The management of Health and safety of communal areas

In buildings with multiple occupancy, the landlord (or building manager or facilities manager) is responsible for the premises as a whole, but also has special responsibility for the common areas of the premises.  These can be thought of the parts of the premises not demised to (or directly under the control of) individual tenants.  Typically, these may include: car parking areas, external areas (roads, paths, lighting, refuse storage areas, etc), entrance doors, reception areas, corridors, staircases and lifts. In addition, the landlord will usually be responsible for the various plant rooms (boiler room, lift motor room, pump rooms, etc), roof areas, fixed electrical installation, water supply, etc as well as for the safe management of contractors working in these areas. There are also some special areas of safety management that fall under the control of the landlord or facilities manager, such as: fire safety for the common areas, the fixed electrical installation, cooling towers, asbestos, etc.

Asbestos

It is recommended that the landlord has a Managment Survey (previously refered to as a Type 2 survey) or a Refurbishment / demolition survey (previously referred to as a Type 3 asbestos survey) carried out on the premises. The key findings of this assessment must be made available to tenants and to contractors and should include the location and type of any asbestos containing materials.

Where asbestos (or asbestos containing material) is known to be present in a building, there should be some form of asbestos management plan in place. This may involve simply monitoring the condition of the asbestos at regular intervals to ensure that it has not been damaged. At the other extreme, it may involve a planned removal of the asbestos by a competent organisation.

Control of contractors

Control of contractors working on site on behalf of the landlord can be a difficult area to manage. Many landlords (and facilities managers) introduce some form of contractor approval system to ensure that certain minimum standards are met. These systems usually ensure that the contractors have adequate insurance, that they have a health and safety policy and that they have appropriate risk assessments and method statements in place.  They do not ensure that the contractors are carrying out the work in accordance with the risk assessments and method statements. It is recommended that at least some of the works carried out by contractors are observed and monitored by the landlord (or their representative) to ensure that they are working in accordance with their agreed standards.  Higher risk activities should be monitored more often and more closely.  Certain contractor tasks will require a higher level of control, such as the use of a permit to work system.

Contractors will need to be given appropriate information and instruction relating to hazards associated with the premises. These may include the presence and location of asbestos, the location of underground services (such as gas, water and electrical services), etc.

COSHH and chemicals

Copies of safety data sheets and of the COSHH assessments should be available on site for any substances used or stored in the common areas, even if stored and used by contractors. These may include water treatment chemicals, cleaning materials and maintenance sprays and lubricants, etc.

Electricity

In most premises, the tenants will be responsible for their own portable electrical equipment. The fixed electrical installation may be responsibility of the landlord or the tenant, depending on the tenancy contract. In many cases, the fixed electrical installation (in part or in total) will be the responsibility of the landlord. In this case, it is recommended that the landlord arranges for the fixed electrical installation to be tested and inspected by a competent person (such as an NICEIC approved contractor) at regular intervals (usually five yearly inspections for commercial premises and three yearly inspections for industrial premises).

External areas and building façade

The external areas of the premises should be inspected regularly, including checks on the condition of the building façade and all structure attached to the building, such as lights, aerials, CCTV cameras, flagpoles, etc. Similarly, checks should be carried out for all external areas, including car parking areas, roads and footpaths, fencing, lighting, etc. Any defects should be addressed and made safe.

Fire Safety

Fire safety is likely to be a shared responsibility, with the landlord being responsible for the common areas and the tenants being responsible for their demised area. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a fire risk assessment for the common parts of the premises and make suitable arrangements for the provision, maintenance, servicing and testing of:

·         A fire alarm, including automatic fire detection

·         Emergency lighting (in the common parts)

·         Fire fighting equipment (in the common parts)

·         Doors, fire doors and automatic door release systems

·         Emergency evacuation routes

·         (Wet or Dry) risers and sprinkler systems

·         Housekeeping in common areas

Tenant responsibilities

The landlord should make it clear to the tenant what their responsibilities are. While the landlord may, reasonably, be responsible for the provision, servicing and maintenance of collective fire safety measures (such as building wide fire alarm and fire/smoke detection) the tenant is responsible for the safe evacuation of their own workers and visitors from the premises. The tenant may be responsible for the provision of fire fighting equipment in their demised area, etc. The responsibilities need to be considered, identified and ascribed.

Tenants’ fire risk assessments

Tenants are generally responsible for their own fire safety arrangements, although some aspects (such as a building-wide fire alarm) may be shared facilities managed by the Landlord. It is recommended that the landlord request copies of the tenants’ fire safety risk assessments and that copies of these are filed and, if requested, made available to the fire authority during the course of an inspection visit.  A tenant should provide the landlord (and other tenants) with information relating to special fire risks, such as the storage of LPGs, etc.

Gas supply and services

The landlord should ensure that the gas supply and services are safe and are maintained in a safe and serviceable condition.  All gas pipe work should be clearly identified (with suitable labels stating “Gas” or by colour coding the pipe work (yellow ochre). All gas equipment under the control of the landlord should be regularly maintained and serviced (by a Gas Safe registered contractor) and a Landlord’s Gas Safety Certificate should be obtained for all gas equipment.

Lifts and lift motor rooms

Lift motor rooms should be clearly identified and should be kept locked and should only be accessed by competent persons (such as lift engineers). Hydraulic lifts should be bunded to contain any leakages of hydraulic oil and all lift motor equipment must be suitably guarded.

Passenger lifts should be tested and inspected by a competent person at least once every six months although this frequency may be reduced to once in every twelve months for goods lifts that are not used to transport people (i.e. if their use is restricted to goods only), as required under the Lifting Operations Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER).

Suitable arrangements should be made for the servicing and maintenance of lifts and for the rescue of people trapped due to lift failure.

Pressure systems

Any pressurised systems within the premises should be tested and inspected by a competent person at the intervals described in the written scheme of examination for the system.  As with other equipment, the landlord will be responsible for ensuring that it is serviced and maintained in a safe condition.

Roof areas

Access to roof areas should be secured to prevent unauthorised access. Consideration must be given to the protection of workers from falls from height. This will require a risk assessment to determine the appropriate control measures for the premises. Typical collective control measures include having suitable edge protection (such as a balustrade wall or fenced edge protection of at least 1100 mm height). In certain cases it may be appropriate to consider individual or personal protective measures such as anchor points for use with harnesses and lanyards.  

Consideration should be given to the need for roof access. It is common for various pieces of plant and equipment to be located on flat roof sections, especially air conditioning units, water storage tanks, lift motor rooms, etc. In such cases, regular roof access may be required by a range of contractors. If contractors are required to make use of individual protective measures, then the use of such equipment must be made clear to the contractor and the landlord should satisfy themselves that the use of such equipment is covered in the contractors risk assessments and method statements, etc. In cases where the roof area is accessed by tenants’ contractors (such as to service tenants’ air-con units or to fit aerials) then the landlord should ensure that the tenant and the tenant appointed contractor have considered to the safety issues associated with roof access.

Other aspects of roof access safety to be considered include fragile roof sections, glazed sections and skylights, etc.

Staircases, landings and corridors

Staircases should be in good condition, ideally with handrails on both sides of the staircase. The staircases, landings and corridors should be well lit, free from obstructions and slipping and tripping hazards. These areas should be checked regularly to ensure that they remain in good condition.

Water supply and cooling towers, etc

The landlord will usually be responsible for the water supply to the premises, including cold water storage tanks, water heating arrangements and hot water storage. The landlord is also likely to be responsible for ensuring that the risks from poor water hygiene are avoided or controlled. This will usually require a Legionella risk assessment in line with the requirements of the HSC Approved Code of Practice & Guidance (L8) "Legionnaires' disease: The control of legionella bacteria in water systems". Control measures required may include: regular water temperature monitoring, maintenance of cooling towers, provision and maintenance of water dosing chemicals and equipment, dip-slide sampling of cooling tower water, etc. Such work is often contracted out to a water hygiene specialist.

In premises that have cooling towers or evaporative condensers, the landlord will be responsible for ensuring that these have been notified to the local authority (as required under the Notification of Cooling Towers and Evaporative Condensers Regulations 1992). Further to this, the landlord must maintain and service the cooling tower to ensure that the risks from Legionella are controlled properly. This will involve a detailed cooling tower (legionella) risk assessment and regular checking and testing of the water in the tower. Such work is often contracted out to a specialist water hygiene company.

Window and canopy cleaning

Suitable arrangements much be made for the cleaning of the building and its windows and canopies, etc. This may well involve working at height using ladders, scaffolds, cherry pickers, scissor lifts, window cleaning cradles, abseiling systems, etc. Although such work is generally carried out in external areas, consideration needs to be given to the cleaning of high level internal structures, such as atrium glazing, etc. Any access equipment associated with the premises must be tested and inspected by a competent person at appropriate intervals. This includes the testing and inspection of eye-bolt anchor points, access cradles and associated runways, etc.
 
Michael Ellerby
Director
LRB Consulting Limited
www.LRBconsulting.co.uk

Safety: Managers need to manage

Part 1: Machinery Safety
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Part 3: Food Safety
Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

Part 4: Control of Contractors
Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.

Visit our website

Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death

A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.

On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.

The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.

The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.

Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.

The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.

The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.

A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:

"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.

Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."

Director banned for 5 years for health and safety failings

A Worcestershire company and its managing director was fined a total of £87,000 following a series of health and safety failures. These health and safety failures saw workers exposed to a variety of risks, including: exposure to lead, falls from height and being crushed by falling objects.

The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.

Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.

The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.

To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.

The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:

Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.

The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

An HSE inspector commented:

Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at (the company), and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results.

If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.

Facilities Management - Landlord jailed for fire safety offences

Facilities management companies, managing agents and landlords need to be aware that they are responsible for the premises that they manage (especially the common areas of these premises). This relates to all relevant aspects of health and safety, including fire safety.

A Landlord has received and a four month custodial sentence for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The London Fire Brigade prosecuted the defendant after a fatal fire resulted in the death of an individual at one of the many properties owned by the accused.

It was discovered that the defendant or his company had never completed a fire risk assessment and there were no provisions made for fire safety, smoke detection, emergency signs and many escape routes which would be used in the event of a fire were blocked.

As well as being sent to prison, the company of the guilty party was fined £21,000, plus costs.

If you need assistance with Fire Safety or any aspect of Facilities Management Safety, take a look at out website.