Who should manage a Legionella risk assessment schedule?

A Legionella risk assessment schedule should be managed by a named, competent responsible person with sufficient authority to arrange assessments, monitor actions and escalate unresolved risks. In larger organisations, this is usually supported by a documented chain of responsibility covering estates, facilities, health and safety, procurement and site management.

The person coordinating the schedule does not necessarily need to complete every assessment personally. Their role is to make sure that the assessment programme is suitable for the organisation’s water systems and is implemented consistently. They should understand the relevant water systems, the risks associated with them and the limits of their own competence. Where specialist judgement is required, they should arrange an assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced professional rather than relying on an unsuitable generic checklist.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, organisations must assess and control risks arising from their activities. The HSE’s Approved Code of Practice L8 and associated technical guidance set out accepted principles for controlling legionella in work-related water systems. These requirements make effective management arrangements important, rather than treating the assessment date as an isolated administrative task.

A well-managed schedule normally assigns the following responsibilities:

• Programme ownership: approving the assessment frequency, allocating resources and ensuring recommendations are acted upon.
• Technical coordination: arranging competent assessments, checking that the scope covers relevant water systems and obtaining clarification where findings are unclear.
• Operational control: ensuring site staff, maintenance teams and contractors follow the control measures identified by the assessment.
• Record management: maintaining the current assessment, review history, action tracker, monitoring results and evidence of completion in an accessible system.
• Escalation: reporting significant risks, overdue actions or changes in system condition to the person with authority to approve remedial work.

Responsibility should be written into job descriptions, contractor agreements or a water safety policy where appropriate. A schedule is less reliable when everyone assumes that another department is monitoring it. It should identify who books each assessment, who checks the report, who accepts or challenges its recommendations and who confirms that corrective work has been completed.

Management also involves distinguishing between different types of review. A routine reassessment may be planned according to the findings and the risk profile of the system, while an additional review may be needed after changes to plant, occupancy, water usage, control measures or management arrangements. The responsible person should therefore monitor operational changes rather than allowing a fixed calendar date to become the sole basis for deciding whether an assessment remains adequate.

Where an external consultant is used, the organisation should still retain appropriate oversight. Before appointment, it is sensible to check the consultant’s relevant experience, competence, insurance, reporting approach and ability to assess the specific systems involved. Once the report is received, the responsible person should confirm that it is site-specific, understandable and supported by practical recommendations. Commissioning an assessment alone does not demonstrate that the risks have been controlled.

Good schedule management includes a formal review of open actions. Each action should have an owner, a target date, a priority and evidence of completion. If a recommendation cannot be completed as planned, the reason, interim control and revised decision should be recorded. High-risk findings should be escalated promptly through the organisation’s health and safety or governance process.

For organisations operating several premises, central oversight can improve consistency, but local knowledge remains essential. The person responsible for each site should be able to provide current information about plant, outlets, usage patterns, maintenance and any changes since the last assessment. Central management should then check that site-level information is complete and that the schedule reflects the actual risk at each location.

Blue Fish Water Management can support organisations by providing legionella risk assessments, compliance audits, system monitoring, water testing, training and remedial works. The organisation commissioning that support should define its governance arrangements clearly so that expert findings are incorporated into its own risk control process.