Tenants of flats- legal rights

[kurnal]

Thanks C3. Article 8(b) and article 4(f) working tgether I guess?

I was looking for words like information and instruction and sometimes I cant see the wood for the trees.

[nearlythere]

Think you're right C3. Tried not to find it in 4 & 8 but couldn't.

[Tom Sutton]

IMO C3 is correct which was further clarified by Kurnal but it doesn't address the situation about the right to know about the FRA by Relevant Persons. However if you consider who Relevant Persons are, not only tenants but friends of friends visiting tenants, customers in a shop or departmental store and even passer by, then I can see why legislators kept well away from that can of worms.

"relevant persons" means-

(a) any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; and

(b) any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises,

but does not include a fire-fighter who is carrying out his duties in relation to a function of a fire and rescue authority under section 7,
8 or 9 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire-fighting, road traffic accidents and other emergencies), other than in relation to a
function under section 7(2)(d), 8(2)(d) or 9(3)(d) of that Act;

[kurnal]

Tom I agree but theres a big difference between someone who lives in a building and a casual visitor or customer. If I live in a building I do not have any right to see the fire risk assessment or its findings even though my life is totally dependent on the Landlords diligence. But if I work there, or if my child has a part time job there for 15 minutes a day  I do have these rights.

That still strikes me as bizarre.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree Kurnal but how would you draft it into the order without making the RR(FS)0 any worse than it already is.

[Chris Houston]

If you had a cleaner, for example, they would be an employee in the building and they might be entitled to see it.   

[Midland Retty]

I agree Kurnal but how would you draft it into the order without making the RR(FS)0 any worse than it already is.

Could be easily done without opening the can of worms. I don't see why Article 19 could be amended without too much of a headache.

[Mr. P]

Chewing this over...
Article 5 - Duties under this order... This imposes responsibility upon anyone involved in a contract or tenancy.. as a person having control(Art's 8 - 22) becomes a responsible person.

Cannot therefore, that be used to show, although not an employee, it links them in with such and therefore disclosure of significant findings must be made available?

A Tenant is still a relevant person & therefore has the right to be informed of findings.

[CivvyFSO]

A person having control due to a contract or tenancy does not usually become a Responsible Person, they are a 'person having control' and nothing more. They are still capable of the same offences as a RP, but the duties are only placed on them in accordance level of control he/she has. Kurnal might have a duty to maintain a decent front door, (i.e. not replace it with a nice straw one) and nothing else.

[Mr. P]

OK. So if a tenant has an employee from another employer in to do some work, sufficient information must be made available to them. How can the tenant (as being one who has control) give them that information if the RP has not passed it on to the tenant? The other employer's employee may well have to pass over/through common arreas to carry out that work. As a defence, would the tenant be able to submit  to court that they have done all they reaonably can to provide such detail? That the RP would not give them insight or copy of the findings? (Art 20 refers)

[Tom Sutton]

MR I would be interested to know how you would amend art 19 considering it only applies to employees at the moment

[Midland Retty]

You would have to amend in order that it doesn't just apply to employees TW.

Eg:-

Article 19 Provision of Information to Employees and Tenants

19(1) The RP must provide his employees and / or tenants with comprehensive and relevant information on :-

(a) the risks to them identified by the risk assessment
(b) the preventative and protective measures
etc etc
 
19 (1) (c) to (d) probably dont need to be applied to tenants, just article 19 (1) (a) & (b) and possibly (e)

[Mr. P]

Just re-use the term 'Relevant Persons'- 19. (1)  The responsible person must provide Relevant Persons with... -covers most then eh? Simples Meerkat?(I know you are watching!!!)

[Midland Retty]

you could do Mr P, only trouble is that the term Relevant Person may open it all to the can of worms TW perviously mentioned.

[Tom Sutton]

That is fine MR but what about owner/occupiers, lodgers, delivery men, and old uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, who would all claim they have a right to this information, they would all come out the woodwork. The RP would have to provide all these people with comprehensive and relevant information. How would s/he identify them and what good would it be to most of them.

If it could be limited to a small identifiably group then i agree it may work.

As article 4 & 8 will cover the important information they need to know, I would sooner leave it to the FRS to deal with the FRA and whether the RP has one. You can always snitch or grass on the RP.