Site Responsible Person

[Midland Retty]

The Freeholder (landlord) will be the RP for the common areas, and normally all of the common precautions - however sometimes this depends on the lease.

Midders the RP's workplace extends to the common areas that is available to his employees, including any access or egress from his place of work so what is the landlord RP of, somebodies workplace? (Check definition of workplace art 2)

Indeed so Tom and as a result if the communal MOE for example was insufficient the tenant (RP) would need to take measures to protect his or her employees, however the action required to sort the MOE maybe beyond his or her control and may fall back to landlord. If landlord won't rectify any problems the tenant can be left with a few problems to say the least

 

[Tom Sutton]

Anthony I think the OP is saying if there was a 'site responsible person' there would be no problem its because it is up to the RP's and consequently the RR(FS)O there is a problem.

I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.

Providing the RP's took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by tackling the landlord, they have their "get out of jail card" art 33.

[nearlythere]

Providing the RP's took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by tackling the landlord, they have their "get out of jail card" art 33.

Absolutely Tom if the landlord is neglecting his responsibilities by failing to maintain FA or EL in common areas of blocking escape doors or whetever. But it would be different if the RP of the occupency did not want to have any responsibility for the evacuation of persons from his unit.

[Tom Sutton]

Agreed NT the Person Having Control (PHC), landlord in this case is subject to individual articles but the RP's are subject to articles 8 to 22 which will include article or articles the PHC is responsible for, but they do have a defence if they can prove they have done all they can not commit an offence.

[nearlythere]

Chrpay. After reading the posts who would you consider is causing the problem?

[Midland Retty]

I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.

Hi Tom - no 5(3) wouldn't come into play in that sense as this landlord is an RP in his own right - he is not a "person having control"

Tenant RPs still have a duty to protect their staff even if Landlord is failing to co-operate and co-ordinate.

[Tom Sutton]

 Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)

[nearlythere]

I agree Midders but if the landlord has control (responsible for the MoE) then art 5(3) comes into play and he has duties under art 14 and could be brought to task by you guys. This would apply to other articles, for instance art 13 if he had control over the fire alarm and/or FFE in common areas.

Hi Tom - no 5(3) wouldn't come into play in that sense as this landlord is an RP in his own right - he is not a "person having control"
Tenant RPs still have a duty to protect their staff even if Landlord is failing to co-operate and co-ordinate.

I agree with that last statement J and if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?

[Midland Retty]

Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)

Look at the definition of Responsible Person.

I think I have caused confusion with what I call the "person having control" because Article 3 defines a Responsible person using this term.
 
In this Order “responsible person” means—

(a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; .
(b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— .
(i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or .
(ii)the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking. .

The terms above shouldn't be confused with those used in Article 5(3) which talks about any person who has to any extent control of the premises.

See my posts above about sole traders, and local branch manager of Woolworths and it should hopefully make sense as these are Article 5 Persons whom have to any extent control, whereas the landlord and any tenants who employ people of course do have control over the premises but are de jure Responsible Persons and there are differences between the persons described in Art 3 to those in Art 5

... if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?

Yep spot on - if the landlord is a numpty of course!

[nearlythere]

Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)

Look at the definition of Responsible Person.

I think I have caused confusion with what I call the "person having control" because Article 3 defines a Responsible person using this term.
 
In this Order “responsible person” means—

(a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; .
(b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— .
(i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or .
(ii)the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking. .

The terms above shouldn't be confused with those used in Article 5(3) which talks about any person who has to any extent control of the premises.

See my posts above about sole traders, and local branch manager of Woolworths and it should hopefully make sense as these are Article 5 Persons whom have to any extent control, whereas the landlord and any tenants who employ people of course do have control over the premises but are de jure Responsible Persons and there are difference between the people descirbed in Art 3 to those in Art 5

... if the landlord is failing miserably and creating a dangerous situation then the RP might have no choice but to cease using the premises until things are sorted.
Why do you say that the LL is not a person having control if there are common escape routes and a FA system?

Yep spot on - if the landlord is a numpty of course!

Ah! See you big man. You're just trying to throw us cos its Friday and that new scots mug person has started a new slate in the bar. Race you!

[Midland Retty]

Midders how is the landlord an RP all the premises and common areas are workplaces under the responsibility of the tenants(RP's)

They are an extension of the workplace and as such the Tenant RPs will need to consider those areas in their assessments and to ensure they are safe to use by their employees, visitors, rel. persons etc.

However the power or authority to rectify any faults or failings in the communal areas may be out of their control. And thats the difference. They may not be able to influence what goes on in the communal areas. So if landlord blocks up a final exit one day the tenant couldn't simply phone a builder and got the expense to re-instate it, he would have to go through the landlord and request it be brought back into use. If the landlord says "sorry chummy on your bike I'm not re-opening that exit cos its a security risk" then the tenant RP has a problem, and as NT above states it might mean he has to up sticks and vacate the premises. (In the real world I doubt that would ever happen but thats the theory)

For example lets say that in the tenancy agreement all structural repairs or alterations in the building are down to the landlord as is the maintenance and repair of common fire precautions (such as the fire alarm system which covers multiple occupancies and several RP tenants) the tenant RPs cannot have any control over the common fire alarm system!

 

[Tom Sutton]

All the premises in the building extending to the common areas have RP’s, which premises is the landlord the employer of? Art 3 (b) doesn't apply because they are workplaces unlike the common areas of blocks of flats or empty premises/buildings.

For example lets say that in the tenancy agreement all structural repairs or alterations in the building are down to the landlord as is the maintenance and repair of common fire precautions (such as the fire alarm system which covers multiple occupancies and several RP tenants) the tenant RPs cannot have any control over the common fire alarm system!

I agree the landlord has control of those items, not all of arts 8 to 22 in the common areas, therefore he is a Person Having Control (art 5(3)) unless you can make him a RP under art 3. I believe if certain condition exists you can. (Boiler room or empty premises/unit in the building)

[Midland Retty]

Look at Article 3(a).

In this Order “responsible person” means—

(a) in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control;

To any extent under his control is the key word. If the tenant RP has no control over what goes on in the communal areas or any activity another occupier or landlord carries out therein then he is not the RP for the communal areas.

That means non of the "tenanted RPs" cannot be the RP for the whole of the communal area because they may not be able to:-

1) Make any changes, repairs in those areas,
2) Control the actions of other RPs / occupiers / landlord in that area

Even though communal areas may form part of the workplace for occupiers they are not under their total control unless the terms of the lease identify one or more occupiers being responsible for the whole lot, which is rare as I doubt any tenant would wish to be saddle with the expense of looking after those areas.

So the landlord must be the RP for the communal areas - they own the building (see definition again in article 3 which states the owner is the RP when the other criteria isn't met) They have total control over the whole of the communal area.

[AnthonyB]

We deal almost exclusively with clients who are either landlords or managing agents on behalf of landlord and can assure you that enforcement authorities will treat them as RP's for communal issues - sometimes they will even lump in tenant caused issues as it's easier for them to serve a notice on one landlord/agent than many separate ones to all the different tenants....(leading to a swift appeal!)

[Tom Sutton]

So the landlord must be the RP for the communal areas - they own the building (see definition again in article 3 which states the owner is the RP when the other criteria isn't met) They have total control over the whole of the communal area.

If I accept your argument the landlord is the RP pf the common areas then under art 5 (1) the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises (common area).

How many FRA's of the common areas of workplace buildings, done by the owner or his representative, have you audited?