Multi occupied buildings and common areas again

[kurnal]

We have already discussed the responsibilities  of landlords and tenants in Multiple occupied buildings under the Fire Safety Order. But heres a new twist and I would be grateful to hear your views.

Consider two shops in a multi occupied block. Each shop has an extensive basement and there is a fire exit door from each passing into the other. Means of escape from either basement would be unsatisfactory without the pass door.

How many Responsible Persons have duties to ensure the door and escape routes beyond the door through each demise are always available for use?

Occupiers A and B certainly, but as these routes are used by more than one tenant do you think the landlord has any responsibilities under the Fire Safety Order?

Could the duty of the Landlord  "to the extent that they have control" be dealt with simply by a clause in the tenancy agreement without any monitoring by the Landlord?

If someone was hurt as a result of the door being locked by one tenant and obstructed by the other how many people would be in the dock?

[FSO]

I think your right in what you say Kurnal.

Is it reasonable for the landlord to have control over this door? I would suggest that it is proberly is not.

Of course there could be an exception where the door is faulty and it has been reported (where this responsibility falls to the landlord of course).

Good solid agreements in place with art22 between the 2 occupiers seems the logical way forward to me.

[Midland Retty]

I would say it is reasonable for the landlord to put some form of clause in the tenancy agreement.

Or looking at it from another angle the landlord could advise both tenants that the basement can not be used UNLESS they both arrange for a wayleave agreement to be drawn up between themselves to ensure the pass door is always available for use.

You mention common areas in the title but dont forget the basements would not be classed as common areas in this instance. Instead tenants are crossing over directly into each others occupancy, there is no common area involved, which puts a slightly different slant on things, particularly who would be culpable.  

If anything were to happen who would be in the dock?

Answer is both tenants most probably. The landlord would also be investigated but I doubt any action would be taken against him / her .

If Tenant A obstructs the pass door then clearly that would be a serious case offence (if anyone were to be serious injured or killed).

But is it unreasonable to expect Tenant B to undertake regular checks to ensure the door is available, and if not take interim measures to address the problem? (i.e; restrict the use of the basement) - So Tenant B might equally be held responsible.

Conversely if Tenant B did his daily check and found the door to open and available, but an hour later Tenant A blocks it and someone was injured as a result, you could argue Tenant B would not be held responsible.

[Cullenloon]

Agree the above comments. The landlord cannot permit the areas to be used without both parties agreeing the use of the central door and continuimg to do so whilst renting the premises.

If one of the shops has "explosive atmospheres" or, in my opinion, sells fireworks during the permitted periods and stores them in the cellar we may need to look at Art 22 (2) placing the onus of responsibility on the landlord.

[kurnal]

Yes thanks I agree with most of your replies. My gut feeling is that these do not feel like common areas but I think that the landlord, having put a condition in the tenancy agreement of both of his tenants is then really duty bound under the Order to ensure that the condition is being complied with and to take action if one is not? In most such cases I guess only the Landlord has the right of access to both sides of the door to ensure compliance and one tenant has no idea what is going on on the other side.

Now whose job is it to install test and maintain the emergency escape lighting and signage?

[AnthonyB]

Not common areas, but would be mentioned in passing in the MoE section of the Landlord's part of our report as well as in the audit forms for each tenant, so that they are aware both to write to existing tenants but also so they can inform new tenants of their responsibilities on occupancy.

Lighting and signage is up to the tenants alone - lighting would be off each unit's lighting circuit (which they have control over, not the landlord) and it's the tenant's walls that would having the signs on.

At the end of the day the tenants as responsible persons should be doing FRA's (even if not written due to staffing numbers) and determining all this - they could decide that they do not need those routes and do away with them if they wish (on their heads of course if it all goes Pete Tong). The landlord can advise and suggest, but in this situation it shouldn't go beyond that - if they are really worried about the tenants failings they should complain to the enforcing authority.

[Midland Retty]

Yes thanks I agree with most of your replies. My gut feeling is that these do not feel like common areas but I think that the landlord, having put a condition in the tenancy agreement of both of his tenants is then really duty bound under the Order to ensure that the condition is being complied with and to take action if one is not? In most such cases I guess only the Landlord has the right of access to both sides of the door to ensure compliance and one tenant has no idea what is going on on the other side.

Now whose job is it to install test and maintain the emergency escape lighting and signage?

I think you need to be careful with that Kurnal. To try and ratify the problem you firstly need to look at who has to any degree control over those premises.

There are definately no communal areas in the scenario you give. Therefore each individual area is under the full control of each individual tenant.

Both tenants have the ability to keep the pass door open and available under their control. They don't need the landlord to do that.

OK one tenant could block the pass door causing a problem for the other tenant. The agrieved tenant may then contact the landlord and complain but dependant on the terms of the lease agreement the landlord may say " Not my problem - sort it out between yourselves?"

If that is the case the agreaved tenant may be stuck and may therefore need to implement interim measures (ie restrict the use of the basement for his or her staff) Again it comes back to control.

The tenants have sufficient control to implement interim measures if required, the tenants have sufficient control over the pass door. I deem them both to be RPs in this example, not the landlord.

In terms of signage and lighting, each tenant would be responsible for it in their respective parts of the basement.

[nearlythere]

Yes thanks I agree with most of your replies. My gut feeling is that these do not feel like common areas but I think that the landlord, having put a condition in the tenancy agreement of both of his tenants is then really duty bound under the Order to ensure that the condition is being complied with and to take action if one is not? In most such cases I guess only the Landlord has the right of access to both sides of the door to ensure compliance and one tenant has no idea what is going on on the other side.

Now whose job is it to install test and maintain the emergency escape lighting and signage?

I think you need to be careful with that Kurnal. You need to look at who has to any degree control over those premises.

There are definately no communal areas in the scenario you give. Therefore each individual area is under the full control of each individual tenant.

Both tenants have the ability to keep the pass door open and available within their control,. They don't need the landlord to do that.

OK one tenant could block the pass door causing a problem for the other tenant. The agrieved tenant may then contact the landlord and complain but dependant on the terms of the lease agreement the landlord may say " Not my problem - sort it out between yourselves?"

If that is the case the agreaved tenant may be stuck and may therefore need to implement interim measures (ie restrict the use of the basement for his or her staff) Again it comes back to control.

The tenants have sufficient control to implement interim measures if required, the tenants have sufficient control over the pass door. I deem them both to be RPs in this example, not the landlord.

In terms of signage and lighting, each tenant would be responsible for it in their respective parts of the basement.

Is the room with the final exit, lets call it the access room, not common to both as a means of escape whereas the inner room is not.
What you seem to be implying MR is that there should be a quota of tenants who must use an area before it becomes "common".
Are we too used to seeing common areas as stairways, corridors and circulation spaces?

[Midland Retty]

No, not in this particular scenario

I see where you are coming from NT, and for something to be a common or communal area does not depend on a set amount of people from different tenancies using it (but clearly you would need more that one occupany), instead a communal area is generally an area that tenants do not have any control over.

In the Profs' example you have two shops both with a basement. In between both shops at basement level is a party wall. And in the party wall there is a pass door. In this scenario therefore you do not have a communal area, because during normal times both tenants use their basements as their own space, no one else normally has access to that area except in an emergency.

Also each individual tenant controls their part of the basement and unless some agreement is in place either one of the tenants could quite freely obstruct the pass door and place the other tenants in contravention of the Fire Safety Order.

[jokar]

A question then, who controls the EEL, the FA and fire safety devices, including the doors and who has responsibilty for them?  Under the order, the definition of a premises includes the definition of a workplace and that includes ingress and egress for the relevant people and therefore the tenant has some reponsibility to ensure that the access is available all the time.  It is not only common areas that are included but common systems as well and therefore Kurnal is correct that in the case above the Landlord would have reponsibility as well.

[AnthonyB]

Where is the common system in the original example? EL is off each tenants lighting ring and distribution board, the door belongs to whomever the lease identifies (or jointly) and there is no description of a fire alarm.

If the shops are part of a larger building and the shops are directly off the central panel there is a definite landlord responsibility there as the landlord has control. If the shops have their own separate systems then it's the tenants responsibility, with the landlord only needing to determine if they need interfacing with the central system, but not being responsible for maintenance.

[kurnal]

Yes Thanks Anthony I did not mention the fire alarm.

For the purpose of the point I was seeking to explore, the fire alarm is not relevant as in most such arrangements the shops have their own stand alone systems interfaced to the landlords system.

So the point I was primarily interested in concerns only the pass door and the role of the landlord. The pass door between two tenants basement stockrooms- both rabbit warrens - were marked exit but were  locked bolted and secured from both sides by both tenants.

The landlord was adamant it was not his responsibility. He did not want me to go down there but I insisted because it lies under the common exit routes from the upper floors and I needed to see the state of the fire protection  to the underside of the escape route.

Having seen the locked doors and having tried to educate the tenants both sides without success I believe that the landlord has a duty to audit and police his tenants compliance with their tenancy agreements - I believe that this is a matter within his control under the meaning of the Fire Safety Order.

The landlord and managing Agent are adamant that they have no such duty and it is soley between the tenants. I wanted opinions on this.

[Tom Sutton]

Having seen the locked doors and having tried to educate the tenants both sides without success I believe that the landlord has a duty to audit and police his tenants compliance with their tenancy agreements - I believe that this is a matter within his control under the meaning of the Fire Safety Order.

The landlord and managing Agent are adamant that they have no such duty and it is solely between the tenants. I wanted opinions on this.

Does the tenancy agreement say that this emergency door should be kept available or such clauses that require this. If it does then I would agree if it doesn't how would the landlord enforce it, surely its up to the two tenants to comply with the RRFSO and the FRS to enforce it

[Midland Retty]

It probably would depend on the tenancy agreement to some extent, as this directly effects the level of control excercised by each occupier or tenant.

However it still doesn't preclude both occupiers from undertaking their duties under the order - particularly Article 22 (co-operation and co-ordination) and also remember that the tenancy agreement wouldn't effect their "responsible person" status under Article 3 either.

Take the landlord out of the equation for a moment and imagine Tenant A blocks the pass door, thus effecting Tenant B's means of escape.

Unless some form of formal agreement is in place stating the pass door must be kept available at all times, Tenant B would need to take interim measures to address the inadequate means of escape.

It doesn't require the landlord to take interim measures. Tenant B has within their control the ability to take interim measures, and should do so immediately - it is their duty under the RRO.

They certianly shouldn't be waiting for the landlord to sort it out. What happens if the landlord is uncontactable? - Are we saying Tenant B is within their rights let staff work down in the basement knowing the pass door isn't available until the landlord is contacted ? Of course not !

Even if Tenant A contravened a clause in the tenancy agreement by blocking the pass door it doesn't let Tenant B off the hook. Tenant B should still be taking interim measures until the matter is resolved (either by the Landlords' intervention or not).

So in short Kurnal apply article 3 - I think you will find that the tenants are the RPs in this scenario.

Secondly consider Art 22 - and remember that the two occupiers may have consulted with each other but dont necessarily have to agree with one another.

If tenant A asked tenant B if they can use the escape route through their basement, and tenant B refuses, then Tenant A will have to think of alternatives. There is nothing in law which states Tenant B must provide that route for Tenant A - UNLESS of course there is some form of wayleave or formal agreement drawn up or alr
eady in place.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Cheers Retty that has cleared it up for me. I reviewed article 3 and conclude that the tennants are reponsible persons not the landlord.