To me, this is a reasonable thing to include in your risk assessments.

Your security arrangements are of course the prime control measures you will refer to in the risk assessment.

As for the hazards, it's a case of walking around with open eyes and thinking what a person up to no good might try.  Your security team would probably have useful input into this. (I don't mean to imply that the security team are up to no good ... just that they may have some insights.)

Don't forget arson, which may have already been considered in your fire risk assessment.

I recall one building, located near a large new housing estate with lots of children, where there was some metalwork up the side that looked temptingly like a climbing frame.  The metalwork was taken down for just this reason.

You may not necessarily need more security measures; just because it's possible to do more things, doesn't make those things necessarily worthwhile to do. Your risk assessment might find that what you have is enough given the risks and responsibilities. I mention responsibilities because although you have a duty of care to trespassers, it is not as extensive as your duty of care to your legitimate visitors. 

A fence (if you can't easily climb it or go through it) is a very good control measure against trespass and I'm not sure that adding signs to it would have any benefit.  "Private property" signs are most useful at boundaries where it would otherwise be possible for a member of the public to stray into private property without realising it. 

Saturday night is a traditional time for teenagers to gather and get up to no good, but is there any evidence of this happening near your site?  If all is quiet on a Saturday night, there may be no benefit in additional security then.

Thanks Kate and Peter.

I will implement your suggestions

We are based on a business park. HGV vehicles enter through the main security manned gate, 24/7, staff/visitors through an unmanned barrier around the other side of the building which we use our passes to enter the barrier or press the intercom to allow security to buzz in. There is a pedestrian walkway which allows pedestrians to enter site without being announced, towards the side of the unmanned barrier which has cctv coverage. This is the easiest way on site as high fences surround the perimeter. Site manager is concerned about members of the public gaining access to the roofs and climbing on vehicles and falling off. 

Any more ideas would be appreciated.

Messey, do you mean that the Fire Safety Order doesn't care about a trespasser committing arson so endangering the lives of others, or that it doesn't care about a trespasser being endangered by a fire?

Edited by user 15 August 2021 15:37:39(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Kate

Messey, do you mean that the Fire Safety Order doesn't care about a trespasser committing arson so endangering the lives of others, or that it doesn't care about a trespasser being endangered by a fire?

Hi Kate

The Fire Safety Order requires that a fire risk assessment is undertaken to establish adequate control measures to reduce the risk of harm by fire to all 'Relevant Persons'. 

This does not include persons unlawfully on the premises. A reasonable caveat, as it is entirely lawful to chain all fire exits when the premises is closed, so it would be perverse if an intruder (or trespasser) could sue the business if he or she had their escape route locked.

From the FS Order:

“relevant persons” means—

(a)any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; and

(b)any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises,

A lot of comments around people up to no good, but don’t forget those with no intention of causing trouble. When I was young (I can just about remember) with a remote-control car, you needed a large flat area – a car park! However once inside a fence are there tempting things as noted above to climb on or under, wheels/ valves to turn etc. In this more modern time, they may just be trying to retrieve a toy drone, and old-fashioned kite, football, Frisbee etc, all of which could land anywhere at any height.

When you do your walk about you may want to let your inner child out, the one that wonders what happens if I turn this, poke that etc.

Don’t forget to have fun when you let your imagination run wild :o)

Chris

There still seems to be a great deal of confusion about the concept of risk assessment. risk assessment is not a form with the heading “Risk Assessment”. It is process you need to carry out to  ensure that everything that you do is managed so as to minimise the risk those activities pose to employees and others. Legally all you need to record are the “findings” of the process and that document  can be called anything you want.  As far as the legal ramifications of trespassers go you need to deal with   under a security or access policy or something like that. In many cases the risk posed to trespassers can be managed by straight forward  security measures, ie CCTV, regular managed patrols fencing. The legal duties under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 are less onerous than those under the   Occupiers Liability Act 1957 as they apply to trespassers not lawful visitors.

The ‘Allurement Principle’ only applies to the old concept of licensees ie people who while not invited on to your property are allowed on to it. The example of the kids being allowed to skateboard on carpark upper level is a good example. To stop someone being regarded as licensee you need to take measures to discourage them including fencing signage and other security measures in that way you stop the property  being an ‘allurement‘. See Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705  House of Lords for a more recent approach to this issue.