Transfer of Prohibition Notices

[PhilB]

any half decent brief would have something to say on behalf of his client in both of these respects should a FA attempt to prosecute someone other than the RP who the original Notice was served on.

The decent brief may have something to say but that does not change statute......it is an offence for any person to fail to comply. Yes you could re-serve if you wish but please don't be under the impression that a notice is invalid because the RP has changed. The notice is not always served on an individual, it may have been served by posting it to some conspicous part of the building or by handing it to some person who appears to be resident!!!

It could become a full time job for an enforcing authority to constantly check to make sure that the RP had not changed...how often should they check every day?...every week?...every 30 minutes?!!! Yes they should of course police the situation to make sure that the notice is complied with but there is no requirement to re serve the notice.

Have a look at the old FP Act....it used to be a defence for a person to prove that he did not know and had no reason to believe that a prohibition notice had been served. That defence was not written into the fire safety order.

Why do you think that was?

[Bruce89]

Whilst it is an offence to fail to comply with a PN, it still has to pass the evidential and public interest test before a decision to prosecute should be taken despite what appears to be a prima facie case, I'm not challenging your interpretation of statute.
It may not be a requirement to re-serve, but why not re-serve anyway? it is surely better for total clarity should a prosecution be necessary at a later date!
The revisits are not to check that the RP has changed, they are to ensure compliance pretty much like any audit. It just may be that a change of RP is noted at the time. As regard frequency, this will be governed by a number of factors e.g. workloads, apparent willingness to co-operate in achieving an acceptable standard etc.
With regards to your final 2 para's, it would certainly be used as mitigation by defence and I know from personal experience that even a case that has been won, can end up costing the FA a packet as the bench has refused to award any costs to the FA. That then surely cannot be in the public interest considering how we are all having to draw our belts in.

[PhilB]

I think we agree Bruce that legaly the notice is valid and yes if the enforcing authority are aware of a change of occupier/RP it would do no harm to provide them with a copy of the original notice and to be extra extra sure serve a new notice.

We can go round in circles forever asking all sorts of what ifs and buts like ..... if my auntie had a willy would that make her my uncle ....and yes it may well do......

.......but let's not forget Zimmy's original question.....

what is the status of the notice if the responsible person changes? Does the notice legally transfer?...... do we have to withdraw and re-issue?

...............................the answers are ......................the notice still stands, and no there is no legal need to re-issue.  

[Bruce89]

Yes Phil, we do agree! Bit concerned about your auntie though.   

[nearlythere]

Yes Phil, we do agree! Bit concerned about your auntie though.   

Auntie? Thought she was an uncle.

[kurnal]

Dont you remember the old sixties TV series- the woman from Uncle? or was it the Man from Auntie? All this is getting very confusing and a bit of a drag.

[nearlythere]

Robert Vaughan as Napoleon Solo. David McCallum as Ilya Kuryakin (probably spelt wrong) and Leo Carroll as Mr Waverly (was it?).
The communicator pen with the pop out bit at the top as itself.
And I didn't look it up on the internet.

[zimmy]

Clearly this thread has run its course!...and many thanks to all who have contributed to the subject.

To draw a line under it I would summerise that legally, the notice remains valid irrespective of any change of RP. However, there would be a defence of due diligence available to anyone in the Court following a failure to comply.

To avoid this defence being realistic, it would be prudent for a FRA to a) copy the notice to the owner, head office etc, and b) periodically monitor the premises to ensure compliance.

During this revisit, becoming aware of a new RP, the FRA has the option of doing nothing, providing a copy of the original notice, or re-issuing a new notice to the new RP (subject to conditions being confirmed as the same).

This choice will depend on individual circumstances, but it would appear that the second option of providing a copy of the original notice will in most cases suffice.

Thats how I see it anyway!

Thanks again

[Galeon]

Dont you remember the old sixties TV series- the woman from Uncle? or was it the Man from Auntie? All this is getting very confusing and a bit of a drag.

Stephanie Powers ? met her in a lift once , lovely lady.