Comments on fire risk assessments under the RR(FS)O - Legal aspects

[John Webb]

A national business operates through a number of regional offices. These offices have in their power the appointment of a manager and sometimes an assistant manager for each local business unit, but the appointed manager then operates each such unit effectively as a 'franchise' and can separately employ others to assist them.

Following the introduction of the RR(FS)O, the local business unit manager carries out, or arranges for someone to carry out, the FRA. The regional office is sent a copy of the FRA to show it has been done. If the regional office then comments on the FRA to the manger who sent it (or even just looks at it), do they take on any legal responsibility for that FRA? Or is it legally still down to the local manager as the 'RP' to decide what needs to be done?

[wee brian]

John there are people with responsibilities and there are "responsible persons"

The RP is defined in the order. Basicly its the employer unless there isnt one or where they have no control of the premises.

Managers and staff etc all have different responsibilities. This doesnt make them the RP.

The Order is designed to allow enforcers to prosecute whoever they think is culpable for an offence . so it really doesnt matter to anybody but a lawyer.

[PhilB]

I totally agree with Wee Brian except for the last sentence. It matters a hell of a lot when serving notices.

As he correctly points out duty is placed on responsible person and any other person who as to any extent control.

So notices can be served on the RP or a manger etc., and by virtue of article 32(10) any one at all can be charged with an offence, even if they have no control.

If a FRS serve on the manager a notice as the responsible person, and he appeals, and at the appeal it is found that in law he is not the responsible person but a person who has control, the appeal is likely to be won.

This could result in substantial costs being awarded against the FRS.

So it is very very important that inspecting officers, fire safety managers, brigade managers etc. understand this ......oh yes and the odd anorak wearer may be interested.

[kurnal]

A simple question- let me see if I can complicate matters. This is only my opinion for what its worth.

I believe the National Organisation may be the "Responsible Person" if they employ the area manager and sometimes an assistant. Someone once said "if it looks like a duck and quacks it probably is a duck".

If however the area manager is operating as a franchise this usually means that they purchase  the rights to market the brand in their own right trading as a stand alone business. If this is the case the area manager may well be self employed or a director of his own company operating the franchise. In such a case the Owner of the building will not have any dutuies under the Fire Safety Order unless there are multiple occupiers.

Even if there is a single occupier it may be a condition of the frachise agreement  or a  condition of the lease of the building for insurance purposes  that the occupier should furnish the landlord with evidence of  compliance with his legal duties but this does not confer any responsibility of legal compliance on the owner under the Fire Safety Order.

[PhilB]

Spot on Kurnal, if the manager is employed he is not the RP, even if he does do some hiring and firing himself, because he is doing that on behalf of the organisation. If he has bought the franchise and has sole control of the business he is the RP...in my opinion...or he may be a duck as you correctly point out.

[Mike Buckley]

Bear in mind Regulation 22, "where two or more responsible persons share, or have duties in respect of, premises etc.".

Ok this was put into place to deal with multioccupied premises, but it could be applied to this circumstance and both the manager/franchise owner and the national office could be regarded as the Responsible Person.

Book em both Dano and let the courts sort it!

[Midland Retty]

Bear in mind Regulation 22, "where two or more responsible persons share, or have duties in respect of, premises etc.".

Ok this was put into place to deal with multioccupied premises, but it could be applied to this circumstance and both the manager/franchise owner and the national office could be regarded as the Responsible Person.

Book em both Dano and let the courts sort it!

Yes I agree. There is a certain process of elimination to follow.

Lets imagine the organisation has rigid and well prepared policies and procedures regarding fire safety in all of its stores and franchises..

Lets also say the manager and area manager have received excellent fire safety training (ok im bounding into the realms of fantasy now)

Lets then say the area manager visits the local franchise and points out numerous fire safety failings to the manager (blocked fire exits for example) and asks the manager to remedy the problem.

The area managers returns a few days later only to find the manager hasn't done anything about the blocked exits, and as a result the manager is given a written warning.

The area manager leaves the store having ensured the exits are unblocked but come the next week the manager has lapsed into his old ways and has allowed exits to get blocked and a fire occurs and people are put at risk and are barely able to escape.

Who is responsible now?

My thought for the day is "if it "quacks and looks like a duck it is probably a duck" but " If your auntie looks like your auntie but has testicles she's probably your uncle".

[wee brian]

The RP is the employer - but if it was me I would nick the manager cos hes a bad un.

As I say he had responsibilities but he aint the Responsible person.

I like crispy duck in those little pancakes.

[PhilB]

Lets imagine the organisation has rigid and well prepared policies and procedures regarding fire safety in all of its stores and franchises..

Lets also say the manager and area manager have received excellent fire safety training (ok im bounding into the realms of fantasy now)

Lets then say the area manager visits the local franchise and points out numerous fire safety failings to the manager (blocked fire exits for example) and asks the manager to remedy the problem.

The area managers returns a few days later only to find the manager hasn't done anything about the blocked exits, and as a result the manager is given a written warning.

The area manager leaves the store having ensured the exits are unblocked but come the next week the manager has lapsed into his old ways and has allowed exits to get blocked and a fire occurs and people are put at risk and are barely able to escape.

Who is responsible now?

The responsible person never changes and the employer has an absolute duty to ensure the safety of their employees so the organisation may be committing an offence if they fail in that duty.

However in the situation you describe the RP has a defence of due dilligence, and a comptent enforcer would look further down the chain and I would hope prosecute the manager using article 32(1)a....Quack Quack!!

[wee brian]

I'll get a jar of the Hoi Sin sauce!

[John Webb]

Thanks for your comments. The local managers are all self-employed. Ther premises are owned by the regional offices, I think, but am not certain. For various reasons the company concerned has not seen fit to issue a standard set of fire safety rules but have left it entirely to the local managers to organise their own compliance with the legislation in the light of local circumstances. The regional offices like to know that the local managers have done what they ought to do, but have apparently been told that if they actually read the copy of the FRA they've been sent they could find themselves in court with the managers whether they commented back to the manager any deficits they note or not!

This seemed to me, when I heard about it, to be either wrong legal advice or a possible misinterpretation of it. I would have thought that reading the FRAs as they are received could show up common problems concerning this business meeting the legislative requirements, possibly save people from reinventing wheels etc., and therefore was to be encouraged.

And it would seem from the comments above that in any case they could well be hauled into court regardless if they have commented on the FRA or not even read it. I can imagine the court's reaction to the latter admission!

[kurnal]

continuing the duck analogy- if she looks like the Mother in Law and Sounds like the Mother in Law she's probably your Wife.

[wee brian]

John - leaving ducks out of this. Your right.

It sounds like they have some control and therefore some responsibility. Perhaps they should get some proper legal advice - from a lawyer rather than one of use anorak types.

I suspect that the terms of the lease and the franchise agreement will set out who controls what and, therefore where the responsibility lies. Keeping your eyes shut isnt really a good idea.

[Clevelandfire]

yes wee brian quite right the example Retty gave isnt straight forward

"The duck now lies shredded in a pancake, boiling in the Hoi Sin of your lies"

[wee brian]

oooh tasty!