We have had an incident involving some external steps which do not have a handrail. It is a set of 3 steps about 2m away from the principal entrance. However, this building was built when hand railings was not a requirement and there have been no modifications. Are hand rails strictly necessary as being made out by a solicitor in this situation. The building regulations approved document part M, states “It is not necessary, as regards to the building regulations, to upgrade access to the building entrance from the site boundary and any on site car parking where provided”. It then goes on to refer to the DDA. I have looked at the Equality Act / DDA and as far as I can see it states you need to provide access for mobility impaired people. This we do via another route. There is an actual customer car parking area which is then flat to the same principal entrance that the steps lead to. So do we have to retrospectively put in handrails as there have never been any. Putting aside for a moment if it would be a good idea anyway, is it strictly required? I’m sure a lot of you have looked into this before, so any pointers to additional guidance / help would be appreciated. (by the way the IP did not have any mobility issues) Chris

Regulation 12 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Approved Code of Practice http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf sets out the requirements for handrails.

Thanks for the replys so far. To clarify the reason I suggested to put aside if it was a good idea or not for the moment in my question, was that we lease the property and are not planning on staying. I fail to see why they should be allowed to claim we were negligent when there is no strict duty. These are not dangerous steps just no handrail, no other accidents in the last 10 years on them. There is no maintenance issues at all they are not even directly part of the building ( 2m away). My understanding was that planning requirements were not retrospective ( or we would all have to remove every last bit of asbestos out of our buildings regardless of condition). Thanks for the link to the ACOP. I agree with you all it is good practice , but how many would actually use them. He actually had things in his hands, which he had just bought from us (we don't have carriers). I actively try not to touch germy handrails when I'm out and we have other access for those with mobility issues. So what your saying is legally we don't have to, but give up. I don't mind when things are genuine, but this I find irritating. They even admit him falling was his fault ! Chris

Id be requesting to fight this one in court. No previous accidents etc the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent if they gave this one. What was the guy doing different when using the steps opposed to previous people for the accident to even happen? tripped on own feet, using phone not paying attention etc?

WatsonD - yes that is my thoughts, though the pre action paperwork note that there is no conditional fee or funding arrangement or insurance ? Chris it states "he missed the top of the step and fell forwards". He was apparently a very very very large person who could not see his feet. Of course we should cater for people like that too, but we do have the other access route from our actual car park. I suspect the insurance company will do as normal and make an offer to avoid cost of fighting. The claim for the handrail was that if there had been one he could have grabbed it on the way down and saved himself. They also claim we left a trap for him and failed to warn him of the dangers. The passer by disappeared before we could talk to her and no CCTV. They also claim no inspection and maintenance regime - to which they are wrong in so far as we do regularly check condition as per our lease agreement for general maintenance ( but not betterment) I have dealt with a few claims over the years, and the way they are worded can be irritating to the point of almost being funny. I believe the person fell and probably sustained the injuries claimed. Anyway back to may actual question about handrails. We have now actually measured the distance from the building of the steps and it is 3.6m. I remember reading somewhere that if the steps are not part of the building they don't necessarily need handrails. I have been to numerous parks etc where there are formal paths and steps with no handrails. There has to be some guidance. Anyone with any construction design knowledge or other planning knowledge of this issue. Do I really have no case to argue against the claim there must be handrails ? Chris

A potentially useful article here: http://www.thompsons.law...010-perils-stairwell.htm This is one for your insurance company to advise on I suggest.

Had something similar a few years back. Individual was standing on the steps and misplaced foot - fell from edge breaking jaw. They made a claim and we lost due to lack of handrail. Risk assessment should have identified need for handrail - and difficult to argue the logic post event.