RRO-responsible person

[Mushy]

In a hospital there could be 30 different FRA's due to all the different wards under different management control. Who is the Responsible person? is it the Chief Exec or individual ward/department managers?

Ta

[nearlythere]

In a hospital there could be 30 different FRA's due to all the different wards under different management control. Who is the Responsible person? is it the Chief Exec or individual ward/department managers?

Ta

I would think that the Enforcement Authority would consider both to be Responsible Persons.

[Colin Newman]

I'd take the view that the Chief Exec. is the "Responsible Person", however, as described in the RRO the duties of the Responsible Person are conferred upon all those with control over any part of the premises.  Hence, the individual ward/department managers are required to discharge the duties of the Responsible Person to the extent of their sphere of influence.

[jokar]

The RP is enshrined in law in Articlr 3 and is an hierarchy list.  Therefore, the Chief Executive is the RP and whilst responsibilities can be discharged to others the actual RP responsibility cannot.

[PhilB]

It matters not a jot who the enforcing authority consider is the responsible person. If there is an employer who as some control, he must be the RP. There will of course be many others who have to some extent control and certain notices can be served on those persons also.

[stevew]

Joker is correct. 

Guidance Note No 1 - Enforcement issued by the Communities and Local Government clarifies the interpretation.
In the case of a workplace Article 3 places unconditional responsibility on the employer.

The reference to 'person(s) with control over a premises' is for premises other than workplaces and NOT a means for an employer to devolve any of his/her responsibilities under the regulation to a manager or any other person within his/her employment
This would include an owner, occupier and a management company in premises such as blocks of flats.
 

[Tom Sutton]

Absolutely but it maybe worth mentioning the employer could be an individual like the Chief Executive or could be a group like a board who is in charge of the organisation it depends who has the last say.

[nearlythere]

It matters not a jot who the enforcing authority consider is the responsible person. If there is an employer who as some control, he must be the RP. There will of course be many others who have to some extent control and certain notices can be served on those persons also.

Surely it would matter a jot PhilB who the EA consider the RP to be. Who else would be interested for the purpose of enforcement?

[PhilB]

The point is the RP is defined in law...the fact that an enforcing authority consider a person to be the RP does not make them the RP...statute does that.

[nearlythere]

Article 3 of guidance Note 1 to the RRO is very clear on it's interpretation of who the RP is and it is not necessarily always and only the employer.
Likewise, the fact that a fire risk assessor or employer consider a person to be the RP does not make them the RP.

[PhilB]

Article 3 of guidance Note 1 to the RRO is very clear on it's interpretation of who the RP is and it is not necessarily always and only the employer.
Likewise, the fact that a fire risk assessor or employer consider a person to be the RP does not make them the RP.

I disagree Nearlythere.

Guidance note No.1 is not statute however it is quite clear on this point.

If there is an employer who has some control....he will always be the RP.

This is to satisfy the framework directive. There may be many other persons who have responsibilities under article 5(3), but they are not responsible persons.

It is not up to the risk assessor, the employer, the enforcing authority or anyone other than parliament to offer an alternative definition for RESPONSIBLE PERSON.

Enforcing authorities need to be aware whether or not they are dealing with the employer, a RP who does not employ anyone or a person who has to some extent control because the duties placed on RPs who are employers differ from the duties placed on other RPs and other persons who have control.

[Martin]

The Chief Exec of a Hospital Trust is not the employer. It is the trust as body coporate which employs people and will also in general as an employer have control of the premises. I am in a LA with a chief exec. but my employer is the council. I have suggested wording of possible summons below. If there is an employer with control it is going to be very difficult if not impossible to name an individual as the RP. The may be several employers and each may get a similar summons but as long as there is an employer with control of the workplace to any extent then that employer is the RP and part B of article 3 wil not apply.

Information of Ace F&RS that P-Poor Health Trust being an employer and having control of the workplace at P_Poor hospital  and therfore  the responsible person as defined in article 3 of RRO did contravene article 5 of the RRO order in that it failed to ensure the safety so far as reasonably practicable the safety of its employees by failure to provide safe storage of highly flammable................

[Midland Retty]

Hi Martin

You are correct. The Trust board would be the collective "responsible person" as they are the employers.

The Chief Exec is appointed by the Trust - or put simply - the Trust Board can "hire and fire" the Chief Exec

HTM 05-01 also clears this issue up with the following:-

Role of Chief Executive

"4.4 The Chief Executive is responsible for ensuring that current fire legislation is met and that where appropriate fire code guidance is implemented in all premises owned / occupied by the NHS Organisation

Role of the Board

"4.5 The Trust Board has overall accountability for the activities ofthe organistion. The board should ensure they have appropriate assurance that the requirements of current fire safety legislation are being met. "

[PhilB]

The Chief Exec of a Hospital Trust is not the employer. It is the trust as body coporate which employs people and will also in general as an employer have control of the premises. I am in a LA with a chief exec. but my employer is the council. I have suggested wording of possible summons below. If there is an employer with control it is going to be very difficult if not impossible to name an individual as the RP. The may be several employers and each may get a similar summons but as long as there is an employer with control of the workplace to any extent then that employer is the RP and part B of article 3 wil not apply.

Information of Ace F&RS that P-Poor Health Trust being an employer and having control of the workplace at P_Poor hospital  and therfore  the responsible person as defined in article 3 of RRO did contravene article 5 of the RRO order in that it failed to ensure the safety so far as reasonably practicable the safety of its employees by failure to provide safe storage of highly flammable................

Bloomin flippin good point Martin!

In many cases involving organisations it will be the organisation...sometimes the body corporate that are the employer...not the chief execuive or managing director. So enforcing authorities need to be aware of these facts. If the enforcers believe the chief exec is at fault as an individual, they may be able to sucessfully prosecute him/her as an individual.

This, in my opinion, emphasises the need for appropriate training, which sadly is sometimes lacking.

[messy]

Surely it's the body corporate which is the RP in most situations.

I have compiled many notices and would not put 'Richard Branson' down as the RP, merely 'Virgin Atlantic' (or whatever).

I can't see what the problem is here. As Jokar and others have stated, it's a hierarchy with the employer at the top. This only causes difficulties (in some cases) when there's no employer - such as common parts of flats being run via resident association committee, via a managing agent.

I had a complicated example once where the RP (employer) was a department of a wealthy foreign state and, if you ignore the employer definition of RP, the 'person in control' had diplomatic status, despite the building not having such status.