Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Colin Debney
Can anyone advise who is responsible for fire safety in a company that has offices in 25 different locations in the England/Wales. All branches have had fire assessments carried out however, when it comes to the "responsible person" is it the Branch Managers responsibility or the Directors of the company.
The Branch Managers point out that anything that needs doing as to be agreed by head office, and certain issues such as training and new equipment are out of there control.
Any advice would be welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
This is a big question! Who is ultimately responsible for safety within the company? Well it is the chief executive or chairman I suppose as the ultimate head of the company or if it is a private company owned by a single person it is him/her. That's the starting point but in most companies the responsibility is spread downward to specific managers or directors. But the ultimate responsibility rests with the highest authority within the company as he/she has ultimate desicion making rights. Get my drift.
Where there are numerpous sites it is generally the company's policy to delegate responsibility to the palnt manager with an over view at HQ. I suggest yyou look at your company and try and find out who is responsible at HQ level and how is this delegated and exactly what the deligation says and follow it from there. Without knowing you organisations set up it's hard to say who is responsible, but the first port of call would be the head man of the whole company as it is he who will be procecuted if the place went up in smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever In my view both would be responsible to the degree that they exercise any control over the property. If, for example, the Branch Manager decides that he must install emergency lighting following a fire risk assessment then he is likely to have to refer it upwards for approval. In this case he does not exercise control. It is whoever sanctions spending the money who is exercising control. If the person who sanctions spending the money refuses then he assumes responsibility and will be answerable. If on the other hand the director says that staff in all his branches must receive fire safety training and the Branch manager fails to organise this then the Branch manager is exercising control and will be held liable. The subject of responsibility has yet to be tested in Court (as far as I am aware) and is a real hot potato. See this link http://www.fseonline.co....cles.asp?article_id=6283
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By anon1234
I presume you are trying to define the responsible person under the reform order - in which case it is down to the business to decide who is the responsible person and logically to ensure they have the authority and resources to perform the function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Hi Shaun,
Good explanation and thanks for the link, however professor Everton's (what a name), point regarding:
"Less clear is whether the legislation conferred duties on designers of new or refurbished buildings, as primary duties of what could loosely be referred to as “design teams’ normally fall under Building Regulations. But a case could be argued that such people are deemed to have control or contractual duties regarding the safety of a premises, especially with alterations to an existing building".
Surely this now comes under CDM 2007 where designers of new buildings have duties for ensuring the safety of the end user of a building?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alan brotherton
There is no clear deffinition to answer this one. Ultimately the MD, chairman or business owner is responsible but the responsibility may be delegated to individual managers etc. Your health and safety policy should ideally specify the health and safety responsibilities of individuals within the company. Have you verified what it actually says about fire safety?. If it does not include this question, then maybe it should be included when you resolve the responsibility issues.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
I was at a seminar where a fire officer stated that a Ward Sister had been issued with an improvement notice citing her as the responsible person and requiring her to ensure that fire doors were not wedged open. Now this is not, of course, a test in court, but ii does reflect at least one serving fire officer's view of who a responsible person might be,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
This is actually a simple question! The responsible person is the company.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PeterL
The responsible person is always going to be one of the following, depending on their level of control, the employer in the first instance and then the MD or other manager in charge (e.g. a L.A. nursing home manager for example), but duties may be delegated to a person considered competent under the RRO i.e. "someone with enough training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to be able to implement these measures properly" to carry out suitable fire risk assessments and implement evacuation procedures etc.
Hope this helps Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob
Would get even more interesting if the premises were rented, and even more so if the property owner used a managing agent........and even more so if they were shared with other tenants!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By pluto
We always serve notices on the corporate entity, (if there is one), and copy the notice to the local manager.
If there isn't a corporate body then the occupier or owner who exercises control is the RP.
In certain circumstances it may also be a contractor such as the fire alarm maintenance company.
The legislation was designed to 'catch' the common sense responsible person i.e. the person who has a measure of control or responsibility for what happens in the premises.
Crim,
If I were you, I wouldn't argue with Professor Rosemary Everton! I would bet my mortgage that you would lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear all,
To a large extent I do not see why we waste so much time on this one issue. I suspect it is a case of companies thinking that they can appoint a "scapegoat" and managers thinking that if they are not appointed they are not responsible. Both are wrong!
The reality is that whilst the legal responsible person is the employer, or the person having control in connection with a business, trade or undertaking, etc the chain of command also has responsibilities.
Therefore if there were a breach of the order the employer, etc would be prosecuted as the responsible person and the managing director, finance director, site manager, maintenance manager, etc would be prosecuted where the failure was due to them as being "any other person who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." See Art 5(3) and Art 32 (1).
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear all,
To a large extent I do not see why we waste so much time on this one issue. I suspect it is a case of companies thinking that they can appoint a "scapegoat" and managers thinking that if they are not appointed they are not responsible. Both are wrong!
The reality is that whilst the legal responsible person is the employer, or the person having control in connection with a business, trade or undertaking, etc the chain of command also has responsibilities.
Therefore if there were a breach of the order the employer, etc would be prosecuted as the responsible person and the managing director, finance director, site manager, maintenance manager, etc would be prosecuted where the failure was due to them as being "any other person who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." See Art 5(3) and Art 32 (1).
In this case:
(1) the company as employer would be liable as the responsible person;
(2) The MD, fellow directors and senior managers would be liable as any other person as the requirements relate to matters within their control (e.g. policy, finance and provision of resources); and
(3) The site managers would be liable as any other person as the requirements relate to matters within their control (e.g. day to day activities).
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear all,
To a large extent I do not see why we waste so much time on this one issue. I suspect it is a case of companies thinking that they can appoint a "scapegoat" and managers thinking that if they are not appointed they are not responsible. Both are wrong!
The reality is that whilst the legal responsible person is the employer, or the person having control in connection with a business, trade or undertaking, etc the chain of command also has responsibilities.
Therefore if there were a breach of the order the employer, etc would be prosecuted as the responsible person and the managing director, finance director, site manager, maintenance manager, etc would be prosecuted where the failure was due to them as being "any other person who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." See Art 5(3) and Art 32 (1).
In this case:
(1) the company as employer would be liable as the responsible person;
(2) The MD, fellow directors and senior managers would be liable as any other person where the requirements relate to matters within their control (e.g. policy, finance and provision of resources); and
(3) The site managers would be liable as any other person as the requirements relate to matters within their control (e.g. day to day activities).
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.