Common areas

[Mushy]

Hi

On the subject of two premises (shops of three floors) that have a shared means of escape, I understand that both occupiers must co-operate with each other in the case of the shared part

Now if you are carrying out a FRA on one premises and not the other how far do you go to ensure that the other occupier is complying with this? ie to ensure they maintain the MOE and not block it etc

If the shared means of escape has a shared fire alarm system is it the case that the owner of the building is still responsible for this and not both occupiers

...Or is the owner responsible for the whole fire alarm system throughout both premises and shared MOE?

Thanks

[kurnal]

Hi

Now if you are carrying out a FRA on one premises and not the other how far do you go to ensure that the other occupier is complying with this? ie to ensure they maintain the MOE and not block it etc

If the shared means of escape has a shared fire alarm system is it the case that the owner of the building is still responsible for this and not both occupiers

...Or is the owner responsible for the whole fire alarm system throughout both premises and shared MOE?

Thanks

All occupiers have a duty to co-operate with each other and if they dont - ie one has a complaint against the other such as obstruction- its the landlords responsibility to sort it out.

And the Landlord is responsible for the alrms throughout the building

[AnthonyB]

Ditto the above - we still inspect tenant's during our common area FRAs to ensure that they are not doing anything blatantly bad, are maintaining things they are responsible for, and to see if they have done their own FRA and check the significant findings in case they affect the common parts or are about things under landlord control (e.g. tenant wants more AFD off the central system in their area).

In multi occupancies few tenants are aware as to the dividing line of responsibility and assume the landlord does most of it and we spend a lot of time explaining who does what

[Ricardo]

If the shared means of escape has a shared fire alarm system is it the case that the owner of the building is still responsible for this and not both occupiers

...Or is the owner responsible for the whole fire alarm system throughout both premises and shared MOE?

Prof Kurnal is spot on in my mind,

Its important to understand that the fire risk assessment of an individual employer in a multi occupied building cannot be limited to that part occupied by that employer.Each employers FRA must include any common parts that form the escape routes for their employees, and any fire protection measures such as the "building wide fire warning system" on which the safety of the employees( relevent persons)depend, and the arrangements in place for testing and maintaining this building wide system should be taken into account in the employers FRA.
This duty is imposed on every person who has to any extent control of the relevent premises, including in a multi occ building the owner/landlord/managing agent.

So if an employers FRA identifies for example inadequate audibility of the landlords fire alarm system in areas that his employees may occupy, he should do everything practicable to ensure the problem is addressed( eg by the landlord) and not assume that because the landlord is responsible for upkeep of certain fire safety measures, that the employer has no responsibility to take account of these fire precautions in their FRA.

[Mushy]

Thanks for that

Just to be clear on this then

the landlord/owner is responsible for the fire alarm system throughout the building and anything to do with a shared means of escape

and the shared means of escape must be included in both FRA for each shop and each occupier must co-operate with each other and if not the owner/landlord must sort it out

and the occupiers are responsible for what is in their shops such as extinguishers, fire doors, signage etc

Who is responsible for emergency lighting?

[Ricardo]

In each case normally yes,& My understanding of the fire legislation is that in practical terms, the landlord/owner/managing agent must carry out what may be described as a "landlords fire risk assessment"

and this assessment should be addressing:-
any risks to which any employees of the landlord may be exposed, if such employees work in the building,
fire precautions within the "common parts" for which the landlord is responsible
fire protection systems provided throughout the building as a whole ( such as building wide fire alarm, building wide sprinkler system, common area emergency lighting)

[jokar]

Mushy, be careful, the terms of the lease to the individual tenants may make them responsible for the common areas and therefore they will have the duty for those parts.  The term all encompassing lease springs to mind and it is a common thing that you would have to research.  Other than that the post above have it correct.

[AnthonyB]

Emergency lighting unless specifically mentioned in a lease (for example stating the landlord would do it all  - rare, but still happens in some multi occupancy offices) falls down to control.

When deciding who is responsible although it's easy to guess I will sometimes ask a tenant who isn't sure:

- if a light bulb blows, do you arrange replacement?
- if I needed to isolate a fitting for testing or replacement, where is the circuit breaker?

If the tenant changes bulbs and has their own consumer unit & meter and the EL's are off one of that unit's lighting circuits then they are responsible for testing & repair in their demise. (they have control)

In some older buildings the EL is the landlords responsibility in a tenancy if they are off a central battery (located say in the buildings main electrical intake)

As for assessing adequacy, the landlord looks at the common MoE and his plant rooms, etc & the tenant looks at their demise and the common MoE. The parties then share information and cooperate & coordinate to ensure everyone's needs are met.

[Mushy]

Thanks Anthony

it seems a strange set up if the occupier could be responsible for say testing the EL in his shop and the owner responsible for testing it in the shared means of escape

why the difference in respect of the fire alarm system being the total responsibility of the owner yet the EL could be a combination of owner and occupier?

If the electrician gets called in by the occupier does he just test the shop EL and not the shared MOE?

I suppose the same could be said for the ffe /signage etc

Is it the case that the owner has to do a seperate FRA just for the common areas?

I've probably got all that wrong though

[jokar]

The common areas are a premises under the Order and all premises apart from the 7 exceptions have to undertake an FRA under this legislation.

[AnthonyB]

It's all over control -remember most EL is self contained and if correctly installed wired in to the local lighting sub circuit

The fire alarm in a multi-occ is usually the landlords responsibility as it is normally one central system off a single panel in the common areas but that covers with MCPs, sounders and AFD the whole building.

As such a single tenant in a particular demise cannot have 'control' over the system and is not responsible for maintenance - they still have to look at it's adequacy in their FRA though and coordinate with the landlord if they think it isn't sufficient for their particular needs (& then the argument over who pays for the changes starts).

However, if the tenant's demise has its own local fire alarm system and panel that is simply interfaced with the central system (retail units, some offices) or say an extinguishing system and alarm then they are responsible for servicing it not the landlord as they have 'control' as it's entirely within their demise.

The electrician called in by the occupier need only test that within the unit - the occupier should ask to see proof of maintenance for the common parts though.

The common parts require an FRA - 90% of our work is for Managing Agents and landlords to carry out common areas and system FRAs and tenant liaison.

[kurnal]

Lease conditions in multi occupied premises are usually intended to shift the financial burden of maintenance onto the tenants shoulders and save the landlord money. I think if the installation contributes to the fire safety outside the unit involved then in Law the landlord cannot ever hide behind a clause in a lease.

Take for example a shopping centre in which the retail units are all responsible for the maintenance of the sprinkler system  within their unit according to the lease. But the sprinkler system in the shop is purely there to ensure the safety of the common areas and the centre as a whole. If it is not fully maintained in good working order it does not matter in the unit involved but has serious consequences for the rest of the building. So although all occupiers must communicate and co-operate, the Landlord still maintains overall control and liabiility in my humble opinion. The same could apply to fire alarms and emergency escape lighting in many cases.

[CivvyFSO]

In the shopping centre scenario, I agree with the sprinklers issue, they are there for the safety of the centre. As far the the fire alarm goes the landlords/centre management tend to put the full responsibility for testing over to the occupiers, but the landlord should regularly test the link to the centres main system. That being said, in some less well run centres the occupiers are unaware that the landlord expects them to test the system.

[Midland Retty]

Yes agreed.

In the shopping centre example the landlord in my opinion should be checking that the tennants are testing the sprinkler systems.

The landlord can't say " oh I told them to do it in their tennancy agreement" and then think that absolves him or her of all responsibility..

[AnthonyB]

Shopping centres are indeed a slightly different beast. If it's sprinkler system is to full life specification and has both shut off valves and flow switches at the entrance to each unit then the landlord could say the tenant has control and wipe their hands of it, but in practice as it's fed off the common valve sets many will carry out the maintenance lock, stock and the tenant is only responsible for the cost of configuration of the system when they fit out the unit or refit it.

If the centre is an older beast and there are no shut off valves and flow switches the tenant has no control other than assessing it's coverage and it falls on the landlord whether they like it or not.

Some large units ('anchor tenants') are almost self contained and can have their own independant sprinkler systems and their own valve sets and water supplies - they are wholly responsible for maintenance.

However, whatever the responsibility for servicing as an incident in one area inevitably could impact the other the landlord should really check the tenants are carrying out  the minimum benchmark maintenance via co-operation and coordination visits and this forms part of our FRAs, we used to do them under the FPA (due diligence for the certificate holder, i.e. landlord) and still do so under the RRO.

A lot of FRAs in multi-occupancies, including those by specialist firms often ignore the existence of anything outside their clients area and this is quite dangerous.

Personally I'd prefer a more explicit requirement for landlords (and their agents) in multi-occupancies to take an umbrella responsibility across the premises to ensure that each occupier is aware of their responsibilities and that they are carrying them out, as at the moment approaches vary with several agents being very pro active whilst others try to do as little as possible even neglecting their areas of direct responsibility

Co-operation and coordination