Ok, take a deep breath and consider this conundrum..........:

1) Company A operates it's business at No1 The High Street

2) It rents the building from Company Z (all maintenance is carried out under contract by the landlords; Company Z)

3) Company A hires/contracts 60% of it's worker from Company Z

4) The remaining workers in the premises are Company A employees.

(OK so far??).......

So who is the Responsible Person???

(Company A who rents the premises - so is in control of the premises- and has employees, therefore is an employer)

or

Company Z (who are in control of the premises as they own & maintain it. They also employ the majority - 60%- of the staff, who are working for Company A under contract).

I am struggling a bit on this one (and it's not even Friday!!)

The recently publicised (and discussed somewhere on this Forum) prosecution of an Hotelier and a consultant Fire Risk Assessor serves to confirm that the responsible person role can apply to various parties.
In typical situations as you describe one could envisage the Landlord being held liable were systems not maintained and the occupying employer for failing to check.

Both in my view, each for their own area of responsibility. Structural and "hardware" would probably be Z, whilst people & hazards would fall to A to control. Close co-operation is a must to ensure that Z is aware of and takes account of what A is doing and vice-versa.

Both in my opinion have a duty as responsible persons.

Company A to its employees for the parts it controls and the ensuring of suitbable provision of equipment etc (this will include the company Z employees seconded to Company A, same as aganecy workers).

Company Z as the building controller will be responsible for ensuring that maintenance etc helps conform to the standards and the building itself meets the necessary information. If their is other areas of the building not worked in by A then Z and A must liaise on any impacts this can have on A areas.

Also a need for liason on the findings of the fire risk assessment as well between parties.

Don't worry about this situation. If something goes wrong I am sure the enforcers and possibly the judge/magistrate will let you know.

Chris. Oh yes, this is a real situation, indeed, it's even more complicated than that, but customer confidentiality prevents me from saying more.

Frankly, my head was spinning when I left this place, but after some deliberating I believe these circumstances are appropriate:

This is not a multi occupied premises, so there will only be one RP and Article 22 doesn't apply. Company A run the business from the entire single storey premises. They are the employer with control so are the only RP

Company Z simply provide staff on a contract basis, in a similar way in which Initial Services may provide cleaners for a Tesco store. In that case Tesco would still be the RP as it is the employer with control of the premises

Of course the fact company Z own the building and rents it is the red herring, as I don't think it makes a difference in terms of who is the RP. In any case, company A still control the day to day operations of the business

To further complicate matters, company A know they are the RP but are happy for company Z to pay for the FRA (albeit with a small error as it lists the wrong RP!!)

It's a mess, but no one is at harm as the FRA that's been done is very good and the premises are well manged and in good nick (indeed, has some over provision of fire safety infrastructure). So I am walking away (after confirming my advice in writing)