Fire Risk Assessment

[kurnal]

Yes Tom I wont say so here but if we meet somewhere out of earshot I might agree with you that he was right. 

[Davo]

Tom

I own this place above.
All my lessees share the entrances and stairs, also the toilets.
So I employ a cleaner

QED

davo

[kurnal]

Tom

I own this place above.
All my lessees share the entrances and stairs, also the toilets.
So I employ a cleaner
QED
davo

You are an employer then Davo. But I have a place next door just like yours.
I am a doddery old codger and very obstinate. I am determined not to employ anybdy. So I use a contractor to clean it for me. Quid.

(Thanks for the sponsorship by the way safely received.) 

[Tom Sutton]

Davo I have never said you cannot make a case for considering the common areas a a workplace but it is a very tenuous argument and more important it is not necessary as the landlord/owner is a PHC and responsible for any of the articles or clauses he has control over. If it went to court you would spend the first couple of days arguing if the commons areas could be classed as the landlord/owner workplace also many of the articles 8 t0 23/24 he would not have control of therefore irrelevant to him he would simple apply art 33.

Kurnal's old codger would most likely be a PHC and you would have him by the proverbial.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tom

Stay with me on this if you will...

As Davo stated, if I directly employ a cleaner to service the common areas of my property, I become an employer. The cleaner's workplace is the communal area, and I would thus be classed as an RP without any argument.  That is very much black and white when it comes to the order in that respect and certainly not tenuous.

If i didnt employ anyone as per Kurnal's scenario then Article 3(b)(i) or 3(b)(ii) would need to be applied . These are the parts of the order which effectively deals with level of responsibility.

Take Art 3(b)(i) for instance, you could argue that the landlord is running a business trade or undertaking  from the premises, because he is renting out parts of those premises and getting money in return for it. OK i admit that is a bit tenuous, but...

Eitherway you would need to establish what the tenant/ occupier is or isn't responsible for. If the lease says the tenant is responsible for maintaining the communal areas then fair enough, I would accept that tennant was the RP for the communal areas.

In reality however you are more than likely to be looking at Article 3(b)(ii) which says the owner (landlord) is responsible.

It mentioned it would be rare for a tenant to be made RP for communal areas. Here's why:-

I am a landlord of multi occ with ten occupiers.

You are one of those occupiers. Im a little cute and try to get you to sign up to a lease which makes you responsible for the communal areas.

The terms would make you responsible for everything - from redecorating to renewing carpets, the electrics, making any necessary repairs, servicing and maintaining the fire precautions. It makes you responsible for any damage or wear and tear caused by other occupiers.

Why should you foot the bill for the damage or wear and tear caused by other tenants? - I think you would more than likely tell me to shove my tenancy agreement.

In most multi occs I come across the tenants are responsible for the areas they lease, but the communal areas are looked after by the landlord. I suspect those situations exist because having a tenant responsible for the communal areas would be frought with complications and hassle.

[AnthonyB]

It's funny that you use the example you did - there is a type of office building design used on at least two estates I've visited that are:

Ground floor office with whole buildings electrical distribution meters & fuse-boards in a cupboard
First floor office
Common stair with ground floor kitchenette & toilets off

The leases have been cunningly drawn up to give the ground floor tenant a superior lease making them liable for the common areas (& thus fire alarm and e/l) with an easement to allow the first floor access & use of the shared facilities.

So when asked to FRA these sites we were only to do those with vacant areas and only to highlight fire alarm issues (e.g. no maintenance) where the ground floor was vacant.

The reason this was done was because the LL realised that the service charge for these areas would be tiny, yet the maintenance charges disproportionately high, so the leases were designed to avoid this.

So in the fully let buildings the Landlord was not employing, nor (they could argue) did they have control.

[CivvyFSO]

One converted cotton mill owned by an old gentleman and let to multiple small businesses. He used to run the mill then in the seventies when the business failed let various parts of it to other local businesses. He retains control and collects the rent etc.  Under the terms of the individual leases the owner is responsible for maintaining the common areas. This work is carried out by contractors not employees. Under articles 5.3 and 5.4 the owner is therefore  a person having control not a responsible person. 

The building is used as a workplace by the tenants and by the cleaning contractors. The  employers are responsible persons   under article 3 - ie the tenants and the cleaning contractors.

This seems quite simple to me:
Old gentleman is RP of common areas by virtue of article 3(b)(i)or(ii)
Tenants are RP of their own areas by virtue of article 3(a)
Contractors and employees of other companies are covered by article 20. i.e. The owner is responsible for their safety while in the common areas, and should send details of the risks etc to the employers involved. (Granted, this NEVER happens)

[Tom Sutton]

MR I have only considered the RR(FS)O my interpretation is based on the order alone which I accept is not well drafted.

We agree the employers (occupants) are RP’s and a case can be made that the owner/representative can as well (art 3). We won’t argue about the strength of the case.

Where we seem to disagree is
 
1.  The extent of the employers’ workplace and
2.  Is it best to treat the owner/representative as a RP or a PHC?

My response to 1.

If you checkout the definition of a workplace it includes the landing, the stairs, and across the yard to the main gate. Therefore a workplace extends further than an employers’ workshop/office and includes any area his employees have access to i.e. the common areas.

This IMO means each tenant (RP) is subject to articles 8 to 23/24 in the common areas as well as its own workshop/office but if they do not have control they can use art 33 as a defence.

My response to 2

Art 5.1 states a RP must ensure the duties imposed by articles 8 to 23/24 are complied with therefore an owner/representative would have to conduct a FRA, also review it. This also applies to the employers and who is best suited, a person who is occasionally there or an employer who is there everyday, this will also apply to other articles.

If the owner/representative is an RP he would also be subject to articles 8 to 23/24 in the common areas and in a multi occ how many owners/representatives conduct a FRA in the common areas?

However if you consider the owner/representative as a PHC and make him responsible for the articles he has control over like fire alarm, extinguishers and means of escape in the common areas. The employer can use art 33 as a get out of jail card, if required.

I also accept the tenancy agreement is important because it could define who has control of what and where but as I have said I have only considered the RR(FS)O.

It looks like we are never going to agree on this and also repeating ourselves therefore for the benefit of others let agree to disagree.

[Midland Retty]

It looks like we are never going to agree on this and also repeating ourselves therefore for the benefit of others let agree to disagree.

That's fair enough Tom, but hey dont forget that it's good to debate, and whilst we may be repeating ourselves slightly, others may benefit from those discussions. As BT once said, "Its good to talk".

[Tom Sutton]

MR I totally agree with you but I also know legislation is not the most scintillating of topics and I would not want to bore the proverbial off anybody. However I have learned a lot which has changed my opinion, on certainly one item and reinforced others.

I may be a boring old fart but I don’t wish to reinforce it.

[Davo]

Tom

Repetition is good cos the penny doesn't always drop first time (speak for youself Davo) (I am)

Also, a slight change of words or emphasis second time around works wonders, so don't stop, eh


davo

[Midland Retty]

I may be a boring old fart but I don’t wish to reinforce it.

Id never accuse you of being a boring old f*rt, quite the opposite Tom!

[kurnal]

Whats the opposite of f*rt then Retty?

Sorry must post 1000 times  "I must stop being a smartass"

[Midland Retty]

Whats the opposite of f*rt then Retty?

Sorry must post 1000 times  "I must stop being a smartass"

Havent you got any bike rides you could be going on, matey ?

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks guys for your comments but why change a habit of a lifetime. As for for being an old f**t I am afraid its a fact of life and there isn't anything one can do about it.