If an employer identifies that higher PPE spec is required for BAME employees undertaking a particular task, is it necessary to increase the spec for all employees working in that area?

There is no simple answer.

The NFCC guidance states:

“The person-centred fire risk assessment is intended only as a simple means for non-specialists who have suitable understanding of relevant fire risks to determine whether additional fire precautions might be needed. The person who carries out the person-centred fire risk assessment will depend on the circumstances of the housing and support provision. It can be carried out by those who regularly engage with the resident, with input from specialists where necessary. Assessments will normally be undertaken with residents themselves.

In sheltered housing with scheme managers, the scheme managers normally engage with residents on a routine basis, enabling residents who need a person-centred fire risk assessment to be identified. Many vulnerable residents will be in receipt of care, so enabling the care provider to identify residents in need of a person-centred fire risk assessment. Providers of regulated care are required to take into account risks to people from their wider environment, to take steps to help people ensure that they are dealt with by appropriate agencies, or to raise safeguarding alerts when this is appropriate. Where a ‘stay put’ strategy is adopted, there will be a need to identify residents who need assistance from the fire and rescue service to evacuate the building.

In supported housing, the number of residents in each property is usually quite small. This, and the nature of the care service normally provided, enables person-centred fire risk assessments to be carried out asa matter of course, when a resident first moves into the property.

Where additional fire precautions cannot be provided in the short term, the risk should be reduced as far as reasonably practicable and an adult at risk referral should be made to Adult Social Care.”

Ideally then the RP will need to engage with any care providers in order to conduct the PCRA and identify risk mitigation measures. If they are reluctant to do so, the RP should engage with the individual in any event in undertaking the assessment.

It could be possible depending on your contract. If there is no force majeure clause in a contract, it may be possible that the contract may have been “frustrated” by emergency legislation. In legal terms, a contract can be frustrated where an event occurs after it is entered into which was not contemplated by any party at the outset, is not due to the fault of any party, and which makes the performance of the contract impossible.

If this is the case, the contract could be “discharged”, meaning that the parties’ obligations under the contract are no longer binding.

It is possible that a contract could be frustrated within this particular legal doctrine by a change in the law that makes performance of a contract illegal. However, if it simply becomes more difficult, or more expensive, then the legal tests for frustration might not be satisfied. There are also limits to the application of the rule if the frustrating event was already known about at the time the contracted was entered into.

Again, careful legal advice will be required at an early stage. The rules about force majeure or frustration might help businesses that find themselves unable to perform a contract because of the coronavirus outbreak.

Any new contracts that are concluded should expressly deal with the possibility that performance might become more difficult, more costly, or impossible to perform.

Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).

The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.

In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.

On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.

The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.

Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.

The definition of a relevant establishment is a question of fact for an Employment Tribunal. Guidance from case law says that ‘establishment’ should be interpreted very broadly (so as to avoid employers escaping the need to collectively consult), and may consist of:

• A distinct entity
• With a certain degree of permanence and stability
• Which is assigned to perform one or more tasks
• Which has a workforce, technical means and a certain organisational structure to allow it to do so

However, there is no need for it to have the following:

• Legal, economic, financial, administrative or technological autonomy
• A management which can independently effect collective redundancies
• Geographical separation from the other units and facilities of the undertaking

A quicker and more cost-effective option may be the involvement of the police given their recent allocation of emergency powers to disperse, fine or even arrest persons who flout these rules. Nevertheless, it appears that the Court is willing to support housing providers in their efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour during this time.