yes I agree that the 'responsible person' is requires to nominate other persons to assist, however these persons would be
described a 'competent persons'.  There is however no specific requirement in the RRO to provide 'nominated persons'.

My previous comments were based upon two two large employers, who I might add have their own enforcement resonsibilities
under various regulations having failed to get their own house in order.  This with the assistance of the local fire authority. 

I do not see how this situation should arise especially with the local fire authority working so closely with the employer.
That relationship which in one situation is I believe continuing throws up the question of conflict of interest.  Perhaps for a small
retaining fee we can all have our own LA Fire Officer on tap.   

[nearlythere]

Hi TWS. I don't use the word Nominated as a legal title for someone who assists the RP but as the person who the RP nominates. Of course it could be Competant Person, Selected Person, Safety Assistant, Apppointed One or anything else for that matter but the important issue is that the employer knows why he/she has to nominate someone and the person nominated understands what he/she is nominated to do.

Hi Steve. I'm sure the RP can even nominate himself as the legislation states that the RP must appoint one or more persons to assist and not another person as you suggest.
It could be argued that if the Unit/Building Manager has the power to hire and fire staff he could be considered an employer as well as the person who owns the company maybe.

[CivvyFSO]

It could be argued that if the Unit/Building Manager has the power to hire and fire staff he could be considered an employer as well as the person who owns the company maybe.

The manager would be an employee. We would always serve notices on the company, and it would be the company that is prosecuted. With sole traders we look at the particular person. Partnerships are a little more difficult, but someone is going to get it. We may use rock/paper/scissors in this circumstance.

[stevew]

HI NT

I cannot envisage those who prepared the RRO thinking on those lines.

Was not one of the prime objectives when it was introduced to follow the H and S approach by removing the possibility
of an employer hiding behind the argument that he/she did'nt know what was happening at the 'sharp end' because it was left to a subordinate to instigate and manage.  Employers may not feel that they have time to deal with such matters.  I can perhaps
understand the practicalities of such a comment.  However I tell all my employer clients a number of important points must be remembered.
1.  They must understand the difference between responsibility and competence.  They are not the same.
2.  Their CP(s) need competence in the role that they are given.
3.  The CP(s) need the tools to undertake their respective roles which may include training
4.  Finally if legal proceedings are taken they will be accountable.  I would suggest that a good defence lawyer could argue a case
    of 'taking all reasonable measures' by having an appropriate RA carried out and as part of that comply with items 2 and 3 above.

Going back to my original thread I have yet to find a reasoned argument that allows the employer to delegate their responsibilities
under the RRO.  I can remember the words ultimate and unconditional being used certainly at the draft stage of the RRO. 
 

[nearlythere]

HI NT

I cannot envisage those who prepared the RRO thinking on those lines.

Was not one of the prime objectives when it was introduced to follow the H and S approach by removing the possibility
of an employer hiding behind the argument that he/she did'nt know what was happening at the 'sharp end' because it was left to a subordinate to instigate and manage.  Employers may not feel that they have time to deal with such matters.  I can perhaps
understand the practicalities of such a comment.  However I tell all my employer clients a number of important points must be remembered.
1.  They must understand the difference between responsibility and competence.  They are not the same.
2.  Their CP(s) need competence in the role that they are given.
3.  The CP(s) need the tools to undertake their respective roles which may include training
4.  Finally if legal proceedings are taken they will be accountable.  I would suggest that a good defence lawyer could argue a case
    of 'taking all reasonable measures' by having an appropriate RA carried out and as part of that comply with items 2 and 3 above.

Going back to my original thread I have yet to find a reasoned argument that allows the employer to delegate their responsibilities
under the RRO.  I can remember the words ultimate and unconditional being used certainly at the draft stage of the RRO. 
 

I think Steve an employer can delegate responsibility in such a way as to have an appointed person (AP) assist the employer with their duties. I don't believe that the employer can shift his statutory responsibility under the FSO but can still make some else internally responsible for certain issues just as he can make someone responsible for looking after the tea and biscuit money. ( Is that different to what you are saying?) However, I don't believe that the AP has responsibility for the statutory duties of others, unless the AP can be shown to have had control to any extent.
Maybe we are getting caught up in the use of certain words in that we are mixing labels with descriptions?

[CivvyFSO]

Don't forget that if the company has fulfilled its duties and shown due diligence, it may be the case that we look at article 32(10) and hold a manager (or whomever) responsible for the offence, but that does not make them the RP. (or CP or AP

[Tom Sutton]

Hi TWS. I don't use the word Nominated as a legal title for someone who assists the RP but as the person who the RP nominates. Of course it could be Competent Person, Selected Person, Safety Assistant, Appointed One or anything else for that matter but the important issue is that the employer knows why he/she has to nominate someone and the person nominated understands what he/she is nominated to do.

I take your point NT but I prefer Competent Person because it is defined in the order. (Art 18)