Recievership

[Steven N]

The premises in question are a large block of flats. They are a mixture of rented & owner occupier.
The owner of the freehold is now in recievership. The Reciever is now looking after the affairs of the flats. They have appointed a managing agent to manage the common areas.
Under the FSO who is the RP & who would any notices be served on?
( I think this scenario may soon be quite common!  )

[nearlythere]

The premises in question are a large block of flats. They are a mixture of rented & owner occupier.
The owner of the freehold is now in recievership. The Reciever is now looking after the affairs of the flats. They have appointed a managing agent to manage the common areas.
Under the FSO who is the RP & who would any notices be served on?
( I think this scenario may soon be quite common!  )

The person, who to any extent, has control over the premises? The Receiver?

[PhilB]

Blimey here we go again!!!

The responsible person is defined in article 3. This does not appear to be a workplace, so it is not the employer. Is the receiver occupying the premises for the purposes of a business...I'd say no.

Therefore the owner is the RP. In this case it is probabaly the managing agent because they would receive the rack rent if one was paid.

But it matters not who the RP is enforcement notices could be served on any person who has to any extent control of the common parts, as it is only the common parts to which the Order applies.

[Steven N]

Phil I'll need to speak to you later 

[JC100]

OK then. Seeing as the responsible person is the topic at the moment.

If a block of flats are owned by an residential social landlord or housing association, who is the responsible person?

As a large association who employ people who visit regularly (but do not work permenantly in the building) - do the common parts count as a workplace under the RRO. Where would the buck stop under the order? Would the chief exec be ultimately responsible as they employ the people who look after the buildings? Or would it be the property manager who may have more of an idea of works being carried out?

[PhilB]

If the association are an employer for that premises, i.e. they employ cleaners, maintenance personel etc. then yes it is a workplace, the assosciation is the responsible person. If the association is a limited company, the company is the responsible person.

Notices should be addressed to the company secretary but the notice would be served on the body corporate. If there is an offence and that offence has been committed with the consent, connivance or due to the neglect of a senior manager, that manager could be prosecuted as an individual, as well as, or instead of the body corporate.

[Steven N]

Sorry back to the orginal point.
In this current climate with businesses going into recievership, a company has gone into liquidation yet is still trading, under these circumstances how do we identify the responsible person?

[nearlythere]

Sorry back to the orginal point.
In this current climate with businesses going into recievership, a company has gone into liquidation yet is still trading, under these circumstances how do we identify the responsible person?

It is still a place of employment with an employer.

[PhilB]

Yes Steve I agree with Nearlythere, if it is still trading and there is an employer, they will be the RP. if there is no employer but they are still trading then the occupier is the RP.

Anyone who has to any extent control can be served enforcement notices...and anyone, and I mean anyone, can be prosecuted regardless of whether they have any control or the extent of their control...except the Queen of course, she cant be prosecuted!

[Clevelandfire 3]

She can actually. But I wouldnt recommend trying it.

[nearlythere]

She can actually. But I wouldnt recommend trying it.

Interesting tangent. How can the queen prosecute herself CF3?

[Clevelandfire 3]

Very simple . She doesnt prosecute herself. An enforcing authority would begin legal proceedings like they would with anyone of her loyal subjects. Its a myth that she can't be prosecuted. Show me in the RRO any section which says the Queen can't be prosecuted and Im not talking Crown Property here.

[PhilB]

Very simple . She doesnt prosecute herself. An enforcing authority would begin legal proceedings like they would with anyone of her loyal subjects. Its a myth that she can't be prosecuted. Show me in the RRO any section which says the Queen can't be prosecuted and Im not talking Crown Property here.

Who did train you Cleveland..was it that Toddddy blokey, you can tell me I promise it will be just our little secret.

Where does the fire safety order say the the queen cannot be prosecuted??  article 49...have you actually read the order?

Prosecutions are brought in the name of the Queen. This is why cases are brought as "R v. Clevelandfire" - the "R" refers to Regina, the sovereign.

It is the Royal Prerogative that the Queen can do no wrong. The Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts.

Therefore Cleveland It is utterly impossible for the Queen or any male on the Maternal  side in direct line for the Throne to be prosecuted by law.

There are formal rules (As part of Common Law) about being tried by your peers and the Queen has no peers.

All Legal Authority stems from the Crown. (not from the Queen herself!) Therefore, any holder of the Crown or someone expected to hold the crown cannot have their own power used against them.

In fact, if you really want to dig deep in to Common Law regarding the Monarchy, you’ll find that it is actually Treason to even SUGGEST that the Crown should be prosecuted. So tread carefully Cleveland or you’ll be urinating into the wind without a head on your shoulders!

A Crown Prince in Asia actually murdered his whole family  in a drunken rage a few years ago. Because this country has very similar rules to the Throne, even though he murdered his family, he at once became King. (They've since changed the rules!).

In theory the Queen could breech the "act of settlement" by becoming a Catholic automatically debarring her from the throne and could be then arrested.

However that could easily be contested under Human rights legislation which could give you a rather amusing situation of the Queen taking the Crown to the European Court of Human Rights. 

[Midland Retty]

My goodness !

I must say you are rather well informed about Royal matters, Mr B.

Im sure a knighthood must be in order, especially for shielding HRH from impending prosecution by Clevelandfire chomping at the bit.

Sorry Clevelandfire I think it's the tower for you, and I have to say you are totally wrong, you can't nick Her Majesty!. Fact!
 

[Clevelandfire 3]

Ok we'll agree to disagree then