Who is responsible for arranging a legionella inspection?

Appointing a contractor to carry out an inspection does not transfer the underlying legal responsibility for water safety. The duty holder must make sure that an inspection is commissioned when it is appropriate, carried out by a suitably competent person, and followed by suitable action where risks are identified.

In practice, responsibility for arranging the inspection may sit with different people depending on how the premises are managed:

• Employers: An employer occupying or controlling a workplace should ensure that legionella risks associated with the building’s water systems are assessed and managed.
• Landlords: A landlord may be responsible for communal or supplied water systems, particularly where tenants, residents or workers could be exposed to risk.
• Facilities managers: A facilities manager may organise inspections, water hygiene work and records on behalf of the organisation that controls the premises.
• Managing agents: A managing agent can arrange competent specialists under its management agreement, but the agreed responsibilities between the agent, property owner and occupier should be clear.
• Property or operations managers: In larger organisations, responsibility may be delegated internally to a person who has sufficient authority, resources and understanding of the water systems.

The appointed person should have the authority to obtain access to plant rooms, review system information, instruct contractors and escalate defects. They should also understand the limits of their role. A person who arranges an inspection but cannot secure remedial work, approve expenditure or obtain access may not be able to manage the risk effectively.

The organisation should select an inspector or consultancy based on competence rather than simply commissioning the cheapest available service. Relevant considerations include knowledge of legionella control, experience with comparable water systems, the inspector’s ability to identify system weaknesses, and whether the resulting report will provide practical actions rather than a generic checklist. The scope should reflect the premises and include relevant systems such as hot and cold water services, storage tanks, calorifiers, showers, spa pools or other higher-risk equipment where present.

Before the inspection takes place, the responsible organisation should make available information such as water system schematics, previous risk assessments, monitoring records, maintenance reports, changes to the building and details of outlets that are rarely used. Where information is incomplete, the inspector may need to verify the system on site rather than rely on assumed arrangements.

Responsibility continues after the inspection. The duty holder should review the report, prioritise findings according to risk, assign actions to named people and keep evidence of completion. A report that identifies poorly controlled temperatures, dead legs, infrequently used outlets, inadequate cleaning or missing monitoring is not the end of the process. The findings should feed into the site’s ongoing control scheme and be reviewed when the building, occupancy or water system changes.

Where several organisations share control of a building, they should agree who arranges the inspection, who supplies records, who controls contractors and who completes remedial work. These arrangements are particularly important in leased premises, multi-occupancy buildings and sites where a managing agent coordinates services. Each party should understand the areas it controls and communicate relevant risks to the others.

Blue Fish Water Management Ltd can support organisations by providing legionella risk assessments, water hygiene inspections, UKAS-accredited water testing, compliance audits, monitoring, training and remedial works. The appropriate service depends on the site’s systems, existing control measures and the responsibilities agreed between the parties.