I work as a sole-trader consultant providing safety services for small/medium companies. I was contacted by a road haulage company who wanted their safety systems audited and properly documented. I went in for my initial visit yesterday where I run through a sort of checklist of minimum safety standards, looking after their drivers, and talk about how I'll do their site fire risk assessment etc. and did a walk-about tour. It's then that I find out that the haulage company owns the whole site but as well as their offices and their yard (where they park the tractor units of the trucks and store diesel) they also let out : - offices to three other companies - a warehouse where another haulage company stores pallets of beer, vodka etc and has fork-lift trucks - a woodworking shop where a fellow makes fence panels, has bandsaws etc - a motor repair garage and a small spray booth for paint repairs - at the back there's a pallet supplier/repairer who was actually burning broken pallets in a metal cage! Clearly the site fire risk assessment will have to take account of ALL the site activities, including the solvents in the paint booth, the machines/sawdust in the wood-working shop, the burning of wood (that will have to stop of course!). I haven't met any of these sub-letters yet but have discussed the issues with the site owner (the haulage company). The whole site is at risk because they have no fire response systems etc. The fire risk assessment will have to impact on all the sub-letters and all their activities, processes and machines have to be risk-assessed etc. I suggested to the site owner that it must be in their interest that safe systems of work be adopted across the whole site, not just fire prevention, but the warehouse people must comply with LOLER, the spray booth must comply with COSHH, all parts of the site must aim to segregate pedestrians from vehicular traffic etc etc. All the companies must have the relevant insurance, record accidents etc etc. The site owner agrees, he would want all that to be in place. The site owner does not want accidents happening in the sub-let areas. This will take some time to implement and I can just imagine some of those little sub-letting companies will be in for a shock, and will initially resist or take no notice of the inspections and guidance I am about to provide them with. Still figuring out how to approach all this :o) So my question is, right now, who has responsibilities. As the site exists, there's really no proper safe systems of work in place. Clearly each individual sub-letter has responsibilty for any of their staff, there will be truck drivers, FLT drivers, bandsaw operators, paint sprayers. What responsibility does the site owner have with respects to their safety? He has responsibility for the fire safety of the site, but can he (through me) impose on them a requirement to comply with regulations like LOLER, COSHH, MHSAW etc etc. ? John W

I would suggest that a multiple occupancy site such as this requires a common action plan for fire and other emergencies which are highlighted in the risk assessment. You are correct that (depending on the site layout) a common traffic management plan should also be used. There are issues with lease agreements etc but on the whole a sensible approach of communication and co-operation between occupants with common health and safety theme throughout the complex would benefit everyone.

Yes, there are NO car park space markings, no truck space/turning markings. There's a sign that says 5 miles per hour :o) A sensible approach yes. But I expect the sub-letters will try and ignore any LOLER/COSHH guidance that will cost them money. JohnW

JohmW, you wrote: What responsibility does the site owner have with respects to their safety? He has responsibility for the fire safety of the site, but can he (through me) impose on them a requirement to comply with regulations like LOLER, COSHH, MHSAW etc etc. ? The requirement for them to comply with XYZ is already set out in statute!

Yes SP, that is clear but if it was just me trying to explain that to the subletters they can just ignore me. I am not employed by them as a consultant I am hoping the site owner (the largest occupier, my customer) can enforce/impose on the subletters. I may suggest he holds a meeting with all his subletters where he can explain that he wants to bring his site's H&S into compliance. He may be able to persuade them to agree to 'common things' and maybe become part of the tenancy agreement i.e. fire safety workplace traffic and pedestrian separation waste disposal What I didn't say above was that ALL the units/offices/warehouses are physically attached to each other, so a fire in one can easily spread to every other unit, so the case for a SITE risk assessment that everyone complies with seems enforceable in my opinion. JohnW

Your client cannot impose or enforce anything on those he sublets to unless part of the contract agreement, in which case he can then kick them out I suspect. Equally, even as a consultant, you cannot enforce anything with your client either. You are there to offer competent advice. Which brings me to a concern - FLT's requiring LOLER exams to prevent fire? - LOLER checks the critical lifting components. Compliance with PUWER for bandsaws to prevent fire? PUWER guidance only refers to bandsaws in relation to guarding. COSHH and spray booths? COSHH deals with the hazards to health in spraying it is DSEAR that addresses the fire risk. Oddly in mentioning fire risk you don't refer to the Fire Reform at all?? Fire RA in multi-tenancy is about co-operation but your client can no more impose H&S compliance than you can. Your client should incorporate fire risks from tenants into his assessment and ensure that he is doing what is required of his contract with them (does he have to provide alarms and fire extinguishers etc or do they). The tenant contracts should stipulate who is resposnible for what: electrics, asbestos, external repairs, fire systems. Before you jump the gun looking at trying to impose on tenants why not start at the beginning with the contracts and then start communicating with them. Softly softly.

Oh, and I will have a look at the client's property/business insurance policies. JohnW

Deal with the FRA as requested and then discuss a proposal to broaden the scope with your client and thereafter approach the others to ascertain their interest in obtaining your services. 80 % Proof Vodka FP @ 297.15 K

Phil, I am not going in the opposite direction to advice received here. I want to advise the client that his fire risks will be reduced if he can co-operate with the sub-letters, discuss their activities and make them aware if their activities are a threat to the site as a whole. I have a copy of the Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) in front of me here, and I am trying to interpret section 22 with regard to this site. It says, Co-operation and co-ordination 22. —(1) Where two or more responsible persons share, or have duties in respect of, premises (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) each such person must— (a) co-operate with the other responsible person concerned so far as is necessary to enable them to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or under this Order; (b) (taking into account the nature of his activities) take all reasonable steps to co-ordinate the measures he takes to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order with the measures the other responsible persons are taking to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or under this Order; and (c) take all reasonable steps to inform the other responsible persons concerned of the risks to relevant persons arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

John Section 22 pretty much relates to everything we have been saying. your client must carry out a FRA for the units he occupies and the common areas. as he owns the site he has to provide certain information to his tenants on fire safety matters (although there wouldn't be much) His tenants are legally required to carry out their own FRA and as he owns the premises he can ask for a copy of this to satisfy that they are complying with the RRFSO. If there are significant findings in the FRA then both he and his tenants should inform each other of the risks as this may effect their own FRA. For example near where i live we have a small runway where small planes take off and land at the end of this is a petrol station. So i would expect some form of communication between the two. it might not be any more than if we have a fire at the petrol station then we will let you know so you can cancel all landings etc etc. As in the case of your site if you have one company spraying and another burning rubbish next door then there could be an issue where the combustible material (spraying) meets the source of ignition (bonfire) equals big boom, so not an ideal situation. Also you might look at having joint fire evacuations between all the business or share some common cost fire extinguisher servicing etc. But it is down to each business to look after it's own fire safety and health and safety, However the owner can require each business to provide a fire risk assessment by law (S22) but as far as I'm aware he can not force any business to follow any other health and safety legislation unless it's in the tenancy agreement otherwise he would either request them to leave or report them to the appropriate authority. So as others have said do the work for your client on the premises he occupies and the common areas and nothing else. it's down to his tenants to ensure they comply with the law if he isn't happy with what they are doing then he can contact them requesting RA and if still not happy then ask them to vacate. At least this is how i would view the situation but I'm no legal expert or wouldn't want to get involved where this situation arises deal with your client and advise him no more. Phil

I think this should read as your CLIENTS aim. your aim is to carryout the FRA for the units he occupies and the common areas you should not be planning on doing the FRA for the sub-letters unless they ask you direct and pay you. At this point you only have one client and should only being doing what we have all stated before no more and no less. As part of the FRA i have a section on co-ordination & co-operation this is where i would instruct my client what they should be expecting from the business's that he is sub-letting to which would be they supply their own FRA. he might ask you to review them to see if they are suitable and sufficient (if you quote to do this). But you shouldn't be entering the other units he isn't occupying other than common areas. Phil If you want Pm me and i can let you have my number and discuss it on the phone which might be easier

Phil, Yes, the client's aim. The client wants an FRA or set of FRA's that cover HIS site. He wants to reduce the risk that a spray booth will catch fire and destroy his office block which is attached, or even his trucks parked some yards away !! The client became very afraid when I asked him certain questions e.g. does the spraybooth have fire extinguishers that are regularly checked, how would the spraybooth man raise the alarm in the event of a fire, how would the fenceman raise the alarm if a saw caught fire. Martin, I've suggested we look at the insurances and the leases see how they are 'worded'. I have half-day on site this week. JohnW

Thanks Phil. Yes, there's a lot of issues for the sub-letters to consider if these issues can be brought to their attention. I suspect they have never thought of a fire risk assessment. Not only that.... The spray booth unit is single storey, it's attached to a two-storey office block. His LEV stack looked like it extends about 2 metres above HIS roof. Hmmm, probably lower than the office block that is attached..... back to COSHH again! JohnW

John - Are you absolutely certain that the client is aware that he is not obliged to carry out these addition (tenants) FRA? I have never known any businessman to part with his cash without the use of a crowbar to prize his fingers open. So I am amazed that he is splashing his cash around so readily. Good luck to you mate for having such a generous client, and I am not suggesting any inappropriate behaviour on your part, in fact it's clear you are attempting to do as much for this guy as possible. But please make doubly sure that he understands it's not his duty, or he may well want some of his cash back later. More things to remember. It's Article 22 (not section 22) and it usually applies in multi occupied buildings, where there's more of a need to share information as means of escape can be more easily compromised (however, you are right, it can be applied in a yard setting). In addition, the FRA must consider all relevant persons within or in the vicinity of the premises. So in the case of the workshop, and spray booth they must consider the risks to their neighbours too

Coming back to my thread here. Three visits to the client site, and dealing with the fire risk assessment for client/site and for each sub-letter on site, and trying to persuade client to organise the yards with marked parking spaces and marked walkways etc. - the safety matters affecting everyone on site. I'm concerned about Fork-lift trucks in the warehouse. Two trucks belong to the client (site-owner) and he has a contract with Linde for thorough exams and servicing, his two drivers have had training so are authorised to use the trucks, but he allows another employer to use the warehouse and also to use the FLTs. I don't yet know the status of those other drivers as I've not yet met their employer. Where does my client stand if he's letting another employer use the trucks and the drivers are not properly trained? Is my client not complying with LOLER? Although I've not spoken to that other employer/drivers I'm concerned because I've observed unsafe practices when they were loading pallets on a lorry e.g. three employees getting too close to moving forks/loads and one getting access to truck bed via forks etc etc accident waiting to happen.... JohnW

bleve, I said at the start the client asked for their safety systems to be audited and properly documented Since you ask, as regards the FRA the client has been instructed to get the fire alarm system fixed (been switched off for over a year!!) and I arranged a colleague to quote for fire extinguisher contract (some but not all FE's were last inspected 2 years ago, some of the client's F.E.'s are 20 years old and none of the powder FE's will work I expect), I've provided an evacuation plan etc etc. Anyway, the agreement with my client is to provide him with a complete safety inspection and report/recomendations. He has two fork-lift trucks, an electric pallet truck and two manual pump trucks. So the client's LOLER assessment will note that he has two trained/authorised drivers, has had conducted thorough inspections for the two fork-lift trucks, and the electric pallet truck, but there has been no thorough inspection of the two manual pump trucks. And ..... another employer is using his fork trucks in a dangerous way. I need to tell him where he stands with regard to this. HSG6 for example states on page 8: "No-one should be permitted to use a lift truck unless he or she has been selected, trained and authorised to do so". This of course applies to employees of the client, but does the client have an obligation to ensure that ANY untrained persons do not use his lift trucks? John

Try reading L117 - ACoP on Rider Operated Lift Trucks available free here http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l117.pdf Para 25 makes it pretty clear that employees driving on the sites of other employers must have adequate training and that the responsibility is a two way thing.