Posted By Bill01 Hi, If it can be reasonably expected that children will be on site and they can fit through the rails then you must consider this as part of your risk management process. Don't forget you have responsibilities under the Occupiers Liability Act to those who visit and trespass on your premises. Bill.

Posted By Peter F. Rod, do you not have kids of your own, turn your back for a minute and there up to something. Why not stop them bringing children into work because of the identified dangers.

Posted By Bill01 Rod, I work in retail and I can tell you that not all but some parents haven't got a clue what their children are up to while they buy their beans!

Posted By Eddie Interesting take on the "moral responsibility" of the landlord,in this context, where and when would that start and finish? I would have thought that if the tenant is allowing children on site (and I assume that we are discussing a workplace that would not normally be associated with the presence of children), then it would be up to the tenant to ensure that they are protected while they are there. Whether this would be via supervision, securing high risk areas (stairways?), gates etc would be up to them and based on the perceived risk. Anyway shouldn't they be in school :-)

Posted By martinw And under Fire Reg Reform Order common areas of flats etc are a workplace: that you have to take into consideration those who use it as a workplace and any other 'relevant persons' who may be affected by acts omissions etc. It may be a workplace for those attending to do that but may also be the way out of residential flats - dual use by default. So the above advice is right - you have to do the right thing and make it safe. With case law and occupiers liability, have a look at Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust 2006 at http://www.thompsons.law...-occupiers-liability.htm where a younger child copied older ones and climbed but then fell off a fire escape. Normally in these cases the defence rely on a) it was the person's choice to do a dangerous act and b) it was not the state of the premises which were in themselves dangerous but the act itself. Both these defences failed in the case above because as the judge said, "premises which were not dangerous for an adult could be dangerous for a child". The fact that it has been brought to your attention makes it even more important to sort it. Martin

Posted By Eddie Swis: They are not trespassing in this scenario, but are there with the consent of the tenant MartinW Rod was asking for advice on children falling through balustrades and stairways in the workplace etc. not fire safety. Still think they should be in school :-)

Posted By martinw Swis - look at the start of my input above - see the word "And"? Just explaining the context of why I was making comments about the safety of relevant persons - bearing in mind it was the FRRO which finally stated that common areas were workplaces: this directly impacted on H&S practice in terms of risk assessments of those areas. So yes, it was to do with H&S if you had thought it through. But thanks for making sure that I understand exactly what was asked for. Did I quote the correct case, as that was to do with Occupier Liability rather than strictly health and safety?

Posted By Graham Bullough There are various reasons why children, including young ones, will sometimes be present in some workplaces. Some employers may have open days for families of employees or members of the public, so it's foreseeable that people of all ages and sizes may legitimately visit on such occasions. The architects/designers of some workplaces assume that children would never visit them. For example, a 6th form college in my area had a large new extension built only a few years ago. During a visit soon after completion I saw that it had a staircase with large gaps in the bannisters through which children could fall. Furthermore, the spouses of some lecturers would come into college, along with their children, to collect them from work. Also, it was not unknown for lecturers or other employees to have their kids with them, for various reasons, especially towards the end of the college day. That’s not too bad if the kids are well behaved and stay in one place reading and/or are under the constant supervision of their parent. However, in some cases, the parent’s work requires them to move about (e.g. as a caretaker or cleaner) which means that continuous supervision is difficult. Some of you may react by saying that such employees ought to have arrangements for someone else to look after the children during their working hours. They probably do and usually rely on friends and relatives because paying for childcare is difficult on the usual level of pay that such employees receive. However, if the child minders become ill at short notice, some employees may have little option but to take their kids to work with them. I’m not necessarily endorsing this, just reflecting on what actually happens at some workplaces, especially ones such as offices and schools which are perceived to be low risk by employees who take/have their children with them. As regards gaps in bannisters and balustrades, if you want to be certain that children cannot fall/squeeze through them, make sure that the gaps are no bigger than 100mm/4 inches. This is a long-established measurement which seems to be enshrined in more than one British Standard.

Posted By Rod D Hi Guys I am going to use the term Reasonably Practicable. Is it Reasonably Practicable for the Landlord to spend a rather large amount of money to change the balustrade and in turn change the aesthetics of the premises i.e. the common stairs so that we can accommodate a four year old child. Graham has made a very valid point that there will be times when child minders are ill or let you down for some unknown reason, however this should not detract from the parent having to supervise their children whilst they are in the workplace and especially the common parts. I believe it is time we in society today start to take ownership for our own lives and stop looking for someone else to blame when something goes wrong. If you take your child into your workplace you must take ownership of your child's welfare, the responsibility does not suddenly jump from the parent to the landlord or responsible person for the workplace. I know there is a responsibility of the Landlord to visitors but the workplace is no place for a toddler, because I firmly believe that you cannot undertake your work and give your child the 100% supervision that they deserve. Do you think some of the big building in the city like Canary Wharf and the Gherkin would make the common parts child friendly? I would very much doubt it And that's a "Rant" I mean wrap.... Rod D