It is always the responsibility of the owner / occupier

Manchester's Beetham tower has safety issues with its glazing but the contractor has gone bust https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/02/01/beetham-tower-owner-ordered-to-replace-glazing/ 

It is an unfortunate time in construction as materials and methods considered suitable in the past have come under increased scrutiny since June 2017 http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128007-Fire-Door-Testing

No one ethical sets out to design a building that does not meet the building regulations "applicable at the time" however between design and hand over there are many trades whose work is not fully scrutinised (and may have been poor) and involved cost reduction material switches by the various subbies. As with cladding issues your client needs legal scrutiny of the contracts and designs to see if the builder has breached contract to bring civil suit BUT that would be cost recovery not waiting to see if you can get them to pay up front.

Sign off does not necessarily mean it was thoroughly (lifting flooring, raising ceiling tiles, looking in service runs) and competently examined from a fire control view point, and then to which current knowledeg base time of design / time of approval / time of contruction / time of fit-out / handover / snagging / sign off

If the building is very new there might be a warranty period after handover - sometimes up to 12 years. In a previous job we were very grateful to have the warranty in place as, when doing alterations after 9 years or so a lot of problems came to light. The original building contractor - a major player in the UK - is paying for the repairs and on-costs.

I believe that the problems stem from a lack of 'Clerk of Works' posts being on site to find and correct faults before completion.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

It is always the responsibility of the owner / occupier

You are absolutely right, the 'Responsible Person' is always the employer, or where there's no employer, the person in control, or the owner if there is no person in control.

However article 5(4) says:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to—

(a)the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or

(b)the safety of any premises,

that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, if you are responsible for ensuring fire safety in any way, you can be treated as the Responsible Person as far as your duties extend. So a fire alarm engineer could be prosecuted if he fails to maintain the alarm system or a fire consultant can be prosecuted if he or she provides a useless fire risk assessment.

The LFB know this, but take a view that they will always go after the Resp Person (employer or person in control) - because it makes their life easier. They say its the RP's problem if they have used a cowboy and not theirs. I think that is a bit harsh as being an enforcer, they need to hit anyone that is routinely breaking the law, not just the RP

 They considered using a 5(4) prosecution against the Manager(s) of the branch of New Look in Oxford Street a few years back (Google New Look fire Oxford St). This would have sent a huge message to branch managers of large businesses. But the LFB legal team backed away.

There's a new residential building near where I live that has effectively been evacuated as fire stopping was not carried out effectively, despite being signed off.

I am afraid this is how it will be - and should be - after Grenfell.

Tried to avoid comment regarding tennants (4 b) as post Grenfell a number of management companies have used weasel wording around maintenance contracts to place the burden of replacing cladding firmly on those who are renting or have purchased property within a building.

IMHO there is maintenance - replacing broken windows, painting, boiler up keep etc. i.e. wear and tear - which are part of the annual charges set within a contract. Then there is refurbishment or re-fit neither of which should be included in a fair contract due to their unknown and/or excessive costs.

With limited resources why should LFB pursue others when they have identified failings and someone who is required to put them right. Post enquiry and with new statutory responsibilities within the supply chain clearly defined there may be more appetite to expend resource to pursue the underlying cause of problems.