So a bit of a jurisdiction Faux Pa by the HSE, in particular Sarah Elizabeth Robinson, the Inspector who issued the notices.
It's a pity that we don't know exactly what the notices were in respect of; it appears that the legal argument was in regards to the property being residential, not a workplace.
By way of background, the Appellant was tasked to remove cladding from a tall residential property, Following the Notices, it sought expert advice that related to whether the works it was undertaking could include residential property where residents were at fire risk. The point of this is that if residents were involved and it was not just a place of work, pursuant to the applicable regulations, the relevant fire authority would have jurisdiction over the fire safety of the works and not the Respondent.
So although it was a 'place of work' because the company were working there removing cladding, because the fire risk was to the residents and somehow not the 'workers' then it was a FRS responsibility, not HSE.
Talk about splitting hairs.
I get a feeling that it was the specific wording of the Notices that is the issue here, because the 'workers' must've been at some risk too.
I recon the Notices must've detailed a risk to the residents from the activities being undertaken, and because it was their residences it was a FRS issue.
