Who is responsible for managing legionella control within a business?

Responsibility for legionella control is determined by who has control over a premises, its water systems and the work carried out there. In practice, this usually involves the employer, building owner, landlord, managing agent, facilities team and appointed contractors, with each party responsible for the duties within its control.

The dutyholder is the person or organisation with overall control of the premises or water systems. This may be an employer occupying its own building, a landlord, a property management company, a housing provider or another organisation responsible for maintenance and safety. Where several parties share control, their responsibilities should be clearly documented rather than assumed.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and related workplace health and safety requirements, the dutyholder must take suitable precautions to assess and control the risk of exposure to legionella bacteria. The Approved Code of Practice L8 and HSG274 provide recognised guidance on how those controls can be managed. Following the guidance is not the only way to comply, but an organisation that chooses a different approach should be able to demonstrate that its arrangements are equally effective.

The appointed responsible person manages the day-to-day operation of the legionella control programme. This person should have sufficient authority, knowledge, experience and access to resources to carry out the role properly. Their duties commonly include:

• co-ordinating the legionella risk assessment and ensuring it reflects the actual premises and water systems;
• implementing the control measures identified by the assessment;
• making sure monitoring, inspection, cleaning, disinfection and maintenance tasks are completed at the required intervals;
• arranging competent specialist support where the organisation does not have the necessary expertise;
• checking that contractors complete their work to the agreed specification;
• keeping suitable records of monitoring, test results, remedial work and decisions; and
• escalating failures, abnormal results and unresolved risks to senior management or the dutyholder.

Appointing a responsible person does not remove the dutyholder’s wider responsibility. Senior management must provide adequate time, funding, staffing and authority, and should periodically check that the control scheme is operating as intended. A named person who lacks access to the plant room, maintenance information or decision-makers may not be able to discharge the role effectively.

Employers remain responsible for protecting employees and other people who may be affected by their activities. This includes considering water systems used by staff, residents, visitors, patients, customers or contractors. The employer should ensure that the risk assessment covers relevant areas such as showers, taps, hot and cold water storage, heated spas, cooling systems and any equipment that can create aerosols, where those systems are present.

Landlords and property managers may hold duties where they control, maintain or arrange work on water systems in rented or managed premises. A tenancy agreement or management contract may allocate specific tasks, but responsibilities should still be understood in operational terms. For example, one organisation may control the central plant while an occupier controls outlets within its own area. Both parties should know which risks they manage, how information is shared and who acts when a control fails.

Facilities managers and maintenance teams often carry out the practical parts of the scheme. They may manage temperature checks, flushing of infrequently used outlets, water system records, access for contractors and corrective work. These tasks need clear instructions and reliable recording. If a result is missed, a temperature is outside the control range or equipment cannot be accessed, the issue should be reported rather than retrospectively marked as complete.

External consultants and contractors are responsible for carrying out the work assigned to them competently and reporting accurate findings. Their involvement does not transfer all legal responsibility away from the organisation controlling the premises. The client should verify that the contractor has suitable competence for the task, provide accurate system information, define the scope of work and review reports so that recommended actions are not overlooked.

Competence is task-specific. A person may be competent to complete routine temperature monitoring but not to interpret a complex risk assessment, design remedial works or investigate a positive legionella result. Organisations should therefore match qualifications, experience and supervision to the complexity of the water system and the work required. Training should also be refreshed when systems, responsibilities or working methods change.

Employees and other users do not normally own the overall legionella control programme, but they can support its effectiveness. They should follow instructions, report faults such as poor hot water flow or unused outlets, avoid interfering with control equipment and raise concerns about conditions that could affect water safety. Staff who carry out monitoring or maintenance must understand the relevant procedures and the significance of recording accurate information.

For premises with several buildings, occupiers or complex water systems, a clear responsibility matrix is useful. It can identify who owns each system, who controls access, who performs each monitoring task, who receives laboratory results, who authorises remedial work and who must be informed of an incident. Written arrangements are particularly important where a landlord, managing agent, occupier and specialist contractor all have different parts to play.

The responsible person should also ensure that the control scheme is reviewed when circumstances change. Relevant triggers include alterations to the water system, changes in building use or occupancy, periods of low use, refurbishment, equipment failure, changes to maintenance arrangements and evidence that existing controls are not working. The review should consider whether the risk assessment, written control scheme, monitoring frequencies and emergency arrangements remain suitable.

In practical terms, effective accountability depends on four things: a clearly identified dutyholder, a competent responsible person, defined responsibilities for everyone involved and evidence that agreed controls are being completed. A legionella risk assessment identifies the risks, but responsibility for putting its recommendations into operation rests with the organisation and individuals who control the premises and its water systems.