Posted By Phillip
I tried asking the local fire service who referred me to the local communities website where the guides for the fire order are posted. I emailed the local communities website helpline who told me to look at the guides.

No one seems to want to offer an opinion these days. How about you guys! My questions are

Can the responsible person be a management committee (a group of people) or would it be the chairmen of the management committee (a named individual)?

Does the responsible person usually hold an executive or director level position (who authorises expenditure) rather than a managerial position (with day-to-day responsibility)?

Posted By Malcolm Shepperson
Hi Phillip,

According to article three of the regs 'in relation to a workplace the responsible person is the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control.' or 'the person who has control of the premises...'

So, I would argue that your employees are not employed by a committee but rather the Executive Director, who therefore is the responsible person, who will then employ a competent person to carry out the risk assessments, etc.

You did not mention the nature of your business or the management structure, but usually it is the ED who carries the responsibility.

Malcolm

Posted By Adrian Watson
The responsible person does not have to be a real person, it may be a company. A group is not a person. However both an individual and a company are people; therefore take your pick - appoint a person!

Regards Adrian

Posted By shaun mckeever
If the finance director stops money being spent on a necessary improvement identified in the fire risk assessment then he has, to some degree, control of the premises and therefore is a responsible person. He can be held accountable. Ultimate responsibility lies with the CEO and generally that is the person who should be named in the fra, but anyone with some degree of control of the premises can be a responsible person, this can be at any level of management.

Posted By Red Ones
I am intrigued by Adrians response. The responsible person needs to be just that - a person. Should it all go wrong and the lack of FRA leads to unsafe practices that contribute directly to injury or loss of life then the local FO will be gunning for a person to be in the dock. The FO will have no problem in findind the Responsible Person. It will be the head of the Company that controls the premises.

I guess the question here is more about who is the Competent Person? This can be someone else, even someone who is not directly employed by the Responsible Person! There is a difference between responsibility and the delegated power to deliver. Take for example, I manage the operation of a number of cooling towers. I have the duty to manage the day-to-day operation of the towers. I am tasked with ensuring that we comply with current legislation (some of which I delegate to a third party). The Responsible Person is the guy at the head of the company that owns the premises (I think I know what he looks like).If I fail to deliver he goes to court (I no doubt get the sack)

Posted By Pugwash
I am surprised at the confusion surrounding this. In this context, except in the case of a sole trader, the responsible "person" will never be an individual and will always be an organisation - which is viewed a "legal person". Try looking at the entry for "legal person" or "juristic person" in Wikipedia to get the idea of what it is all about.

For example: The Acme Tool Company Ltd has a factory where it makes tools and employs 100 staff. There is a MD, Finance Director, HR Director, Productions Director, H+S Manager and lots of others. The responsible person under this legislation is The Acme Tool Company Ltd.

This is one of those questions where there are no shades of grey and little to discuss. This is the right answer and the only answer. I stand on my pedestal waiting for someone to push me off it.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

The COMPANY is the responsible person! However, the company has a duty to appoint competent persons to carry out its functions.

A company, being a fictitious person, cannot do anything on its own. As such the directors and officers of the company are held accountable in law for the way the company operates.

This is why the company is always prosecuted for crimes, but directors, managers etc are only occassionally prosecuted alongside the company.

You do not have to name a CEO, finance officer etc to make them liable. In many ways naming them is counter productive as it is inculcates a belief in other people that h&s & fire safety are the named positions problem; it's their problem, they're named, I'm not!

Regards Adrian

Posted By jackw.
Hi, hope this helps. I was part of a committee that ran a local social club ( a fairly large business with around£750,000 turnover per year and a large workforce mostly part time). On checking we were told that the responsible person would normally be the secretary of the club/committee. Perhaps you should take legal advice as clearly a committee can't be held legally responsible but individuals can.

Cheers.

Posted By Peter Leese
I thought I understood the question and what the answer was. Thanks folks, but now I'm walking round in a daze. What do they say about 10 advisors and 11 opinions?

A serious thought though - if this is puzzling us how is the 'Responsible Person' (pun: whoever that is) expected to take it in?

And a second thought - so much for consultation on regulations if we can't get something like this pinned down.

And how ridiculous must it all sound to the lay(wo/man) person.

Posted By Pete48
Perhaps a reminder of the legal definition of body corporate would help to clear some of the confusion in this post.
The definition of a corporate body is found in the case of DPP-v- Kent & Sussex Contractors [1944] 1KB146. It is a body of persons having in law an existence, rights and duties distinct from the persons who form it. It can be indicted or fined, but cannot have the necessary guilty mind or wrongful intention to commit a criminal act. It can also be criminally liable for acts of omission and for the acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment.

Remember that it is not just commercial companies who are a body corporate. A parish council is one and are often also the management committee of the village hall??

I agree that the definitions in the order are unclear, even the IFE forum contains lots of similar discussion. At the end of the day what is important is to get the assessment and implementation of management controls and arrangements sorted. Thus to prevent fire and if it occurs to be best prepared to minimise losses. I am not at all sure that whether the Financial Director or the MD or HR Director or Facilities Manager is shown as the responsible person will make any difference to the outcome. They just provide the executive will to have things done. The courts will eventually sort out the detailed application of the order.
I would propose that it will be the body corporate that will need to defend itself more than individuals unless there is blatant, wilful disregard or misuse. (sort of section 7 hasawa stuff)
Thus to answer the original question I would say that it makes no sense to name a committee but does make sense to name the person identified by their arrangements to carry out those duties on their behalf. This does not make that person individually or personally responsible to the exclusion of the body corporate because they act on behalf of......
Hope that has muddied the waters further.

Posted By shaun mckeever
MG

I am aware of an incident in London where the decision to install emergency lighting on a rear external staircase was taken away from the building manager by his asset manager on the basis that it was too expensive. This was for a very large multi-million pound international property management company where a few thousand pounds is a spit in the ocean. One floor of the building suffered a serious fire. The LFEPA pursued the asset manager not the building manager as the responsible person. I don't believe he was prosecuted but he was certainly the focus of their attention. The company was big enough to afford spending the money. This was the view taken by the fire authority and indeed shortly after the fire the lighting was installed as well as a rream of other items. The money was there all the time.

In your case your risk assessment may have identified items that are expensive to the organisation. Splashing out on a new fire alarm system may not be peanuts to them. If your risk assessment justifies the need for a fire alarm system amongst the other items you identified then it is perfectly reasonable to have a longer term plan to install the system, so long as there is a sensible plan in place. No one expects an organisation to go bust in order to comply with fire safety regulations. There should of course be temporary measures put in place to deal with the hazards in the meantime and the most serious or life threatening risks must also be dealt with. If on the other hand your financial director disagrees with your assessment then he must assume responsibility. Of course this would be a bit foolish since you are the competent person not him. I would make it clear to him that he must now be classed as the responsible person and that your risk assessment will indicate this. Refer him to Article 5 (3) of the RRO and Article 32. You should make sure you get his reasons for not spending the money in writing.