FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom W on January 07, 2009, 11:39:10 AM
-
I know this isn't a prosecution but it lists all notices http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/enforcement-0809
-
I'm told that a national register isn't too far away.
-
Piglet, These registers of enforcement notices are fun to read arent they. I am not sure why you single out Hampshire, but it is fascinating to note that during 2008 Hants issued 87 enforcement notices, while Essex, a county with a slightly higher population issued 13. According to my calculations, the probability of this being random variation has so many zeros after the decimal point that my calculator will only approximate it to zero. This means that there is some very very significant difference between Hants and Essex. It could be of course that Hants is a very dangerous place to live and not simpy, as I previously thought, painfully boring. I nearly bought a house in Hants in 2006, and clearly had a near miss in terms of the shopping, eating and drinking I might have otherwise have enjoyed in the county. It could of course be the result of all sorts of other factors, such as good enforcement by one or other of them in accordance with the Enforcement Concordat, whereby you are supposed to be nice to people rather than always give them a good kicking, but far be it from me to make such a gross assumption.
-
Could someone point me in the right direction in regards to a enforcement register for London please. Would be fun to read
-
No there isn't one. However, about 2000 enforcement notices since 1 October 2006. Also a number of high profile prosecutions.
-
Big A is correct about the national register, hosted by CFOA. Unfortunately by the time it is tested and populated it could be 6-12 months. Big job, no money!
Should just be ready in time for the BERR/LBRO register of 'the very few enforcement notices which escape the primary authority scheme' to take over. ???
-
would we be allowed to put the prosecutions on our websites, like an if you don't have a fra this can and has happened?
-
The point being? An FRA is a snapshot in time, what happens after that is down to the management of the premises. If they get it wrong they end up with a large fine.
Not the assessors problem or the enforcers but those who are accountable and responsible in law.
-
Messy
Legend(lej′ənd)
noun
a story handed down for generations among a people and popularly believed to have a historical basis, although not verifiable (yourdictionary.com)
a romanticized or popularized myth of modern times (The freedictionary.com)
a traditional historical tale (or collection of related tales) popularly regarded as true but usually containing a mixture of fact and fiction (About.com)
Perhaps this case has become a legend in its own lunchtime?
Princess
-
Anthony B, Big A and Messey. In view of the totally incorrect and unfounded allegations in these posts, the thread is currently under consideration by solicitors, details of whom can be provided if required. As the matter is therefore now sub judice, I cannot respond other than to enlighten Messey in particular of the role, and duties, of an expert witness, as clearly he is ignorant of such matters.
1. It is common practice, in cases such as these, for the Defendants (and, as in this case, the prosecution) to appoint expert witnesses.
2. An expert witness is not permitted to act as an advocate for either party, and their evidence would be dismissed (case law suggests dismissed in total) should he/she try to do so.
3. The sole duty of an expert witness is to advise the Court. No duty is owed to the instructing party(ies).
4. An expert witness report must be totally impartial, while advising the Court on the evidence presented to it.
5. By law, an expert witness report must contain a statement that the expert understands that his duty is to serve the Court, and that he has complied with that duty.
6. An expert witness report must, by law, contain a statement of truth that opens the expert to proceedings for perjury should any fact or statement be shown to be untrue.
7. Courts prefer the experts from each side to prepare a joint and, as far as possible, fully agreed report. This originally emanated from reforms of the justice system in civil law, as part of the Woolf reforms that were intended to take away the adversarial approach to justice.
While, as noted above, I am restrained from making any more specific comment on this case, with regard to Big A's allegation that the Defendants in this case did not plead guilty, it is within the public arena that the Defendants did plead guilty to the offences for which they were fined.
-
As this thread is being monitor by legal represensitives can I asked that all future corrispondence between interested parties is made through Email or Private Mail.
Thank You
Colin Simpson
FireNet Administrator
-
This topic has now been unlocked by request
Colin Simpson
-
Is that:-
Expert - ex as in hasbeen and spurt as in drip under pressure?
-
My response above now makes no sense as, strangely, subsequent to the post, three posters deleted their posts, all of which contained incorrect information in relation to a prosecution case. One post made serious and incorrect allegations in respect of sworn expert witness written evidence in a Crown Court case, which is the matter currently under consideration by lawyers. The poster stated that he had "heard" the information, which suggests to me that the incorrect information came from serving employees of the enforcing authority involved. Information on this source is awaited, as it is likely that, at the very least, a formal complaint to the enforcing authority will be appropriate.
-
Colin I followed the postings involved and can understand your position but ........
Clearly we who are paid for our services have no ownership of the work we carry out and cannot reveal information or breach any client confidentiality (thats if we want to stay in business and out of jail.) That is a frustrating position to be in , to have knowledge but be unable to express it and to dispel rumour or speculation that is wrong or unfair.
Our silence can also be frustrating for those who have not thought it through, who in this case have not put themselves in your shoes and who may see this forum as a direct route to probe, theorise or explore rumour. Wherever there is a vehicle for discussion then every one of us will sometimes be unhappy with the direction or content of the discussion. I strongly believe in the benefits of free speech even when it hurts provided its not injurious, illegal or slanderous. This freedom of spontaneous expression is useful and refreshing most of the time and it would be a real shame if it were to be stifled because we have to keep looking over our shoulder to see if the lawyers are making notes.
-
Well said Proff
-
Kurnal, written text cannot be slanderous but it can be libellous. It may well be libellous to allege that sworn evidence to a Court had an agenda that the Court itself might prohibit.
-
Although not a prosecution, the following information regarding an appeal against an Enforcement Notice may be of interest, particularly to those who deal with fire safety legislation in HMOs in Scotland. It is the content of a press release from Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service, who retained the services of an expert witness, once described on a (now deleted) post in this thread as "from North of the Border", though his boyish good looks would probably have better identified him.
OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT SECURES SPRINKLERS IN EDINBURGH HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY
The Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service secured sprinklers in a number of Edinburgh HMO’s after a landlord appealed against an enforcement notice in Edinburgh last month.
On the morning of the case, QC’s and expert witnesses from both sides agreed on a minute of amendment to install a domestic suppression sprinkler system and a number of other fire safety measures on the lower level of a two level HMO to compensate for the lack of a second means of escape.
The Scottish regulations “guide for small premises providing sleeping accommodation” requires two means of escape from any premises providing sleeping accommodation which fall within the scope of The Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, as amended including any HMO which is over 7.5 meters. Due to the construction of tenement properties within the city of Edinburgh a second means of escape can be extremely difficult to achieve and as such a number of alternate solutions including domestic sprinklers are offered by the fire authority to compensate for this recommendation.
HMO accommodation is traditionally utilised for students and as such the fire authority consider these premises a higher risk occupancy where maintenance of the means of escape through good housekeeping and self closing doors can sometimes be very difficult to achieve.
So far, a number of Edinburgh landlords have taken up the option of domestic suppression system which proves to be a cost effective solution considering the potential income that can be generated in properties of this type.
The legal costs were however contested in court and the sheriff found in favour of the fire authority and as such full and considerable costs were attributed to the appealing landlord.
Tom Kane Group Manager Community Safety says “this case, although settled out of court, gives us more confidence when recommending domestic sprinklers in HMO’s which we consider high risk. More importantly it ensures a safer living environment for our young people during their student years in the city of Edinburgh”.
-
Thats good news then. You can still die in a fire in an HMO from smoke inhalation but the property will be still standing afterwards.
-
I must be missing something. Has the Scottish education system let me down so badly in my understanding of fire, such that people are really exposed to die in these HMOs, notwithstanding the rather eloquently expressed views of my good friends in L&B????????
-
Well, the grammar is suffering but we would call in english grammar so you are probably okay.
-
Is call in (sic) another version of COLIN, or just a typo, and I am still waiting to hear how the people are going to die of smoke inhalation.
-
Doesn't fire produce smoke and toxic gas then? Most people die in fire from smoke inhalation or so I am led to believe by the experts.
Just a typo.
-
I would assume that the premises will still have FR doors protecting the escape route/bedrooms.
-
Sounds like a sensible outcome for an existing building to me, and as the poor landlord had costs awarded against him perhaps the expert witness will be able to call in a competent person to have his squeaky wheel fixed.
How would we all feel if the proposal had been for sprinklers in lieu of the second staircase for a new build? Or a conversion? I am reminded of the BAFSA / ABE proposals on appropriate trade offs for sprinklers.
-
How does the drainage work? Does it up or lower the insurance premium for fire or flood?
-
How would we all feel if the proposal had been for sprinklers in lieu of the second staircase for a new build? Or a conversion?
It happens quite a lot.
Jokar, the sprinkler system activating in a fire will usually cause considerably less damage than leaving it to the FRS to deal with a fully developed fire.
-
Gosh, what are you saying. I am sure that the professional firefighters of the UK will be so annoyed by your assumption that they cannot extinguish fires and that they cause lots of water damage. The next thing you say could be that a good fire will cause a car park.
-
Jokar, Well, like Civvy, I always thought that Dennis was just the name of Margaret Thatcher's other half, but I heard tell that the smokey stuff is not too good for your elf. But I am still waiting to hear what your point is. Civvy, old chap, yes there are fire doors.
-
So basically the fire detection system currently in place (if there is one) and the passive fire protection (partition, fire doors etc) were deemed not sufficient enough to provide early warning of fire and fire containment to preserve life safety. The management was also deemed not sufficient enough to control the housekeeping of the single means of escape (I take it there is a lot of ignition sources in the corridor then??).
Lastly the students themselves were deemed not intelligent enough to have a certain amount of responsibility themselves in keeping fire doors shut and keeping the means of escape free of obstruction and most importantly reducing the risk of fire starting in the first place (I take it no first aid fire fighting appliances are in place and no fire emergency plan that is communicated to tenants)
All of the above and other issues I take it were not in place or insufficient ?? as sprinklers are more of a re-active measure (fire already started) than a pro-active measure.
How many people live in this HMO, by the statement it seems a two storey HMO.
Just my humble non expert view on the case.
Also at what state and level of development does a fire have to be before a domestic sprinkler is activated?? Are they saying persons would not evacuate when the automatic fire alarm detection is raised, hence having the sprinkler as a back measure to ensure life safety??
I say this because if the big issue is fire doors being kept open, then surely the smoke will enter the escape route and filling it prior to the correct temperature of the flame being reached before the sprinklers go into action (If the furnishing is old school and pre The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 then that other poster would be correct in the toxic fumes would kill anyone in the corridor way before the sprinklers came into action)
Surely if this IS the way forward then 1,000s of LHA properties across the UK will require the same enforcement if adopted.
-
hammer, this is related to the application of the Scottish guidance docs. And don't forget that a house over 7.5m will be likely to be 4 storeys at least.
Lastly the students themselves were deemed not intelligent enough to have a certain amount of responsibility themselves in keeping fire doors shut and keeping the means of escape free of obstruction and most importantly reducing the risk of fire starting in the first place (I take it no first aid fire fighting appliances are in place and no fire emergency plan that is communicated to tenants)
100% accuracy. A+ :)
-
hammer, this is related to the application of the Scottish guidance docs. And don't forget that a house over 7.5m will be likely to be 4 storeys at least.
Lastly the students themselves were deemed not intelligent enough to have a certain amount of responsibility themselves in keeping fire doors shut and keeping the means of escape free of obstruction and most importantly reducing the risk of fire starting in the first place (I take it no first aid fire fighting appliances are in place and no fire emergency plan that is communicated to tenants)
100% accuracy. A+ :)
Sorry I did not see the over 7.5m section. So that does raise some issues then, wonder what the travel distances are??, how long the corridors are (if there are any)??
What would you guys say is the main function of sprinkler systems ?? Is it life safety or property safety (I would say by how the insurance bods get all giddy it would be the latter). Would you class passive fire protection higher for life safety than sprinkler installation. If it came down to cost would you advise investing in passive fire protection first.
Obviously in an ideal world you would want both and sprinklers all day long, especially to new builds and major refurbs. But in the real world where money talks maybe not.
Saying all that I have not got a scooby of how much a domestic sprinkler system would cost to install in a 4 storey building... ???
-
How would we all feel if the proposal had been for sprinklers in lieu of the second staircase for a new build? Or a conversion?
It happens quite a lot.
Jokar, the sprinkler system activating in a fire will usually cause considerably less damage than leaving it to the FRS to deal with a fully developed fire.
But unless you are working in insurance or business continuity, surely this should not even become an issue. I thought the legislation is about life safety and preserving life and the role of the enforcing fire authorities is to uphold the legislation in what ever way they feel fit to maintain this (obviously with certain bench marks and guidelines to work from). Who gives a monkeys about water damage in the whole scheme of things. It only becomes an issue when you have to mitigate the effects from fire (pollution etc).
Or am I reading from the wrong Hymn sheet again ;D
-
I think you misunderstood my point. It was a reply to Jokar's concern regarding water damage from a sprinkler system and basically comparing the two, intended in a similar vein to what you said, but more of an emphasis on not refusing to install a sprinkler system because of the possiblity of water damage.
Regarding the actual provision of a sprinkler system in the regard that this topic is discussing; It will be to ensure the life safety of other people in the building. The FRS involved will not have been challenging anything for property protection. (Even with this particular expert witness' help.)
If we have a fire in a room where it is sprinkler controlled, it is much less likely to make it out of that room. Even if the smoke makes it out, it should be reasonably cool, and unless you are sleeping in a HMO with all the doors to the stair open, thus allowing smoke into your room, the system should be enough to guarantee your life as far as is possible. (If you decide to sleep with all the doors open then you would probably live slightly longer with a sprinkler system installed but the end result would be similar although with less charring.)
Disclaimer: I am not saying that all single stair flats require sprinkler systems, or that statistics justify it, just pointing out where it would help.
-
I think you misunderstood my point. It was a reply to Jokar's concern regarding water damage from a sprinkler system and basically comparing the two, intended in a similar vein to what you said, but more of an emphasis on not refusing to install a sprinkler system because of the possiblity of water damage.
Regarding the actual provision of a sprinkler system in the regard that this topic is discussing; It will be to ensure the life safety of other people in the building. The FRS involved will not have been challenging anything for property protection. (Even with this particular expert witness' help.)
If we have a fire in a room where it is sprinkler controlled, it is much less likely to make it out of that room. Even if the smoke makes it out, it should be reasonably cool, and unless you are sleeping in a HMO with all the doors to the stair open, thus allowing smoke into your room, the system should be enough to guarantee your life as far as is possible. (If you decide to sleep with all the doors open then you would probably live slightly longer with a sprinkler system installed but the end result would be similar although with less charring.)
Disclaimer: I am not saying that all single stair flats require sprinkler systems, or that statistics justify it, just pointing out where it would help.
Thanks for that ;)
Just playing devils advocate here, but surely if they are fire doors then students are wedging them open. I suppose if the smoke detection sensors (that's if they are SD in the rooms and not HD) are sensitive to create early warning of fire, therefore giving occupants extra minutes to evacuate, there is a risk of false alarms (drunk student, think they are hard rebels lighting a fag). To counter this, would installation of hush buttons be a good solution?? never seen or used them myself but might be an alternative.
Obviously the furniture and possible ignitions sources in these rooms need to be looked at and how a fire could start and develop. Seems to me with students wedging doors open, lack of management might be something that needs addressing first and all the trappings that entails.
There is a good article on C-TEC's hush buttons in the fsp magazine that might be worth reading.
As you might of noticed, I have not a lot on today at work........ ;)
-
I think we are veering off topic here a bit. Probably better to create a new topic about students in HMO's and what we can do to protect them from themselves. :)
-
Couple of points.
The first is damage in the vast majority of cases the fire is extinguished by one or two sprinklers and these will operate very soon after the fire has started (usually less than a minute). The big red lorries will take at least 4 minutes to get there from the time of call. In well ventilated cases a room can flashover in under 4 minutes. The fire damage is going to be far greater due to the elapsed time.
Second have a look at the test videos which show the effect of sprinklers, the ones on the Station club fire are very good. These normally show that in the sprinkler protected room survival is likely as the smoke and heat produced is far less than in an unprotected room.
Yes sprinklers protect property but it usually the property that is burning that is cusing the problem.
-
Anyone help me source an article or post where a Belfast property management company was prosecuted for failing to properly manage a building in England?
This would have been within the last year or so.
-
Can't think of a company from Belfast but then im sure someone else can.
As anyone thought it was spooky that two property management companies in London were prosecuted...
Watchacre - 8 contraventions £21k + 4 months in the clink.
Shoalacre - 7 contraventions - £25k
I may of just done loads of Londons work for them. Target all companies ending in "acre" JOB DONE 8)
-
the Irish owners of the Frenchgate Centre in Doncaster were proscecuted earlier this year for failing to manage the premises correctly.
-
It looks like graz has found it. http://www.southyorks.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2445
-
Well done Graz and TW. Have an extra sherbert tonight on me please.
Must remember to download and save to e-brain.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8379503.stm
Makes one wonder if the failure to provide a suitable and sufficient FRA was the absence of one completely or an unsuitable and insufficient existing?
Anyone know?
-
Having done landlord's inspections of several NL stores then there is a strong chance one existed, but of the tick box variety done by in house staff.
-
Having done landlord's inspections of several NL stores then there is a strong chance one existed, but of the tick box variety done by in house staff.
Last week I found that it isn't only in house staff who do tick box assessments. The one I saw was by a very large national outfit which produced an assessment which only shouts out for some sort of regulation and certification.
I am at a complete loss as to why the fee payer considered it worth paying anything over the paper value.
-
Yes I agree but the content of the report was probably not the issue.
Its what people do that matters when theres a fire and according to the link above they never considered the possibility that there was a fire, just kept trying to silence that B******y alarm again. The fact that you have a fire in the first place and then when you do if people are not sufficiently well trained or drilled to respond properly resulting in relevant persons having to dodge bits of the building that were falling around them - well thats evidence enough that the risk assessment was neither suitable or sufficient.
-
I keep seeing and hearing people state that there have been contraventions of the Fire Safety Order or breaches of the same. Now from my initial training by those nice CFOA types and attending presentations by David Stotesbury and Rosemary Everton, their learned words and phrases are areas of non compliance or challengable deficiencies. Anyone have any thoughts or are we not bothered by terminology?
-
It has to be proven to be an offence, not just a non-compliance/breach.
In the case of New-Look the offence is quite clear as people were put in harms way. However, I do suspect an inspection the day before the fire would have been unlikely to result in a prosecution.
CFO: "What is the alleged offence?"
Me: "Staff didn't really know what to do if the alarm went off."
CFO: "Get out of my office."
Sometimes the proof is quite simply in the pudding.
-
Seen this on onfofor fire
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/businessman-pays-out-six-figure-sum-for-fire-safety-breaches
The fine seems substantial, anybody got any thoughts?
davo
-
The current edition of "Fire Risk Management" which came through my door yesterday contains editorial and other's comments on the size of recent fines for breaches of the RR(FS)O. A number of the comments point out these fines seem much higher than those imposed for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Legislation, which has been with us for a lot longer, of course.
My immediate reaction was not that the fines under the RR(FS)O were excessive, but that perhaps fines under the H&SatW Act were inadequate.......
-
John - most H&S professionals would agree with you about the low level of fines under H&S legislation. However a quick look at the News section of the HSE website shows that this is starting to change, with some significant 6 figure fines in the last few months for incidents involving fatalities.
It does seem however that relatively trivial fines still result from incidents which could have had very serious consequences but did not simply through "luck". Take this one for example where a company had failed to maintain pressure vessels to the point where one of them literally became a bomb and exploded - £10,000 fine seems awfully low to me considering the comments about the general state of machinery on the premises. I don't understand why the case wasn't sent to the Crown Court so a higher fine could be imposed.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-nw-054moseleyrubber.htm (http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-nw-054moseleyrubber.htm)
-
It all reinforces the Court of Appeal view that sentencing guidelines are required in elation to offences under fire safety legislation.
-
If I drive my car too fast and use my mobile, I get fined. If I kill somebody whilst doing this (An RTC not some random shooting whilst driving you understand..) then the punishment is greater....
Discuss.
-
If you kill someone whilst speeding and or using the phone then you could get prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving.
Is using a phone or speeding dangerous in the eyes of ther law? Not really unless you kill, injure or, because of your driving, are very likely to.
-
So from what Wee Brian is suggesting two elements that are used to determine the penalty (having proved that a person is guilty of an offence)are potential and actual consequence.
Which has the greater influence? And what other factors are involved? Politics? Societal influnces? Setting an example?
-
I've always, rightly or wrongly, believed that fire safety offences should have a higher penalty than H&S because in the majority of cases a H&S breach will only end up in one individual being killed or injured should an incident occur in connection with it, but with fire safety it's often multiple numbers of people being killed and/or injured should an incident occur in connection with the breach.
More people are at risk from the hazard, ergo, a greater penalty should be applied
-
I share the same view as you AnthonyB.
The opposite view is that with more than 200 deaths happening at work each year without fail, isn't this more of an issue than any 'potential' fire catastrophe, or does the 'drip fed' nature of these deaths make it more tolerable?
I think that public opinion is also a driving factor. For example, BLEVE dying in a freak custard explosion at work, because due to the employer not giving him a suitable spreadsheet package he did a hand calc and forgot to carry-the-one, does not affect me or my family. Due to this, I (As Joe Public) would not be interested in the severity of any fine imposed. However, if Morrisons are found to be breaching safety laws meaning that public are put at risk, THAT is of concern to me (As Joe Public) as I take my family in Morrisons, surely we should be entitled to be safe while shopping? We clearly have an actual death vs a potential death, but with H&S laws predominantly protecting employees, and since it is usually employees who get injured/killed, it seems that this is easier for us/them/you/people to stomach.
-
Also if one innocent person dies or could die as the result of an accident its unlikely to reach the national press but if it happens in unusual circumstances or as a group then the press is more likely go to town on it. (dog bite man, no news, man bite dog, news) Consequently the courts are more likely to be conscious of it and live up to the maxim, not only has justice to be done but seen to be done.
-
Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?
-
Devon is the yummiest.
-
Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?
Powder of course. It doesn't matter. You died in it. Its a sad story.
-
Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?
Powder of course. It doesn't matter. You died in it. Its a sad story.
Yes I went to your funeral Bleve, it was a lovely service, shame the vicar kept sneezing though must have been remnant small amounts of custard powder dust emminating from your coffin.
-
Can I have Bleve's slide rule and log tables now he doesnt need them anymore?
-
Another interesting link from the FIA Midweek Messages
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/Information/Details/index.cfm/obj_id/5030CAD7-34A4-49BF-B2F7C801A37D84D8
-
Not the most robust of studies.
-
Wee Brian, did you not read it fully?
MORE than FOUR in TEN!!!!
Maybe BLEVE can do the maths, but if that isn't a majority then I don't know what is.
To ensure that it cannot be questioned they should alter the title to "Fire fines 'are too low'. FACT"
-
Fines don't seem to bother Poundland!
I wonder if they are any better now as due to the time it takes to get to Court the recent glut of cases are due to breaches from some time ago.
-
does anyone know if any hospitals have been prosecuted since the Order came in?
-
does anyone know if any hospitals have been prosecuted since the Order came in?
None identified in the 2008/9 or 2009/10 audit figures that I have.
I heard a speaker at an event I attended yesterday say that hospitals have a very good record in fire safety compared to other high risk premises during audits from the FRS He also said that the he feels the FRS do tend to work with hospital trusts rather than enforce. Not sure where he gets that from but it makes sense.
-
cheers Eli...I know of Hospitals that have had an Enforcement Notice but not full prosecution
-
If I drive my car too fast and use my mobile, I get fined. If I kill somebody whilst doing this (An RTC not some random shooting whilst driving you understand..) then the punishment is greater....
Discuss.
excellent point wee b. what is the diff! The person on the phone at 90mph with no consequence is just luckier than the guy who sadly kills a family. The crime is the same, its just the outcome that is different. one get 7 years at Her Majesties pleasure, the other gets 6 points. how is that justice?
I personally think its a travesty that they should be treated differently. Their is no difference in their intent. its simply one is luckier through circumstance than the other.
sadly most people seem to believe that the severity of sentence should be comparative to the outcome. I belive it should be comparative to the intent.
-
TM, when New Look appealed against their huge fine recently on the basis that the fine was too large considering nobody actually got hurt, they lost on grounds that back up your way of thinking.
However, some legal experts are arguing the opposite, and stating that such fines should not be instigated when nobody has been seriously injured.
-
I think any sentence should be proportional to intent and neglect. I think both examples in my analogy were too severe. One was too lenient and one too harsh.
I personally think the New Look fine was set to also 'fire a shot across the bow' of other companies. However, I think it was sufficiently demonstrated that they where neglectful of their duties, and showed some intent in cutting corners for profit, to justify that level of fine.
-
[[/quote]
He also said that the he feels the FRS do tend to work with hospital trusts rather than enforce. Not sure where he gets that from but it makes sense.
[/quote]
He gets it from HTM 05-03 Part K Paras 3.37 - 3.42.
-
A posting from another forum,
We are opening a bargain shop in a Bradford shopping area. One large room upstairs and a cellar with little customer and staff toilet. Top room about 30ft by 25ft. Bottom 23ftx20ft. Cubicle 4x5ft.
There is some emergency lighting already. No smoke alarms or panel. The backdoor in the top room is locked all the time to prevent theft. Following some scary prosecutions (Poundstretcher etc) we want to carry out a fire risk assessment and get up to speed.
It seems these prosecutions are having an effect.
-
Not sure if this the current prosecutions thread but I've just seen this one and am astonished there was no custodial sentence - think he got away lightly. Taken from www.info4fire.com/news
Landlord fined for ‘woefully inadequate’ precautions after fatal fire
30 March 2012
The landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation has had to pay £16,000 following a fire at one of his properties in which a tenant died.
Darius Valiulis of Neville Road, Cambridge pleaded guilty to three charges under the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2006 at Cambridge magistrates court, and was found guilty of a further five charges after offering no defence to them on 13 March. He was fined a total of £10,000 plus £6,000 costs.
At the time of the fire on 29 April 2011 the house was occupied by seven individuals. The fire started in the rear first floor bedroom, resulting in the death of the occupant of that room.
The fire precautions in the property were described by the fire service as “woefully inadequate”, consisting of a single smoke detector on the first floor landing. There were no fire doors, and the doors to the bedrooms were key operated.
The ceiling of the room where the fire started was covered with polystyrene tiles.
Mr Valiulis was also convicted of providing false information regarding his responsibility for management of the house.
“The tragic consequences of the neglect that led to this case should be a reminder to everyone that unsafe housing must not be ignored,” said Catherine Smart, executive councillor for housing.
“Tenants should report such neglect and not let it continue: their lives could depend on it. Landlords must provide a safe place to live if they wish to continue in business.”
Steve Elve, fire protection manager for Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service said: “This is an excellent result for everyone at the council and fire service who has worked hard gathering evidence and organising the case.
“We hope this will send a message to all landlords that they have legal responsibilities to keep their buildings safe, and they will be prosecuted for failing to meet these responsibilities. More importantly, adhering to the legislation will keep tenants safe.”
-
Darius Valiulis of Neville Road, Cambridge pleaded guilty to three charges under the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations 2006 at Cambridge magistrates court, and was found guilty of a further five charges after offering no defence to them on 13 March. He was fined a total of £10,000 plus £6,000 costs.
In another report:
A coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death in the case of chef Graham Kemp, 27.
After the fire, council inspectors found seven tenants were crammed into a two-storey house that had poor fire alarms and no fire safety doors. Three tenants were sharing one room.
One tenant told the council he paid £550 a month to share a room in the house.
Landlord Darius Valiulis, 45, told the council it was not his property and failed to provide any tenancy agreements.
Cambridge magistrates found him guilty of failing to provide the information, fire safety breaches, renting an overcrowded home and not testing electrical equipment.
Property118.com (http://www.property118.com/index.php/landlord-may-face-jail-over-hmo-arson-killings/26217/)
So if he had 7 tenants paying £550 the fine and costs is only about 4 months' income.
-
I wonder if the 12 months prsion sentence in the North Yorks landlord case is the longest custodial since the into of the FSO. Does anyone know of a longer sentence?
-
I wonder if the 12 months prsion sentence in the North Yorks landlord case is the longest custodial since the into of the FSO. Does anyone know of a longer sentence?
12 months here too.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/05/02/death-trap-hotel-owner-is-jailed/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/05/02/death-trap-hotel-owner-is-jailed/)
-
Now being run as a care home :o by the son.
-
Check out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624276/Faulty-Towers-Inside-hotel-caved-ceilings-disabled-smoke-alarms-illegal-electricity-supply-chained-fire-exits.html hard to believe.
-
It is worth noting that, in England and Wales, for any fire safety offences (and other offences) committed after 12 March 2015, the magistrates can now impose a fine of unlimited size and not just the previous ?5000 limit. Failure to pay the fine would result in a prison sentence, the length of which is determined by the amount of the unpaid fine, so can be quite lengthy. This means that Defendants might elect to have their case heard at the Crown Court, with a jury trial for those pleading not guilty, rather than taking a chance on the magistrates.
-
I wonder if the 12 months prsion sentence in the North Yorks landlord case is the longest custodial since the into of the FSO. Does anyone know of a longer sentence?
12 months here too.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/05/02/death-trap-hotel-owner-is-jailed/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/05/02/death-trap-hotel-owner-is-jailed/)
This was reduced to 6 months on appeal.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/death-trap-walsall-hotel-owner-7408612
-
18 months in this case
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/worst-hotel-britain-pictured-basil-3681468
-
Looking at the posts on here and other sites it seems that in the last year or two suspended and also actual custodial sentences seem to becoming more and more common, departing from the usual financial penalties - or is it just me?
It's about time too, similar with the smaller increase in those doing poor FRAs being prosecuted.
-
That's right, Tony, maybe we should bring back the birch and the stocks where people throw rotten apples at the poor souls (Big Al can remember when they had those in Bathmat Lock.) Send em all down, eh, Tony, unless of course they mug old ladies, in which case give them a pat on the head and ask them nicely not to do it again.
-
So sentencing is too strict?
-
Well done Sherlock Buck
-
So AB give them a pat on the head and ask them nicely not to do it again.
-
Exactly, Tam. When you rolled up at premises, parked the horses and then did an F P Act inspection, how many people did you prosecute, while your transport ate his oats?
-
Well actually quite a few and many threw their hands up before entering court others were fined but then it was a different age when most considered court a frightening place but that is not the situation now.
-
....Taken to St Albans Magistrates? Court by Welwyn Hatfield borough council, Odus Ltd of Bishops Square in Hatfield admitted 41 offences on four properties managed for private landlords, while XS Property Management Maintenance Ltd of Hatfield Road in St Albans owned up to a further five offences for one property.
The failures for Odus Ltd included locked and faulty fire doors, missing smoke seals, an empty fire extinguisher, a missing fire blanket and a broken alarm.
It was fined ?17,600 and ordered to pay council costs of ?17,424 in respect of multiple occupancy properties.
XS Property Management, which was prosecuted over another property in Hatfield, was fined ?4,300 and ordered to pay costs of ?3,210 for problems such as a faulty fire door and a missing smoke seal.
Following prosecution, director Shain Hutchings said: ?I feel aggrieved at the fine. These were very minor faults, and we were not given time to correct them. If I could have afforded to, I would have fought it.?
Shaji Odushoti, a director of Odus Ltd, said the council had inspected the homes only two weeks after it had taken them over, and issued a summons while it was waiting for landlords? approval for the necessary work.......
(From http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_and_hatfield_companies_fined_over_fire_safety_breaches_1_4126807)
Seems some people look on legal requirements as a nuisance?
-
To be fair if the agents are correct and the council inspected two weeks after occupation could I ask who would prioritise a missing smoke seal to be fixed within that time frame on a FRA? Some assessors would be lucky to issue the written report within two weeks so I reckon there must be more to this than reported.
-
Exactly, Tam. When you rolled up at premises, parked the horses and then did an F P Act inspection, how many people did you prosecute, while your transport ate his oats?
In many of these cases it appears that the defendants have breached the terms of a prohibition notice. Whilst I am all for education support and persuasion anyone breaching the terms of a prohibition notice or locking / blocking exits deserves and should have the book thrown at them. In my opinion.
-
Big Al, Are you sure your assertion that , in many cases, a prohibition order has been breached. Most of my working life is taken up with expert witness work on prosecutions and I dont think I have ever had an offence of breaching a PN.
-
3 such cases reported in the prosecutions thread this last couple of weeks.
http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/updates/news/23june2015_oasis_lounge_management_sent_to_jail/#.VYu-qkdDbJI.linkedin
http://t.co/X8p9EaRX6q
And the Kashmir Tandoori in Portishead
-
I think, nevertheless, "many" should read "some", Big Al, as the majority of cases do not involve PNs.
-
This will be interesting to follow - Lakanal House from 2009.
Council facing prosecution over fire
Southwark Council is facing prosecution for breaching fire safety regulations following the deaths of six people in a tower block fire.
London Fire Brigade (LFB) has brought a prosecution against the council under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 after the fire tore through Lakanal House in 2009, leading to the deaths of three women and three children.
The council will enter its plea at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday (11 January).
The fire brigade has brought 22 charges against the council relating to fire safety matters in the tower block.
Southwark Council tried to launch a judicial review after arguing the fire brigade had a conflict of interest because it had been investigated by the Health and Safety Executive following the fire but is also the body responsible for enforcing fire safety regulations.
The council said the Health and Safety Executive should take over any possible court proceedings instead. However, this argument was thrown out by the High Court in July.
The fire brigade decided to prosecute the council after inspecting the block following the fire.
Lewisham Homes faced a similar prosecution by the fire brigade last year following a tower block fire in 2011, which killed two women. The arm?s-length management organisation was fined ?40,000.
A spokesperson for the LFB confirmed it had brought a prosecution against Southwark Council following an inspection of the block after the fire. He added: ?While the court case is ongoing it would be inappropriate to make any further comment.?
Stephanie Cryan, cabinet member for housing at Southwark Council, said: ?I can confirm that a summons has been issued to Southwark Council for breach of fire safety regulations; the council will be fully co-operating throughout the legal process.?
-
We all dance around the gallows in relation to successful prosecutions, but nowhere is there a record of acquittals, where courts found defendants not guilty or the FRS decided to drop all charges because they were a crock of crap in the first place.
May I suggest that the new mod agree and facilitate a new thread specifically for failed prosecutions. We could go back over a period of time or run it from now, starting with a recent one where a jury in the Crown Court found a defendant prosecuted by WEST SUSSEX FRS under A23 of the FSO not guilty. We name and shame defendants, so its time we did the same for enforcing authorities, all of whom gloat on their websites about successful prosecutions but dont seem to put their failures up.
Like when LANCASHIRE FRS prosecuted a fire alarm contractor following a fatal fire but then dropped the prosecution when it came to court, following a defence expert witness report. His name was mentioned in the Manchester Evening News when he was prosecuted but there was no report of the dropped prosecution or the payment of all his costs from public funds (which means all of us). And I waited and waited for it to appear on the FRS website but it never did.
We could even include an arson prosecution in South Wales in which a large part of the prosecution evidence relied on evidence from the FRS, but the case was dropped following a defence expert witness report.
Wot do you geezers fink? (I must spend less time talking to LFB, I think I may be losing my Scottish accent.)
-
I'd agree that failed and flawed prosecutions and importantly why they failed are of relevance and possible education as the effective ones, especially where there are shades of grey in interpretation and implementation of the regulations.
Wouldn't mind a section here for those.
-
Good idea Tony, wish I had thought of it.
-
Whilst prosecutions and indeed acquitals may be of interest and provide some education, let us not forget that FRS's should be working with businesses and any fire safety issue that results in a court appearance is disappointing. In the vast majority of cases I'm sure meaningful and timely discussion with all parties would likely remove the need to go to court. Of course expert witness work would be vastly reduced, not sure all would approve of that hey Colski ;)
-
Colski, they are not called prohibition orders, they are called prohibition notices.
-
Nice idea, however I see 2 major problems:
1. How are we going to find out about prosecutions that fail? Either the ones that are withdrawn before they reach court or the ones that are thrown out. I cannot see the brigades holding up their hands and saying 'we really c*****d that one up'
2. The prosecutions that may have failed except that plea bargaining took place so that the defendant pleaded guilty to a smaller number of offenses and the others were dropped. The main outcome of this is that the prosecution is never really tested in court.
Whilst some brigades may do a good job in bringing cases to court, I have seen some where a good barrister could demolish the case not because of the actual offense but purely on the manner in which it was presented.
-
What is it they say, justice isn't about finding the truth, it's about finding what can be proved.
-
Or not proved at all in the case of plea bargaining
-
Indeed :-\
-
Buckers, there are lots of ways of finding these. Trials are pubic. You could have heard all the cases to which I referred by sitting in a Court. There are even published stats on acquittals.
Bruce Almighty, sadly a number of FRS in England have not got the right culture in all this sitting down having a cup of tea stuff, though some of course do. Interesting that prosecutions are rare in NI and Scotland, where the FRS both work really well with the business community.
-
Colski I agree with you, perhaps if some of the English FRS's spent more time on educating their I.O.'s in the art of persuasive discussion as well as listening to the needs of the business community there may be less need to go down the legal road. Besides, in times of austerity this must surely be better than entering into costly litigation both for the FRS and R.P.
-
Appealed an enforcement notice today as it was served on an admin girl at head office.
As the correct RP (employer) "told them to". Got through the primary authority also...
-
Anyone ever heard of an employee being prosecuted for failing in their responsibilities? Fire or H&S legislation.
-
Almost, yes there have been several in England under Article 33, for which you should read Regulation 32 in Norn Iron. A number have resulted in acquittals, as in the most recent, when the jury returned a not guilty verdict, having given it a lot longer and more intelligent thought than the O J Simpson jury.
-
Anyone ever heard of an employee being prosecuted for failing in their responsibilities? Fire or H&S legislation.
Yes last week.
http://www.nottinghampost.com/carer-jailed-after-autistic-man-drowned-in-a-reservoir/story-30156208-detail/story.html (http://www.nottinghampost.com/carer-jailed-after-autistic-man-drowned-in-a-reservoir/story-30156208-detail/story.html)
-
Almost: Thanks, Colin for taking the trouble to enlighten me regarding your experience of Article 23.
Colin: That's alright, Almost, no trouble for you. No need to thank me- oh wait a minute, you didn't.
-
We all dance around the gallows in relation to successful prosecutions, but nowhere is there a record of acquittals, where courts found defendants not guilty or the FRS decided to drop all charges because they were a crock of crap in the first place.
Colin, you think its worth mentioning the case we were involved with?
What you think Guvnor, (sorry London accent is catching)
-
I think that it is your prerogative if you wish to do so Wullie, subject to care over accuracy in reporting.