Ouch! FSC did not have up to date FRA

[Davo]

For info


http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=9711&viewcomment=1


davo

[Galeon]

And why does this not surprise anyone ?

[Big_Fella]

Not even a few months out of date either.

Tut tut.

[kml]

Might have been more embarrassing to have had an up to date FRA carried out internally that turned out to be unsuitable and insufficient after the event.

[jokar]

And they have a consultancy that offers its services to others!!!

[Thomas Brookes]

Bet they don't get a fine like New Look did.

[AnthonyB]

Seeing as they are enforced by the Crown Premises Inspectorate I would guess not - wasn't it the case that Crown Premises could be found guilty of an offence but only be subject to 'Crown Censure' instead of a conviction & fine?

[CivvyFSO]

Seeing as they are enforced by the Crown Premises Inspectorate I would guess not - wasn't it the case that Crown Premises could be found guilty of an offence but only be subject to 'Crown Censure' instead of a conviction & fine?

Application to the Crown and to the Houses of Parliament
     49. —(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (4), this Order, except for articles 29, 30 and 32 to 36, binds the Crown.


So for Crown owned or occupied premises; no alterations notices, no enforcement notices, no offenses, no determinations.

    (2) Articles 27 and 31 only bind the Crown in so far as they apply in relation to premises owned by the Crown but not occupied by it.

So where the crown own but do not occupy the premises, there are powers of entry and powers of prohibition. (For CPIG only)

So they still have to comply, but nothing could be done about it. Unless....

(2) Notwithstanding section 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774[32], breach of a duty imposed on an employer by or under this Order, so far as it causes damage to an employee, confers a right of action on that employee in civil proceedings.

So, unless something in the FP (Metropolis) Act says otherwise, if someone was hurt in a Crown owned premises, and that could be linked to a breach of duty, could that person have a Civil case against the Crown?

[AnthonyB]

'Crown Censures
A procedure has been established that is supposed to deal with those situations where a Crown body would in ordinary circumstances have been prosecuted. It is called a Crown Censure. It has the following characteristics
• It is not a trial.
• No witnesses are called.
• Members of the public can not attend them.
• It is not chaired by a judge but a Senior HSE inspector.
• The aim of the hearing is to to "seek acknowledgement of the problem and to obtain an undertaking to improve standards of health and safety." '

I knew I'd heard of them, but it apparently only applies to Health & Safety matters

[jokar]

Hmmm, sounds like that will work then.

[nearlythere]

'Crown Censures
A procedure has been established that is supposed to deal with those situations where a Crown body would in ordinary circumstances have been prosecuted. It is called a Crown Censure. It has the following characteristics
• It is not a trial.
• No witnesses are called.
• Members of the public can not attend them.
• It is not chaired by a judge but a Senior HSE inspector.
• The aim of the hearing is to to "seek acknowledgement of the problem and to obtain an undertaking to improve standards of health and safety." '

I knew I'd heard of them, but it apparently only applies to Health & Safety matters

Sounds like the only one there is the Senior HSE inspector! Must be a very quiet hearing.