RRO-responsible person

[PhilB]

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).

Quite right Messy...it is the body corporate not the individual. But it is important to realizzze that if the RP is an employer they have an absolute duty to comply unlike others who are not employers.

[Tom Sutton]

An old thread relevant to this thread try http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3022.0

[Mike Buckley]

Comparing the FSO with the HSAWA I thought the idea was that the two worked in the same manner. Under the HSAWA the MD is held responsible and a number of them have benn fined and imprisoned for offences. There is also the new legislation about Corporate Responsibility which closed the loophole of Directors hiding behind the legal company persona.

At the end of the day it will be the courts who decide who is the RP, however if you follow the HSAWA the MD or the CEO will be held responsible.

[Tom Sutton]

Mike

I am not too familiar with the HSAWA but the RR(FS)O is clear, the employer is the RP in a workplace so you have to decided who the employer is in an organisation. Martin says “The Chief Exec of a Hospital Trust is not the employer. It is the trust as body corporate which employs people” so the trust is the RP. I would also think this applies to all organisations that are run by a body corporate (limited company) the problem is who you send any enforcement notices to. In a previous thread a high consensus of opinion was the company secretary not the CEO or MD.

What new legislation are you referring to?

[AnthonyB]

I would assume he is referring to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act introduces a new offence, across the UK, for prosecuting companies and other organisations where there has been a gross failing, throughout the organisation, in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences.

[Tom Sutton]

I suspected so, but if this is the case, then I would hope that most enforcement action would not have got to a stage that involved fatalities, manslaughter or otherwise.

[Martin]

HSW '74 and RRO are not comparable in terms of getting the MD in court. HSW 74 has section 37 which says where an offence by a body corporate is comitted with consent,connivance or neglect of a director, amanager etc that person  as well as the body corporate a can be proceeded against. I'm not aware of any similar provison in fire safety order. If there is an employer in control of a workplace that employer is RP.

Interesting Q about who you serve documents on. For a limited company company sec. at registerd office for an LA the town clerk (this title is usually preserved as a part of the chief execs duties), for a hospital health trust I haven't a clue.

Corporate manslaughter legn has changed but this is a CPS matter. HSE and LAs enforcing HSW 74 have a formal agrrement with CPS about investigating workplace fatal incidents. I presume Fire Services Have a similar approach. Yes, I know the dangers of presuming.

[PhilB]

The fire safety order has an identical provison in article 32. If the enforcing authority believe the MD or other senior manager is at fault they could be prosecuted as an individual.

In most cases it will be the body corporate that is at fault and in that case notices would be served on the company secretary but made out to the body corporate.

[Martin]

Oops my mistake. Article 32 Fire Safety Order does mirror Section 37 of HSW act.

[CivvyFSO]

For clarification:

( 8 ) Where an offence under this Order committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of that offence, and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

[Midland Retty]

The fire safety order has an identical provison in article 32. If the enforcing authority believe the MD or other senior manager is at fault they could be prosecuted as an individual.

In most cases it will be the body corporate that is at fault and in that case notices would be served on the company secretary but made out to the body corporate.

Just to add to PhilB's reply above

Confusion often arises where the "Body Corporate" is not a limited company, and, therefore, no Company Secretary involved.

Take our example on this thread - a hospital. As we've acknowledged the trust board is the RP .

All notices would be served, I suggest, on the Chairperson of the board (as there is no company secretary) but made out to the body corporate.


Hope that clears it up.

[Mushy]

Thanks all

so the consensus of opinion is that it is the trust board that are the responsible persons in a hospital trust

each ward and department has a manager....if they are lets say, constantly wedging open kitchen fire doors (each ward has one) the board are responsible with regard to the RRO and not the ward manager?

[kurnal]

Yes mushy to a point. They have clearly as a board failed to implement effective management procedures to ensure the safety of relevant persons. So the buck stops with them but then dont overlook articles 23 (general duties of employees at work) and article 18 ( safety assistance) and article 32 (offences).

The Responsible person must appoint competent persons to assist him undertake the preventive and protective measures, those individuals must follow instructions and not misuse or abuse  anything provided for the purpose of fire safety and are guilty of an offence if they do so.

The employer will always be held responsible for the actions of their staff. Its called Vicarious responsibility and applies in all areas of H&S at work.

[Mushy]

Thanks Kurnal


'The Responsible person must appoint competent persons to assist him undertake the preventive and protective measures'

isn't this to assist in the FRA?

 the FRA could be already done and staff continue to flout the RRO...

I see your point about the RRO articles

[PhilB]

'The Responsible person must appoint competent persons to assist him undertake the preventive and protective measures'

isn't this to assist in the FRA?

No Mushy the "preventive and protective measures" means the measures which have been identified by the responsible person in consequence of a risk assessment as the general fire precautions he needs to take.

In the hospital example it may be that the ward manager has been appointed as such a person by the responsible person. The ward manager would not be a resposible person but a person who has to some extent control.

Enforcement notices could be served on either the RP or the ward manager and offences could be committed by both parties. Furthermore anyone could be prosecuted if the offence is due to their act or default. Article 32(10)