Landlords as enforcers?

[AnthonyB]

Anyone ever come across this before:

- As part of the measures around an Enforcement Notice an enforcing officer is wanting the landlord (via their agent) of a multi occupancy to actively inspect tenant's demises and issue details of interim measures for any deficiencies found.
- They also will only take EN action against the landlord/agent, despite the fact that in most of the building they are neither employers or persons having control as part of an undertaking.

It seems to me that this is going well beyond Article 22 and in fact doing what in the FSO is the fire authorities responsibility (audit and enforcement)

Whilst it may be handy for a landlord to inspect a tenancy under the terms of the commercial lease for the purposes of compliance (& asset protection) it's hardly required under the FSO? Sharing significant findings of FRAs, coordinating evacuation plans, etc yes, but not quasi enforcement.

Would this stand up in court or if the landlord got a decent lawyer it be a case of withdrawn notice/dropped charges/no evidence offered?

There are more traditional issues in the EN, but these are reasonable action points, it's the above that's odd. I've seen it threatened before but never got as far as formal action (it's usually forgotten once traditional s22 actions have been evidenced).

[Tom Sutton]

Definition of a "workplace" means any premises or parts of premises, not being domestic premises, used for the purposes of an employer's undertaking and which are made available to an employee of the employer as a place of work and includes,

(a) Any place within the premises to which such employee has access while at work; and

(b) Any room, lobby, corridor, staircase, road, or other place,

     (i) Used as a means of access to or egress from that place of work; or

     (ii) Where facilities are provided for use in connection with that place of work,

Other than a public road;

Therefore the employers are the RP's of their own workplaces and the common areas up to the public thoroughfare, assuming the owner/agent  do not have a workplace or empty units in the building what are they the RP of; I do accept they could be a person having control, art5 (3). Why are the FRS dealing with the owners/agents?

[kurnal]

 Well here's a devils advocate view.

I agree that the employer will always be the RP and the Landlord can only be a person having control, this will apply as Anthony says to co-ordination of an emergency plans, sharing of findings of the fire risk assessments, and probably testing and maintenance of the fire alarm and sprinkler systems.

I guess there is an element of the bluff and persuasion act here in the EN, borne of frustration. It should not have got through the QMS.

How many of us have  experienced the frustration of surveying a building in the company of the landlord or their agent where conditions are dire and the agent shows no recognition or cognisance of the problems or fire safety legislation? The very person who has relationships with the tenant is not in the least bit interested in helping to improve standards? Fire doors hanging off? Combustibles in the single staircase? Nowt to do with me mate I only take the rent- by the way have you seen my new Mercedes?  It's happened to me more often than I could recount.

In such circumstances even in my risk assessments I used to include actions under the heading due diligence.

If I was still an inspecting officer I for one would very likely to wind up the pressure and persuasion to the point at which the agent recognised the problem but would stop short of an EN for rear of undermining those issues that are clearly enforceable.   The legalities are one thing but the right standards of fire safety are quite another. As you say Anthony usually the unenforceable elements are dropped once the lesson has been learned.

Perhaps the role of the Landlord as a PHC is more important than ever as most fire services implement cuts to enforcement and audit regimes?

[AnthonyB]

They missed an opportunity by framing the legislation so as not to give an overriding responsibility to the owner in multi-occupancies - it existed under Fire Certification.

I see your point having come across many examples of the scenario you mention, but as the law is written the way it is then the obligation isn't there

[Messy]

I guess there is an element of the bluff and persuasion act here in the EN, borne of frustration. It should not have got through the QMS.

I don't know about merely an element??!! The whole concept seems to be covered by the B&P Act - and a surely dangerous game to play on an EN

If the landlord doesn't comply with the EN - then what? The only option available is a prosecution, which if thrown out (and there does appear to be grounds to suggest that the rational for using Art 22 is weak at best)  this may cost the Enforcement Authority a tidy sum in cash and reputation.



 

[Tom Sutton]

They missed an opportunity by framing the legislation so as not to give an overriding responsibility to the owner in multi-occupancies - it existed under Fire Certification.

Absolutely Anthony it's common sense and must be a nightmare for enforcing officers it was much easier under the FPA.

[Dinnertime Dave]

If the landlord doesn't comply with the EN - then what? The only option available is a prosecution, which if thrown out (and there does appear to be grounds to suggest that the rational for using Art 22 is weak at best)  this may cost the Enforcement Authority a tidy sum in cash and reputation.

The offence would be failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice, does it matter what is on it?

[colin todd]

I think one would need to know a lot more about the relationships in the building before opining.  Anyway, Big Al, you dont have a Mercedes you have a BMW, and you were right I do like the automatic gearbox in the new 4 series.

[AnthonyB]

Usual set up - tenants have full physical control over their floors, including electrical supply, landlord only maintains common plant, stairs and fire alarm through service charge with tenants having obvious rights of access to common circulation areas.

[idlefire]

The offence would be failing to comply with an Enforcement Notice, does it matter what is on it?

Quite right Dave, but this is based on the assumption that the EN itself is lawful and that it has been correctly served.

[idlefire]

They missed an opportunity by framing the legislation so as not to give an overriding responsibility to the owner in multi-occupancies - it existed under Fire Certification.

Absolutely Anthony it's common sense and must be a nightmare for enforcing officers it was much easier under the FPA.

Gents, with respect it's not quite how I remember the FPA'71.

I remember a piece of legislation that only covered certain "designated premises", which honoured outdated certificates issued under the Factories Act/OSRA, and when mistakes were made on Fire Certificates these could not be amended. 

I am ashamed that I had to issue verbal Section 10's under the Bluff & Persuasion Act because I was unable to get the support of senior officers, who only really started waking up to their responsibilities following the Popplewell Inquiry.

I embraced the Workplace Regs and Fire Safety Order, they're not perfect and they are commonly abused but they are better than what they replaced; other opinions are available. 

[idlefire]

They missed an opportunity by framing the legislation so as not to give an overriding responsibility to the owner in multi-occupancies - it existed under Fire Certification.

Absolutely Anthony it's common sense and must be a nightmare for enforcing officers it was much easier under the FPA.

Gents, with respect it's not quite how I remember the FPA'71.

I remember a piece of legislation that only covered certain "designated premises", which honoured outdated certificates issued under the Factories Act/OSRA, and when mistakes were made on Fire Certificates these could not be amended; not to mention the statute bar.

I am ashamed that I had to issue verbal Section 10's under the Bluff & Persuasion Act because I was unable to get the support of senior officers, who only really started waking up to their responsibilities following the Popplewell Inquiry.

I embraced the Workplace Regs and Fire Safety Order, they're not perfect and they are commonly abused but they are better than what they replaced; other opinions are available. 

[Tom Sutton]

I was applauding Anthony's statement about giving overriding responsibility to the owner in multi-occupancies which would be better for enforcing officers dealing with one person, not many RP's.

[wee brian]

The employer being responsible for the safety of their employees is a fundamental principle of the workplace directive.

[kurnal]

Usual set up - tenants have full physical control over their floors, including electrical supply, landlord only maintains common plant, stairs and fire alarm through service charge with tenants having obvious rights of access to common circulation areas.

So assuming a single staircase, the staircase is used as a dumping ground for  a load of combustible junk and none of the employers will admit to being responsible. After much failed persuasion and in the face of an ongoing hazard the fire service decides formal enforcement action is appropriate. On whom should the enforcement  notice (s) be served? Each employer ? The landlord? All of these? None of them?