Posted By Stuart Nagle
Danny.

Whilst not able to readilly supply details of case law in respect of this subject, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and as amended 1999, set out the stall on this subject.

There are duties incumbent on all employers under the health & safety at Work etc Act 1974, which are to provide to employees;

- safe place of work

- safe access and egress

- safe plant & tools

- safely maintained

- safe environment

- safe handling of articles/substances

- provision of information, instruction & training

In addition the duties extend to the safety of 'others' both the public and visitors who may be effected by what the emoployer does.

Duites are also to cooperate with others in respect of premises that are shared, or where leased and controls may apply for reasons of health and safety, to ensure compliance within all reasonable bounds.

The person who leases the premises may well have matters which require compliance on his behalf, and therefore is being prudent in ensuring that his leasees comply with these reasonable requirements. The health and safety duties cannot be delgated to another party, irrespective of that other parties control(s), and therefore the the need to 'ensure' compliance is paramount.

hope this helps...

Stuart Nagle

Posted By Robert Dee
Danny you pose an important question which has yet to be tested in the Courts, so far as I am aware. The Shopping centre Case is a separate issue. It resulted in a penalty on the Owners of a shopping centre when a single tenant was found to be in default(I think in Cheshunt)because the HSE felt that the managers were liable to maintain correct means of escape and ensure tenants complied with their own lease liabilities to carry out testing of alarms etc. The link with the Landlord was that all shopping centre managers are "in contriol" of the premises and have their own management policies to which the tenants must comply, eg on testing alarms, but your question is more interesting because it deals with tenants who may not be bound by such Shopping Centre regulations.
We are refusing to let landlords enter Clients' premises for H&S checks (eg to check for Legionaires) unless permitted in Leases and are similarly refusing to let Landlords see the result of assessments under the "umbrella" of the 1992 Management regs.The reason? Because even if the Tenant covenants to comply with all Statutes, the 1974 Act and 1992 Regs apply primarily to EMPLOYERS and risks in the workplace. Even if the HSE take action against a Tenant, and the Tenant is in breach of covenant to comply with Statute that is still no reason to claim forfeiture of the Lease or obtian damages as the Landlord would be unable to show any loss personally or diminution in value to his property arising from the breach. The loss under the 1974 Act affects the employees, visitors, contractors etc., not someone in receipt of the rack rent.

One could argue( probably rightly) that environmental issues are the responsibility of the Landlord under European Law, but that is still no justification for the Landlord to see a Tenant's PUWER or LOLER assessments.
I would be interested in any Commercial Lawyer's view.

If you represent Landlords I would be cautious about insisting on the Tenant carrying out assessments or compliance with H&S legislation until your Solicitors have confirmed what rights you may have under the Lease to persue the matter if the Tenant refuses to respond.

Hope that is of use.