Site Responsible Person

[Midland Retty]

Sir Col

The occupiers/ tenants (if they are employers) will undoubtedly be RPs and I have never argued otherwise that is a given - its what the order says - I get it !!!.

What I am discussing with Tom is the issue of whom has control of the communal areas. There has to be an RP for the communal areas.

The tenants however will, by factors such as the terms of the lease,  be unable to influence or control what goes on in the communal areas (see my earlier scenario regarding occupier storing boxes in the communal areas)

Remember Art 3 describes an RP in relation to a workplace, as being the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; [/u] The communal areas are not under his control in a multi occ. despite it forming part of his workplace. He cannot stop the L/L from making alterations, nor Joe Bloggs storing his boxes if he wishes to do so.

The Order is explicit on this, it comes down to the extent of control.

Your landlord is not an Art 5 PHC he is an RP by virtue of Article 3(b) or even 3(a) if he employs someone such as maintenance chappie or cleaner at those premises. Simples!

[colin todd]

The stairway is part of each tenant's workplace, which, as a totality, is to some extent under the tenant's control.

[kurnal]

Yes it is but if the employer (rp) on the ground floor decides to store fireworks in the lobby at the foot of the single staircase the employers on the upperfloors (also rps) have few options if the ground floor chap refuses to co-operate and remove them.

So then we rely on the landlord (as either a rp if he employes people or a phc) who is the the only person apart from the enforcers who can bang heads together - and as a rp or a phc he has a duty to do so!

[wee brian]

The other tenants have a duty to cooporate. If they don't play ball then call in the enforcers (or get your lawyer to write a stroppy letter etc etc).

All this stuff should be covered in tenancy agreements, that's what lawyers are for.

[Tom Sutton]

Sorry all cannot say away.

The RP is responsible for article 8 to 22 in the workplace which includes the common areas and he will have control of most of those articles, so the workplace is to any extent under his control. Those he does not have control of, a PHC will be responsible for, which doesn't make them the RP’s, as this is a title defined by A3 and not a literal statement. The PHC can be a number of people which IMO does include the owner/representative.

If the RP finds a problem in the common area, say the staircase needs repair, which is not under his control, but the owner/rep. He and his fellow RP’s should try to get the owner/rep to repair it. If he refuses, he needs to be told he is a PHC and the FRS will sort him out or he could be prosecuted under 5(3) as a last resort. (The RP’s need to do that to comply with article 33)

If another RP cause a problem in the common areas then his fellow RP’s should try to get him to sort it out, if he refuses he needs to be told, the FRS will sort it out and he could be prosecuted under the appropriate article, as a last resort. You could also try to get the owner/rep to sort it, even when he does not have any legal responsibility /control and in many cases he most probably would try, however the final action is the big stick.

In chrpay case the RP’s are subject to Art 15 and 22 alone and the RP’s are legally responsible therefore they need to sort it out between them. The owner/rep has no legal responsibility/ control regarding these articles and could get involved if he chose, but I would expect him not to, because I think it an unreasonable request by one of the RP’s.

[nearlythere]

If the RP finds a problem in the common area, say the staircase needs repair, which is not under his control, but the owner/rep. He and his fellow RP’s should try to get the owner/rep to repair it. If he refuses, he needs to be told he is a PHC and the FRS will sort him out or he could be prosecuted under 5(3) as a last resort. (The RP’s need to do that to comply with article 33)

And in the meantime the RP is exposing his employees to risk because of the defective stairway which needs repaired and will be responsible if someone falls through it. What the RP should do is assess if he and his staff require the stairway as a means of escape and if so to cease use of the occupancy until the matter is sorted.

[kurnal]

I often find in these multi occupied premises that the landlord is more switched on than the tenants and initiate the fire risk assessments of the communal areas to identify the risk control measures and the relevant issues to incorporate in the tenancy agreements. I can think of several evamples where fire services have served enforcement notices on landlords of multi occ premises to carry out a S&S fire risk assessment and produce a written emergency plan.

And many landlords would be apopleptic if the tenant RPs called the fire service in.

It is not fair or reasonable to expect a tenant employer to send his staff home and damage his business just because of another tenants failings. The person having control of the communal areas and tenancy agreements would and should bang heads together without wasting the time of the fire service to sort it out.

The most common arrangement in multi occ buildings is for the Landlords to carry out the assessment of the landlords and communal areas and communal systems and for the tenant to carry out the assessment of their own demise only. If each tenant who was an employer included the communal areas as part of their risk assessment it would lead to  chaos if they disagreed over standards.

[colin todd]

That's right, Big Al, let's not bother the poor dears in the fire service with doing their jobs as enforcers, attending AFAs, etc, no no no no, the wee souls are busy collecting firewood for the braziers.