Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all
Under the fire reform order who is normally the named responsible person?
is it the chief executive? Or as determined by the H+S policy
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From the regs: http://www.legislation.g...2005/1541/article/3/made
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
David,
The Responsible Person will generally be the legal entity (i.e. the company, charity, etc.). By naming an individual you run the risk of that person being targeted for prosecution in the event of a breach.
I hope this helps.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There seems to be a missunderstanding, the responsible person under the RRFSO is a named person such as the CEO, the dduties can be delegated to another competent person but the CEO is responsible for ensuring the fire risk asessment is done and often signs off the findings as an acknowledgement of that. The RP cannot be held responsible for the fire safety of the company as the company is the body that would be procecuted. It is the building controller who has overall responsibility not individuals of the company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The person in control of the premises.
I'd like to see a fire risk assessment that has been carried out by a building or a company without a personal touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris the point I was making (badly it seems) was the RP is generally the most senior person within the company. That gives it the gravity and authority of the company. The assessment can be done bya person within the company or outside the company such as a consultant. The FRA belongs to the company not the individual who conducts it. Hope I explained it a bit better this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Chris is correct,
the person who should named as the responsible person (and have the appropriate training and competence) who is responsible for the application of the RRFSO in the organisation, this will invariably be a 'volunteer' and not the CEO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Excuse my crap english, I have spoke the queens english since I was a children .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry disagree, the CEO of a company (or the company owner) is the most senior person within the company. The CEO directs and owns each and every policy etc of the company. Everyone else works under the direction of the CEO as the ultimate person in charge od how the company is managed. Your H&S Policy should be signed off by the CEO as does the quality policy etc. The CEO employs individuals to conduct various aspects of the company's activity, and is the head of all the company does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob,
Disagree mate, I have one CEO and 19 locations, each location has a nominated responsible person, who in terms of the RRFSO has control of the premise, and are responsible for the implementation of the order and maintenance of fire safety, each responsible person is trained and competent. Of course the company retain the corporate responsibility.
Common sense really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In legislative terminology a "person" isn't necessarily an individual but can be an organisation. If a company is in control of the premises then the company is the responsible person (and that is who would normally be prosecuted for a breach - the company). It's not a case of naming someone - as the quote from the Order indicates, the identity of the responsible person is set out in law (it's the employer - ie the company).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate,
When a manager is nominated for a site, is it not he that controls it? Your argument is OK for a company with one stand alone facility, but someone has to do FRA'S and control fire safety, and these people are known as responsible persons..... IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I work in Local Government and have 2 Employers. Elected members as the Body Corporate (HASWA 37(2)) named the Council and the Chief Executive Officer as Head of Paid Service. The former hold a strategic and scrutiny role the latter is the executive 'big cheese'. The former do not instruct me directly the latter does - it is their name on the FRA as the responsible person. That said if we were to be in breach who would the Fire Service lay charges against - The Council or the Responsible Person?
Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think this is where the confusion arises, yes of course there are individuals in the company who have specific responsibilities for fire safety, but this is not the same as the legal definition of "responsible person" which is written in black and white in the Order. The same term is being used to refer to two different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just to clarify, my post at #14 was a reply to Ken's #12 and not the intervening one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David 1967,
To get back to your question,
Maybe we should say that the responsibilty under the 'responsible person', would be the employer, and the individual ' responsible person' who would implement and maintain fire safety would be highlighted in the organisation part of your H&S policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate wrote:I think this is where the confusion arises, yes of course there are individuals in the company who have specific responsibilities for fire safety, but this is not the same as the legal definition of "responsible person" which is written in black and white in the Order. The same term is being used to refer to two different things.
If sole control of the site belongs to the local manager and not the the employer the sect 3(b)(i) applies, not so black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Would that ever happen though, Ken? Isn't the manager working under the employer's control?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate wrote:Would that ever happen though, Ken? Isn't the manager working under the employer's control?
Trust me our Chief Exec, who sits nice and comfortable in London, has no control over the day to day running of our sites, which is down to local managers. Is he responsible, yes. Would he be deemed competent to implement and maintain fire safety, I doubt it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Doesn't he have to approve any major spending on fire safety though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No that is done at a local level, we are talking a very large company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I must continue my very strong disagreement with some people who think that safety of any type can be pushed down the chain to the lowest level. Under the RRFSO the responsibility for safety (as it is under the HASAWA) rests with the most senior person wiothin the company. It matters not a jot if the company has one or a thousand site the responsibility should be led by one mind. The CEO can deligate the actual work but not the responsibility. The CEO requires the task to be completed to comply with the law, so he gets it done and signs off to ensure it has been done, he needs no competence in the task only to ensure it is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As I said earlier, the CEO is responsible, and trust me, he bangs the health and safety drum quite loudly, but it still rests with local managers to implement and maintain, they have their 'responsibility' too under the RRFSO...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My dealings in the world of H&S have been that the CEO has the ultimate responsibility- he employs people to advise on how best to protect the people and the business, and other to implement the procedures from that advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As already said by Kate the phrase responsible person is the devil. RRFSO mimics HASWA in many ways and yes there is opportunity to debate the 'dutyholder' but at the end of the day read RRFSO as the 'employer shall' unless clearly there is no employer and in the world of work that is a rare experience.
Under RRFSO the term responsible person relates to what we know as the employer as dutyholder in HASWA. But under HASWA and s2(3) our safety polices show a distribution of responsibility on behalf of the employer through others (responsibility can be devolved - duty cannot). You can have lots of site managers with responsibility but at the end of the day one dutyholder.
If RRFSO had been supported by ACOP and Guidance for interpretation then both Employers and Regulators would be singing from the same hymn sheet. In a place of employment read employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Lets not forget that under RRFSO the responsible person might not be an employer, or even a representative thereof. The danger when comparing it to the HaSaWa is that people tend to forget the RRFSO applies to certain groups of people outside of a work setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Motorhead, I think you are mistaken. The employer of a body corporate, public authority, or charity is generally the Board of Directors/Trustees as a collective and not a single person. There are of course exceptions e.g. a NHS Trust, where the Chief Executive is required to take individual responsibility but that is not the general rule.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quite rightly it has been said earlier, somewhat lost in the discussion - the person in control of the premises may not be an employer, could be the landlord. In that case the CEO or anyone else has no responsibility for the fra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Even in Ken's scenario of an inactive CEO, the manager only has responsibility by virtue of his employment by the employing organisation - so the employer (employing organisation) does have control of the premises, through the manager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please note that it is not the property owner it is the property controller, i.e. tenant, or part tenant etc. If you have an office block with several tenants, it is for the person who controls the premises to carryout the FRA, he needs to take account of others using the building and cooperate with them to ensure nothing they do impacts upon his part of the premises with the landlord being responsible for common areas outside the control of each tenant. The use of the term CEO applies equally to whatever the head of the company is called as far as the board etc, they generally have no actual control over the premises this falls to the CEO or whatever he is called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another interesting thread.
My opinion is that the CEO (or whatever the head of the organisation is called) would be ACCOUNTABLE, they could delegate the responsibility to whoever they wanted having first ensured that person is competent but they would still remain accountable for that responsibility.
This probably muddies the waters even further and I am not saying I would be right in the eyes of the law,
its my interpretation.
Take Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This thread is growing nicely. The Board of any company is outside the day to day management of the organisation which is the role of the CEO or MD etc. There are few boards that are speifically responssible for the management of the company only for the direction the company is to take in gaining its profit, etc. Thats why they employ CEOs or MDs to manage from day to day as the head of the company. I'm sure of a company is prosecuted under th RRFSO, they would ask questions because it would mean that it cost the company money, but direct involvement I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If I could go back to David's original post/question. I don't think that in general the fire authority would expect to see the CEO to be listed at the RP except in the smallest of organisations. I suggest that the FA would be looking for a practical and pragmatic approach and that the RP would normally be someone (or perhaps more than one person) who has the ability to play a hands on role. Could be someone in an H&S, facilities, property management role etc or could be someone else.
Much that same applies to the HSE enforced situations. Although the CEO or whatever may have ultimate responsibility, it would be a nonsense to suggest that they could possibly be responsible for the day to day hands on management of everything including H&S. This is expected to be delegated through the H&S policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am sorry to bang the drum on this matter but all but with the exception of small and smaller medium sized companies and public bodies are run by their board which under the Companies Act, Charities Acts, etc. have liability as a collective body (unless they are acting without authority). The CEO/MD is an employee of the Company like any other and he/she is given authority by the board to make decisions (usually in conjunction with other Executive Directors). All policies, etc. should be Company (board) policies and not those of the CEO/MD.
If, as is the case with many health and safety policies I see, the MD/CEO has ultimate, overall, etc. responsibility for health and safety and there is a fatality, the MD/CEO could be facing a gross negligence manslaughter and/or a individual breach of health and safety investigation rather than the "employer" (i.e. the board) facing a corporate manslaughter and/or corporate breach of health and safety investigation.
The same situation applies under the RR(FSO) where the Responsible Person is the 'employer'.
I hope this clarifies things.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well let's consider the scenario that Fireman Sam come a knocking,
he asks 'Can I see the 'responsible person' for this site?',
'oh you'll want the head honcho in London!' the manager replies
'No' Says Sam, 'the person responsible for fire safety at THIS site'
'Yeah the guy in London' says the manager..............
Fireman Sam cocks an eyebrow, then reaches for his notices.
I very recently sat in on a 'responsible persons' course, taken by a very knowledgable Fire Service Guru, who stated that every premise must have a nominated 'responsible person'. Thats how he interpreted the RRFSO....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've recently updated the cover page of my fire risk assessment template changing;
'Responsible Person' to 'Person Responsible for Site'
For exactly this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The person in control of the premises!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ken,
I totally agree that every premises must have a "Responsible Person" and under the Article 3 RR(FS)O definition that could be a manager or other person provided (and only provided) that manager or other person has a sufficient degree of "control" over the building. Article 5(3) defines a person being in control to the extent that he has an obligation to maintain or repair of the premises.
In general (and I stress the general bit) the person who has "control" of the premises is a) the employer (e.g. a company, public body, charity or individual), b) the owner (e.g. a company, public body, charity or an individual), or c) and individual (corporate or personal) to whom duties under Articles 8-22 have been lawfully delegated because that individual has control (e.g. control has been delegated in a contract).
There is nothing in Article 3 that requires the Responsible Person to a) be an individual and/or b) to be on the premises. The only requirement is that he must have "control", which can of course be exercised from Head Office.
While every case will turn on its facts, any Enforcement Notice issued because the Responsible Person was not on the premises is likely to be held to be invalid.
I hope this helps.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
A really interesting debate here and one where both sides seem to be agreeing, even if not all of them realise it. We had a similar debate here when the FSO came into effect. It was clear for the majority of our sites the "Responsible Person" was the employer, but that we needed to reflect in our policy and corporate level documentation the various roles and responsibilities people had. This included the Chief Executive having ultimate responsibility and went on to include all the various roles involved. Each building or site had to have a "responsible manager". This title was chosen to avoid confusion with the "Responsible Person" in the FSO.
This works for us and we have over a thousand buildings/sites and it is one our local Fire and Rescue authority are comfortable with.
Gerry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Gerry, I can see how that would work very well. However, in the days of individual liability and the possibility of individual directors being prosecuted and banned from being a director I would not want to give any individual "ultimate responsibility". My philosophy is that you can't jail a board but you can jail a MD or CEO. Then again, most of my work these days entails defending people rather than promoting health and safety (including fire safety).
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.