Prosecution of fire alarm engineer

[Wiz]

The reporting of this case has focussed so far only on the accused but I have seen a report elsewhere that the accused was the employer rather than the engineer who carried out the work. I would be interested in knowing if this is true because if so it would bring new perspective to the case.
We are of course aware that every employer has vicarious liability for the actions or omissions of their staff, but it would be interesting to know why procedings were not also taken against the employees who actually carried out the maintenance.

I have not seen any account in the reporting of this case as to how the defects identified contributed to the tragedy and whether there were any other factors which also contributed to the sad outcome? Was the defective servicing wholly responsible in this case?

Which brings me to another aspect. Four defects were specified in the case. Had that installation and its maintenance been audited under SP203 or LPS1014 what action would the Certifying Body have taken and how serious would each have been viewed under the scheme? I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but we should at least ensure that the accreditation schemes are seeing things in the same way as the courts, for the protection of all those who work under them.

From the fact the accused pleaded guilty, it would appear that he had no defence to the charge. Unless, of course, it was one of those instances where he was forced into pleading guilty to avoid the threat of the 'authorities' making his life hell in various ways for years to come.

Whilst the 'defects' with the system were discovered after a fire involving a fatality, I'd be surprised if the 'defects' speciifcally mentioned caused the fire alarm system to fail in any serious way (although the fuse defect could have serious ramifications depending on what it was protecting) . They seem pretty minor to me, and I guess that even I'd be able to find a non-compliance with BS5839-1 in probably most new systems, and probably examples of poor workmanship/poor maintenance in most older systems. It is so easy to find fault if you want to and especially on a system that is 20 years old.

To accuse the guy of one of the 'defects' i.e The fault warning light on the front face of the panel had been almost covered by paint is pretty pathetic when you consider that it involves the word 'almost' and you consider the fact that this sort of 'defect' is non-technical and should have been discovered by the user on their daily check.

At the end of the day, I suppose it is obvious that a proper level of servicing cannot have been carried out otherwise the 'defects' would have been previously highlighted in writing to the customer, and so the inference therefore is that maybe no testing and inspecting had actually been carried out at all for years. In which case, it is fair and proper that punishment results, especially as it might also act as a wake-up call for anyone who thinks they can get away with charging for a service they don't actually provide.

[kurnal]

Where was that?

It was stated in the FIA linkdin group. Its effectively a bulletin board just like this so dont take it as gospel truth, it just prompted me to ask the question to see if we can find out.

...the due dilligence defence is no longer available if the persons you put at risk are employees.... 

Colin I find myself once again grateful to you for making a very important point (much as it grieves me to admit it.)

Your point is equally valid in respect of other threads elsewhere - in particular in respect of discussions on the perceived benefits of third party accreditation of fire risk assessors. I would like to discuss this further and will start a thread for the general discussion of offences and defences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)Order Q&A heading.

Dr Wiz- in respect of your point:
"Unless, of course, it was one of those instances where he was forced into pleading guilty to avoid the threat of the 'authorities' making his life hell in various ways for years to come."

It seems to me that despite the rights and wrongs, once such a case comes to the attention of the courts the reputation of your business is trashed whether you plead guilty or not?
So it is absolutely vital that the case for prosecution is justified and diligent and the legal representation available to defendants is competent in respect of the Order.
How many solicitors actually have a working knowledge of the Fire Safety Order?

[colin todd]

How many solicitors actually have a working knowledge of the Fire Safety Order?

All those who employ a decent expert witness who understands the Order and the philosophy behind it.

[kurnal]

More information on this case is now available.

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fatal-fire-care-home-manager-fined-for-fire-safety-breach


From the news story it appears that the the alarm had been silenced and left in silent mode without the cause of the alarm being investigated. One of the charges against the engineer was in respect of a defective audible fault warning sounder on the panel. If the system had been left in silence mode this buzzer should have been a prompt to the responsible person (BS5839) that action needed to be taken.

In my view reason for the prosecution of the engineer makes more sense now.

[Galeon]

Clarification on this is where the internal buzzer acts as a local alarm buzzer and also fault buzzer .
The only thing that there was no fault on the sytem and the main sounders in the field was silenced so you would only have visual indication the system was in alarm .
I reckon this goes back to the general appeasment of persons when you work on the system , who contiually moan how long is that thing going to keep going , and dont get me wrong it gets on my nerves as well.
However the engineer a term I will loosley use should know better.
All you have to do is to ensure the buzzer if not monitored by the panel , and some are , is to ensure a good electrical connection is made ie male to female bullet crimp and bring up  the buzzer when you have finished working on the system .
It aint rocket science.
Do your job properly and if the punter dont want to play the game , walk away cos it aint worth it.

[Wiz]

The additional information raises another interesting question; Who is more to blame for the situation that led to the death of a resident?

a)The engineer who evidently had left the system without a working control panel buzzer, meaning that when the alarm sounders were silenced during a fire condition there was no longer any audible warning of that fire condition from the control panel. (Engineer fined £5,000 + £6,000 costs)

b)The care home manager who evidently silenced a fire alarm warning condition at 6p.m., didn't ensure a thorough search for a fire and left the fire alarm silenced until 7.15 p.m., when the fire was 'discovered' (I would argue the system seems to have found it at 6 p.m!) (care home manager fined £500 + £15 victim surcharge).

As a fire alarm engineer myself, I don't want to be considered as just blindly supporting someone also describing himself as a fire alarm engineer, but it seems that only one of the initially reported 'engineering' faults played any part in the situation that led to the death and that the fire alarm system actually functioned correctly in it's primary purpose (detected a fire and initiated a warning).

[Galeon]

I agree with you Wiz , and what gets on my goat is all this nonsense he was a formally a retained firefighter , whats that got to do with anything but cloud the issue .

[CivvyFSO]

I agree with you Wiz , and what gets on my goat is all this nonsense he was a formally a retained firefighter , whats that got to do with anything but cloud the issue.

It is either meant to represent:

a) Being ex fire service he should be an expert, therefore should have known better, or..
b) Being ex Fire Service doesn't make you an expert!

Depends on how you look at it.

[Allen Higginson]

I agree with you Wiz , and what gets on my goat is all this nonsense he was a formally a retained firefighter , whats that got to do with anything but cloud the issue.

It is either meant to represent:

a) Being ex fire service he should be an expert, therefore should have known better, or..
b) Being ex Fire Service doesn't make you an expert!

Depends on how you look at it.

I would assume it was for impact and to indicate (a) when actually,through experience,it means (b)!!

[Allen Higginson]

The additional information raises another interesting question; Who is more to blame for the situation that led to the death of a resident?

a)The engineer who evidently had left the system without a working control panel buzzer, meaning that when the alarm sounders were silenced during a fire condition there was no longer any audible warning of that fire condition from the control panel. (Engineer fined £5,000 + £6,000 costs)

b)The care home manager who evidently silenced a fire alarm warning condition at 6p.m., didn't ensure a thorough search for a fire and left the fire alarm silenced until 7.15 p.m., when the fire was 'discovered' (I would argue the system seems to have found it at 6 p.m!) (care home manager fined £500 + £15 victim surcharge).

As a fire alarm engineer myself, I don't want to be considered as just blindly supporting someone also describing himself as a fire alarm engineer, but it seems that only one of the initially reported 'engineering' faults played any part in the situation that led to the death and that the fire alarm system actually functioned correctly in it's primary purpose (detected a fire and initiated a warning).

100% there Wiz - the guy has been scapegoated and thrown forward to be made an example of.
What's the phrase??Oh yes,brown stuff rolls downhill!

[Wiz]

I agree with you Wiz , and what gets on my goat is all this nonsense he was a formally a retained firefighter , whats that got to do with anything but cloud the issue.

It is either meant to represent:

a) Being ex fire service he should be an expert, therefore should have known better, or..
b) Being ex Fire Service doesn't make you an expert!

Depends on how you look at it.

I would assume it was for impact and to indicate (a) when actually,through experience,it means (b)!!

I would never blame the firemen themselves for this.

The general public look up to them as gods (often with good reason) who are experts on any subject with the word fire in it. Some firemen even start believing it themselves! They are the 'dangerous' ones.

[Midland Retty]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the facts in this case but to me the fire alarm engineer has been hit far too hard particularly given the small fine the care manager got in comparison.

Ok I accept the alarm engineer didn't leave the system in correct working order, but as Wiz states from what I understand the alarm activated as it should, but the care manager did not take appropriate action (ie; did not undertake a proper search?)

[kurnal]

Midland it might be that further action is still to be taken against others - there has been no mention of any pending or considered action against the RP for the care home yet.  I think we can expect the fine on the manager to have taken account of all relevant facts and the Judge may have considered mitigating factors - in both cases so far.

[jokar]

They were both poor at the job they had to do at the time and one, because he should have known better, was hit harder.  Both were found to be at fault though, which is the major point to the exercise.  I do not believe either will forget what happened and will both do better next time.

[Allen Higginson]

Midland it might be that further action is still to be taken against others - there has been no mention of any pending or considered action against the RP for the care home yet.  I think we can expect the fine on the manager to have taken account of all relevant facts and the Judge may have considered mitigating factors - in both cases so far.

The inquest into the lady's death has still to be completed so I assume if it is proved that her death was contributed to the fire or the length of time from initial detection to response then additional charges may arise.