Posted By Ron Young In a multi sited business, is it better to have one responsible person for the business with competent people appointed and trained at all locations. Or is it best to appoint a responsible person for each location with the ensuing competent people as necessary?

Posted By J Knight Hi Ron, I think you need to do both. The way that the RR(FS)O talks about this seems to be very similar to H&S law, so there will by default be a responsible person at a corporate level (the controlling mind if you like) and also responsible persons in each workplace. That certainly the view we're taking, and we are basing that on publications like HTM-05.01 which are based in turn on the RR(FS)O, John

Posted By J Knight Yes, and the smelling chick doesn't work on the thread title, whch is sometimes a real pain ;-) John

Posted By Peter Leese You cannot 'appoint' a responsible person? Hey ho, away we go. Of course you can appoint a responsible person.

Posted By shaun mckeever Pluto of course you can appoint a responsible person. For example, the manager of a shop of a major chain store will be a responsible person. He will have been appointed as the manager and will have control of his workplace. He is therefore a responsible person within the definition of the RRO. In fact a responsible person does not even have to be appointed. Contractors can be responsible persons if they are, to any degree, exercising control over a workplace.

Posted By shaun mckeever Nobody said anything about absolving yourself of responsibility. There are different levels of responsibility. If your 19 year old widget shop manager decides to overstock the shop at christmas and blocks up all the emergency exits then he is responsible. It does not mean that his superior does not carry any responsibilty. If the widget shop manager carries out a fire risk assessment and decides he needs extinguishers and his line manager tells him he can't have the money to buy the extinguishers then the line manager carry's the can as the responsible person. The Head Mistress in Salford who was taken to court by the brigade was deemed the responsible person not her employer.

Posted By Adrian Watson The responsible person is defined as: "3. In this Order “responsible person” means— (a)in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; (b)in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— (i)the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or (ii)the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking" The responsible person is not normally a natural person! However, it could be for sole ownerships and partnerships. Regardless it is incumbent on the responsible person to appoint persons to implement the management systems. Two further points: Firstly, the regulations do not require the risk assessment to be recorded if there are five or more employees, it requires that the risk assessment be recorded WHERE there are five or more employees; and "(6) As soon as practicable after the assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where— (a)he employs five or more employees; (b)a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or (c)an alterations notice requiring this is in force in relation to the premises." Secondly, even if there are less than five employees etc a risk assessment is still required. "9. — (1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order." Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Adrian Watson My apologies, I did not make it clear regardless of who is the responsible person you also have people in control of premises. They have individual responsibilities alongside the responsible person. Who those people are is a matter of fact based upon the organisational structure. When advising clients I state that you the organisation is the responsible person, however you must IDENTIFY the persons who control activities, maintenance etc at the premises. Each of these people have individual responsibilities. Regards Adrian

Posted By Peter Leese The initial words from Pluto categorically stated a responsible person cannot be appointed. Pluto then wrote: ...I maintain that only the judge can ultimately decide who is the responsible person. The first is a statement of fact, and the second clearly arguable because of the use of the words 'I maintain'. So, without a retraction of the first statement, where does that lead us?

Posted By Julian Ive always worked on the "responsible person" being the controlling mind, corporate body by default as already mentioned. Then having a "designated person" to discharge the duties at each site.

Posted By pluto Just to be really pedantic, the Headmistress and local authorty were prosecuted under the woekplace regs and they talked about 'dutyholders' I should also have said that the judge would decide whether the Fire Authority had correctly identified the responsible person, otherwise that charge would fall.

Posted By shaun mckeever Adrian, you word your response well and have made me think about it. Here is how I see it:- Meaning of "responsible person" 3. In this Order "responsible person" means— (a) in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under his control; (b) in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)— (i) the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking (for profit or not); or (ii) the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking. If (a) does not apply then (b) applies. “Responsible person” then means the person who has control of the premises - b(i). So a person in control is a responsible person. That person must be carrying on a trade, business or other undertaking. In my view this would include a shop manager, headmistress or contractor. Each of them will be carrying on one of the activities whether it is for themselves or for an employer. I believe the intention of the legislation has been deliberately worded to make the responsible person as wide ranging as possible. regards Shaun

Posted By Ron Young This has been a good thread and I really think that it highlights the ambiguity (intentional?) of the Order. Whilst researching just who or what the "Responsible person" is on the web, there were a lot of differing observations. Fire authorities tended to lean towards the employer as an entity, whilst legal opinion was that it was likely that the courts would decide using any documented evidence gathered at the scene. e.g. fire orders, safety policy etc to identify a "controlling" mind. This was also the opinion of a consultant who audited our premises recently, who is an ex senior member of the fire brigade and who I believe was involved in the preparation of the RR (FS)O. I myself am preparing a paper nominating people at our differing locations who have control over most of the fire precautions in-house. This tends to look to the Facilities managers of buildings who currently exercise control over fire system maintenance and who apply the requirements of the local fire orders. I, as Group Safety Manager have the responsibility to ensure that the systems I've written, are being applied, are suitable and sufficient and are being tested at reasonable intervals, normally using the old fire certificate for guidance, if nothing has changed in the workplace since it was issued. To date this has been accepted by nominated personnel and we are now working to enshrine this in a revised fire policy