Person, who to any extent has control.....................

[nearlythere]

Discussion please.
Multi occupancy with common access. No alternative means of escape from units.
Employer has employees in a unit and is responsible for safety of those persons from fire.
In common area there is a problem with escape for whatever reason. Employer reports matter to landlord/owner but dragging heels.
Would the panel agree that, regardless of situation with landlord/owner, the employer is still legally responsible for the safety of those employees ensuring that they can escape to a place of safety in the event of fire ie outside the building? And, therefore, because the means of escape is not as it should be, the employers course of action should be to cease use until matters have been put right.

My reasoning is that the employer has only control to any extent over the unit he occupies and not the common areas. He cannot control what happens in the common areas but can control his employees being exposed to risk when therein by prohibiting them entry. Because it is the only escape route from his unit the only way he can prevent employees having to use the common area is to cease use of the unit.

[Gasmeter]

I can't see anything wrong with that logic, based on those details.  If it's that clear cut then the only answer is for the tenant and/or the enforcing authority to resort to the law, assuming this is a hypothetical situation; in reality I would expect to find some practical way to make the situation acceptable, even on a temporary basis.

[Midland Retty]

Hi NT

I too agree with your logic. As gasmeter says however i cant ever see this situation arising accept perhaps in a few isolated cases.

[nearlythere]

Hi NT

I too agree with your logic. As gasmeter says however i cant ever see this situation arising accept perhaps in a few isolated cases.

Maybe not but if you were asked the question how would you reply?

[Midland Retty]

As you say in your earlier post NT if the risk is so big and the landlord responsible for the common parts won't address it then the RPs whom look after the individual occupancies may have to consider asking their workforce to down tools and leave the building.

Call me a sceptic but I'd doubt this would ever happen in the real world. Hopefully the landlord would address any major risk beforer it getting to that stage too.

[Tom Sutton]

My reasoning is that the employer has only control to any extent over the unit he occupies and not the common areas.

As they used to say in the union meetings, "Point of information" In a multi-Occ the employer has the duties of a RP in the workplace under his control, which includes part of the common areas. Check out definition of a workplace.

Art 2 "workplace" means any premises or parts of premises, not being domestic premises, used for the purposes of an employer's undertaking and which are made available to an employee of the employer as a place of work and includes,

(a) any place within the premises to which such employee has access while at work; and

(b) any room, lobby, corridor, staircase, road, or other place,
   (i) used as a means of access to or egress from that place of work; or
   (ii) where facilities are provided for use in connection with that place of work, other than a public road.

[nearlythere]

Point I was making TWS was that despite the legislation says the employer has control over premises and common areas used by employees, would it be expected of an employer in a multi occ unit to have to repair a escape route protecting fire door of another employer's unit?
If an employer interferred with or removed property which was outside his unit that did not belong to him what would be the outcome?

[Tom Sutton]

NT I think all the employers (RP`s) have equal duties for the common areas and also any person who has control 5(3) which could be the owner. The RP`s also have a duty to co-operate (art 22) with each other and if it is the PHC who will not play ball then bring in the enforcing authority because all the RP’S have get out of jail cards providing they meet the conditions of art 33.

[Mike Buckley]

Nearlythere what would happen is a load of lawyers would start sharpening their quills.

As far as the employer taking action is concerned I would have thought that if he cannot get the owner or landlord to take action, his next course of action would be to get the Fire Authority in to get their assessment of the risk. The it would depend on the what the FA thought, if the FA says no problem nothing he can do. If the FA decides there is a problem then the FA issues a notice to the Responsible Person and it goes that route. If the FA decides there is a major problem that requires immediate action then I would think the employer is within his rights to get the work done and send the bill to the RP for the premise. Obviously any action the employer takes in the third scenario must not adversely affect any of the other employers in the premise.

[messy]

Getting the FA involved would be the last course of action I wold recommend. As has been stated, as the employer (RP) all escape routes are (jointly) your responsibility and you could end up with an enforcement notice as well as the landlord.

[Tom Sutton]

No problem messy, if as an employer (RP) I had discharged my duties to the full under the order then they could serve as many notices as they choose its the persons who haven’t that need to worry.

[Tall Paul]

Absolutely right.  If however this was the only means of escape then Prohibition/restriction may also come into play, and arguing over who should or shouldn't comply with the Enforcement Notice becomes secondary.  All parties will suffer through loss of business - hence the need for cooperation.

I would not wish to be in the shoes of an 'advisor' who has come across such a situation and is reluctant to involve the F&RS.  Might be an uncomfortable position in the coroner's court.

Ultimately an Article 27 request should get to the borrom of who is responsible prior to the issue of an Enforcement Notice, but this does not, as has been said, take away the responsiblity of the employer, who, have recognised the unacceptable risk to employees, continues to allow them to work in the same area.