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?
With the greatest respect Kurnal, I think we run the risk of over complicating this issue and in doing so we are missing the point of how the RR(FS)O 2005 is structured.
It is not for the enforcing authority to investigate who is responsible for dumping the combustible junk in the single stair, and then ask them to remove it.
The enforcing authority's role in all this is not to act as judge and/or mediator, theirs is to identify the "responsible person" (as defined by Article 3 and/or persons who might have control to "any extent" under Articles 4(3) & (4)) and, if they are not willing to accept their responsibilities, force them to do so.
In your specific scenario there are several responsible persons, ALL of whom have a duty to comply with Articles 8-22 [Article 5]; this duty is explicit on ALL of the responsible persons, whether or not they are prepared to accept any responsibility for leaving the combustible junk within the single stairway.
Let's say, for the sake of example, the fire authority believes the combustible junk on this single stair constitutes an offence under the Order, then ALL the responsible persons have failed to comply with their duties under Article 14(2)(b).
"It is an offence for a responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to fail to comply with any requirement or prohibitions imposed by articles 8 to 22. Where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in the case of fire". [Article 32 (1) (a)]
The ONLY defence under the Order is for a responsible person to PROVE that they have taken all reasonable measures and exercised ALL due diligence; which, I have to say, is a particularly high burden of proof.
"In any proceedings for an offence under this Order, it is a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence." [Article 33]
I personally believe that if it was within the power of a responsible person to have the combustible junk removed and they didn't, their defence of due diligence would not hold; there is no defence in that other persons might be more responsible.
"Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Order, is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is guilty of an offence, and the person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this paragraph whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person." [Article 32 (2) (10)]
Back in the day, given Article 32(2)(10), I am fairly certain I could have secured successful prosecutions on ALL the responsible persons in such circumstances, if this had been necessary.
Notwithstanding, when as an "enforcing authority" under Article 25, in situations like this I would use a degree of discretion and, after explaining the above and the principles of co-operation and co-ordination (Article 22) to all the "responsible persons"; if still necessary I would serve an Enforcement Notice on the "responsible person" I believed to be most responsible. I would however leave all "responsible persons" in no doubt that, in the event of a reoccurrence, I would seek to prosecute all of them and let the Courts sort it out.
As always, other opinions might be available.
