Who is culpable?

[Clevelandfire]

Imagine an apartment block, all apartments rented out and managed by a common landlord or managing agent.

Electricity company cuts off supply to common parts because of non payment of bill by landlord or managing agent and thus emergency lighting fire alarm system is disabled.

Who is culpable if something goes wrong and people are put at risk.? Personally i think its the landlord but would welcome your views

Take it one step further, electricity company has been sending bills final reminders to wrong address and landlord hasnt recieved them. Electricity is cut off but who now is culpable if something goes wrong and people are put at risk?

As ever your deliberation, debate, opinion highly welcome

Jim

[Chris Houston]

Do they actually cut off electricity?  I thought in this modern world of people using dialasis machines at home etc, that things never actually got to that stage anymore.

[Clevelandfire]

Quite right, the supply in each individual flat is maintained, all that is affected is the common areas of the flats (ie staircase , corridors leading to flat entrance doors)

[kurnal]

I dont think the electricity supplier would cut off the power if they knew it would place persons at risk. It was probably an over zealous employee not thinking it through. I bet a phone call to the suppliers  head office would get the supply restored quick as you like.

Its not the job of the fire service to intervene in cases of simple civil debt but I am sure they would make a phone call if they thought people were in danger.

Theres two aspects to these cases - the money already owed and the supplier not compounding the debt by allowing the sum of  money owed to increase. But it will already be a  pretty hefty  amount if it has got to this stage so a few more weeks while the company takes legal action to recover the debt wont make a huge difference.

I once had a similar case of a new nightclub that had set up at great cost and none of the suppliers had been paid. The club was going downhill fast and bankrupsy was imminent. The supplier of the fire alarm tried to use the fire service to recover his money. He phoned the office at 5pm one friday evening to say he was disabling  the control panel for the fire alarm so the club would be operating without an alarm system that weekend. Therefore the fire service had better go and shut them down unless they paid him what was owed to reinstate the panel. I told him if he touched that panel he would receive a visit from me with a policeman that very evening and we would not hesitate to prosecute him under health and safety legislation. Despite the rights and wrongs we could not tolerate people taking a gamble with other peoples lives. The club did go bankrupt the following week and everybody sadly lost out.

[Clevelandfire]

Thanks for replies so far

The electricity company has cut off the power to the common area. The fire service got to hear about it via a complaint from a resident who had been without power to common area for 3 days.

The landlord was aware, and had been in contact with the electricity company after they realised they had not recieved bills / final reminder. The electricity company admitted they'd been sending correspondance to wrong address and would re-instate the supply within 10 days

The fire officer felt that was totally unacceptable, contacted the electricity supplier to urge them to reconnect sooner and got a very unastisfactory response - they weren't intrested and would not budge on the time scale to reconnect.

The fire officer even stated that he may pursue them if anything happened and people were put at risk but this held no sway at all and they basically politely told him to "go away"

 What are your thoughts or opinions on that situation

[kurnal]

Dont know if the fire officer could persue the electricity company. Could they be construed as a responsible person?  Perhaps article 5(4) may lead us down that path but somehow I doubt it.
I think you would be looking at HASAWA section 8 but again that may be tenuous.

The fire service, if they choose to get involved should be persuing the responsible person for the common areas. That one would stick. But why should they be used to fight the tenants battles for them?

Otherwise I think its one of those situations where if someone was hurt they could make a civil claim against the landlord and maybe  the electricity company. As the electricity companies used to be government owned I bet they have a get out clause though in respect of consequential losses or injury in the event of disconnection.

[Clevelandfire]

Fair point Kurnal. I think if the landlord had been negligent by not paying bills on time, the supply was cut off and people were put at risk I think that is a black and white case - the landlord would be responsible.

In so far as the Fire Service getting involved I think the fire officer concerned was genuinely worried about the situation. Inspectors are duty bound to try and make a potentially unsafe condition safe once they are aware of it.

Is there not scope under the Reg Ref Ord to look at "competent persons" which I would deem to be the electricity company in this instance

We have recently been going down the road of cautioning an electrician who issued a Brit Stand installation and commissiong cert for a fire alarm system he installed.

He turns out not be third party accredited, has had no formal training and when quizzed obviously is totally clueless on even the basics of a fire alarm system and more worringly electrics!.

If the alarm system he put in failed and people were put at risk because of the  contractors incompetence we could pursue that contractor under the RRO as far as I understand it.

And I liken that to the case of the electrical supplier above.

In theory the spirit of the RRO seems to suggest that for instance if some one parks their car close to a final exit door and as a result and people cant use the door and are trapped you can prosecute the owner of the car (obviously you will also probably look at the RP too as to why measures were not put in place to prevet it from happening)

The point im making I suppose is that the Fire Service can now look at third party involvement into offences committed

[kurnal]

If the alarm system he put in failed and people were put at risk because of the  contractors incompetence we could pursue that contractor under the RRO as far as I understand it.

And I liken that to the case of the electrical supplier above.

In theory the spirit of the RRO seems to suggest that for instance if some one parks their car close to a final exit door and as a result and people cant use the door and are trapped you can prosecute the owner of the car (obviously you will also probably look at the RP too as to why measures were not put in place to prevet it from happening)

The point im making I suppose is that the Fire Service can now look at third party involvement into offences committed

Yes I would agree that the fire service may persue the electrician - they may be a reaponsible person as a result of article 5(4) and may have committed offences under article 32(2).

I cannot see where you are coming from with the car obstructing the exit though- unless they are an employee or appointed contractor? Can you point me towards an offence with which any person ie member of the public may be charged?

[val]

We are actually dealing with just this situation.

Managing agent/landlord refusing to pay elec bill because unit owners cannot get tenants and therefore haven't paid their share to managing agent/landlord.
Electric company actively planning to turn elec off to test legal position.

Fire Authority clear that responsible person is managing agent and the FRA cannot be suitable and sufficient as no lighting/firefighting lift, etc in common stairways. May be alleviated in very short term by provision of torches to tenants. We will persue the managing agents through the courts...just because they are now losing money has nothing to do with it!

[Clevelandfire]

If the alarm system he put in failed and people were put at risk because of the  contractors incompetence we could pursue that contractor under the RRO as far as I understand it.

And I liken that to the case of the electrical supplier above.

In theory the spirit of the RRO seems to suggest that for instance if some one parks their car close to a final exit door and as a result and people cant use the door and are trapped you can prosecute the owner of the car (obviously you will also probably look at the RP too as to why measures were not put in place to prevet it from happening)

The point im making I suppose is that the Fire Service can now look at third party involvement into offences committed

Yes I would agree that the fire service may persue the electrician - they may be a reaponsible person as a result of article 5(4) and may have committed offences under article 32(2).

I cannot see where you are coming from with the car obstructing the exit though- unless they are an employee or appointed contractor? Can you point me towards an offence with which any person ie member of the public may be charged?

Its something my colleagues elluded to sometime ago. Unfortunately not at work today else I would have asked them to expand on that theory.

I'll catch up with them Wednesday and ask them to explain where they got that from

[Chris Houston]

I think through civil law/tort/delict (in simple terms, someone sueing someone else) than the electricity company could potentially be sued.  I think if the right person heard about it at the electricity company (i.e. not the call centre supervisor) then they would do something.

I would suggest that the fire officer should get the most senior colleugue possible to phone someone pretty senior at the electricity company (chief executive, finance director, risk/insurance manager - something like that) and point out that people might die because of their actions.

Or, if the fire service has lawyers on the pay roll, get them to send a fax to the legal department.

I'm not sure if any of this would work, but I think it might be worth trying.

[val]

Chris,

I don't think it is the fault of the electricity company, nor should pressure be brought on them. The managing agents are running a business and, in my opinion, are not running it in a lawful fashion. The managing agents should be using the civil law to bring a claim against the individual landlords who are not paying the maintenance charge. Criminal liability, subject to the courts agreeing, lays with the responsible person...in this case the managing agents. I accept that arguably there is a case for others being held responsible for any breach but in this case those who have accepted managerial and contractural responsibility are the prime 'responsible person'.

In the case I am dealing with the electricity company is well aware of these arguments.

[Clevelandfire]

I think through civil law/tort/delict (in simple terms, someone sueing someone else) than the electricity company could potentially be sued.  I think if the right person heard about it at the electricity company (i.e. not the call centre supervisor) then they would do something.

I would suggest that the fire officer should get the most senior colleugue possible to phone someone pretty senior at the electricity company (chief executive, finance director, risk/insurance manager - something like that) and point out that people might die because of their actions.

Or, if the fire service has lawyers on the pay roll, get them to send a fax to the legal department.

I'm not sure if any of this would work, but I think it might be worth trying.

Agreed the trouble is trying to get holt of anyone that senior, no numbers available, call centre won't give out numbers despite fire service insisting they do so. All you get time and time again is the area manager at most and they wont let you get any higher up!

[Clevelandfire]

Chris,

I don't think it is the fault of the electricity company, nor should pressure be brought on them. The managing agents are running a business and, in my opinion, are not running it in a lawful fashion. The managing agents should be using the civil law to bring a claim against the individual landlords who are not paying the maintenance charge. Criminal liability, subject to the courts agreeing, lays with the responsible person...in this case the managing agents. I accept that arguably there is a case for others being held responsible for any breach but in this case those who have accepted managerial and contractural responsibility are the prime 'responsible person'.

In the case I am dealing with the electricity company is well aware of these arguments.

Would ordinarily agree where the landlord hasnt paid bill theyre the ones responsible if it all hits the fan

But read my threads again we are referring to non payment due to a cock up on the electricity company's behalf not the landlords.

[Ricardo]

Maybe one for the local press to have a look at, dont companies just love publicity