Article 22

[JT]

My understanding of this article is if there are more than one RP as defined in article 3(a) then article 22 is relevant.

If a business owned a property and leased it to another who operated and employed staff then article 22 is not relevant. Even if the business came under 5(3) or 5(4) I don't see how article 22 is relevant.

Any views on this? As I'm struggling to understand the article 22 relevance.

[Golden]

Have you looked at the 'Collected and Perceived insights into the application of the RRO etc, etc.

http://www.cfoa.org.uk/12002

For what its worth I believe your interpretation is correct and mainly applicable to multi-occupied premises although I have been applying it to premises where there are contract caterers, etc. to ensure they have carried out their duties under the order.

[JT]

Yes I've read that but the perceived insights suggest duty holders where the wording of the article clearly says RP.

I agree with your catering scenario as there are more than one RP (employer).

[Dinnertime Dave]

I would suggest duty holder and RP are different terms for the same person/body.

https://app.croner.co.uk/feature-articles/duty-holder-are-you-responsible

[kurnal]

If a business owned a property and leased it to another who operated and employed staff then article 22 is not relevant........... Any views on this? As I'm struggling to understand the article 22 relevance.

I agree with you for the circumstances you describe article 22 is not relevant. But  I can't see why you should consider that article 3 (a) brings in article 22.   Is it because  you perceive there are two possible duty holders- the Employer and the Landlord?  Article 3(a) provides that where there is an employer with an element of control of the premises , they will always be the RP.  So Article 22 will only come in where there are multiple employers sharing premises.  In those circumstances it is possible that the owner will have aspects  only they have control of, or that they need to co-ordinate and control. Whether the owner under these circumstances is called a responsible person or a person having control or a quasi responsible person  is down to semantics.

Hope I have understood your query and not gone off at a tangent for which I seem to have a great talent these days!

[JT]

Yes you've answered my query which is mine and every fire authorities view bar one.

I think this fire authority perceive the property owner to have a level of control in place. Even when they've identified the employer. They have served identical notices on the RP and the property owner.

Unfortunately will have to appeal and waste time and money going to court.

Thanks for your responses.

[Golden]

Cardiff unless the FA concerned is saying that the RP under 3 (a) does not have control and they're using 3 (b) as a 'catch-all' position?

[JT]

I think you're right Golden that's their angle as most lease agreements state you require permission to fit a sky dish etc.
This doesn't infer the property owner will withhold any rights, merely a permission clause.

[Tom Sutton]

As Kurnal has said the employer?s workplace will always be to some extent under his control therefore article 3b does not apply and the employer is the RP, and has a duty under 5.1. However certain articles can fall under the control of the owner/landlord which makes him a duty holder (person having control) under Article 5.3.

Consequently both can commit an offence  under article 32 but if the RP can prove that he had no control over the situation the owner/landlord was duty holder for and took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence, then he could consider a defence under article 33. I also I think they are both subject to article 22.