FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: The Colonel on January 28, 2008, 03:15:20 PM
-
Article on prosecution by Lancashire CFA of a night club, cost the owner £8,000
http://www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/lfrs/news/news_item.php?id=46
-
Good to hear of the new laws working as they should. Sounds as though the punishment was deserved.
-
I agree a great step forward but he probably made the 8k that night with the overcrowding and selling alcohol at inflated prices. The trouble with the legislation is that it is difficult for a Magistrate to determine the weight of the offence "death or serious injury@ prior to an offence and therefore the fines become immaterial. However after a fire an apply the same standard to persons injured then the fines rocket onto 6 figures per offence.
-
It's a shame that not all fire authorities are being so proactive as Lancs.
Congratulations to them
-
Another good result.
Although the fine was not huge, it certainly sends out a clear message to those in the business community that the fire authority will, if necessary prosecute.
-
And theres more
Cumbria Fire & Rescue took a tanning studio to court where there was no fire risk assessment, obstructed exits and no fire fighting equipment. Owner given conditional discharge suspended for 12 months and £2000 in costs. 26th January 2008.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=591018
Lancashire CFa took a snooker club to court for having blocked exits, broken fire alarm, no risk assessment, no extinguishers and no emergency lighting. Club manager found guilty of eight offences but failed to turn up to court. A warrent has been issued to bring him to court for sentencing. 28th January 2008.
http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.1999774.0.snooker_boss_faces_fine_over_fire_safety_breaches.php
-
Colonel
Thanks for keeping us up to speed with these prosecutions, I find it most interesting to see the various enforcing authorities using their powers under the legislation to ensure that responsible persons are punished where necessary for such serious flounting of fire safety rules.
You know if such persons don't want to comply and cannot be bothered to meet their responsibilities, then they should do us all a favour and pass it on to someone who is willing to be responsible, and go do something else, which doesnt involve playing with other peoples lives.
-
Lancashire are at it again. This time after a fire in a flat the landlrd is fined £6000 and nearly got a custodial sentence.
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.2008609.0.landlord_fined_6_000_after_flats_fire.php
-
Blimey, there's no stopping those Lancashire boys and girls .........
Well done to them though.
-
I know quite a few of the people for Lancashire in the various fire safety departments and I think they should be commended on their work
-
. However after a fire an apply the same standard to persons injured then the fines rocket onto 6 figures per offence.
The HMO in Lancs result seems to imply otherwise. The reason for the six-figure fines imposed on the res care home in NW London was that the case had been referred to the Crown Court where the case is heard by a judge who is allowed to award unlimited fines. My view is that our legal departments should be pushing for more of these to be heard in the Crown Court. To fine someone £6,000 for nearly killing six people is not much of a punishment IMHO.
-
They have got a very slick set up at Lancashire - Our Brigade held a prosecution seminar and Warren Hessey the head of Fire Safety from Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service and their solicitor Warren Spencer came to talk to us.
The "Two Warrens" gave us a brilliant lecture, and showed just how simple prosecution can be if you know what you are doing and you have the right people in place to support you.
From a National persepective I'd say Lancashire are now the experts at building cases and successfully prosecuting. They are certianly showing us all the way we should go.
Me and a lot of my colleagues have got alot of respect for the Lancashire Fire Safety peeps!
-
Just been talking to a former collegue and his area has two HMO landlords and a pub well on the way towards the dock and activly persuing more
-
Yes, well done Lancs, the Fire Safety Order will only be effective in maintaining standards and reducing risk if it is enforced by competent authorities.
Many of us are far behind Lancs but most FRS are trying to improve. As Retty correctly points out, it's not that difficult.
I reckon that Warren Hessey blokey had some good fire safety training in some dim and distant past.
-
What ... do you mean CS Todd & Associates trained him Mr Barry?
-
How very dare you Retty!
-
You can get me back at playtime Mr Barry !
Still on the subject of prosecutions but with a slightly different flavour...the fire authority I work for (which will remain nameless) is very reluctant to publicise any succesful prosecutions it has brought recently
Is anyone from any other fire authorities experiencing this, and perhaps shed light on the reasons why?
-
It seems daft not to publisise as much as possible so that other businessess take notice of where they are going wrong and what it might cost them if they get caught.
Shame not all fire authorities are so keen to sort things out, take a look at Lancs neighbours across the hills.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/yorknews/display.var.2016293.0.york_bar_accused_of_a_total_disregard_for_the_publics_safety.php
-
It seems daft not to publisise as much as possible so that other businessess take notice of where they are going wrong and what it might cost them if they get caught.
It looks like somebody is trying to use the Licensing Act instead of the Fire Safety Order.
-
Dave
Getting someone else to take the flack or perhaps they are not confident in taking court action. Senior managers may not have the budget or support.
-
Interesting ...... fire safety is obviously to a poor standard so apply to review the licence to restrict the occupancy.
Doesn't really solve the issues does it?
Perhaps they should wait until the enforcement notice expires and then consider a full prosecution, although as mentioned, financesand lack of experience may contribute to the reluctance.
-
In a case last week a club manager in Lancs didnt turn up to court for his case and was found guilty so they issued a warrent for him to appear for sentancing, now needs to find £11,000 ouch!!!!
http://www.lancashireeveningtelegraph.co.uk/display.var.2019073.0.club_boss_in_11_000_safety_rap.php
Just heard of a case in Cardiff where the local council used thier powers to take a HMO landlord to court and let it act as a warning to other landlords that they can expect a visit.
The more people that end up visiting the courts then perhaps more will realise that public safety is something that is part of business and not just the profit line.
-
Interesting ...... fire safety is obviously to a poor standard so apply to review the licence to restrict the occupancy.
Nice idea but the Licencing Act doesn`t allow you to review a licence under these circumstances. The Licensing Act makes it quite clear that where other legislation exists i.e. Fire Safety Order 2005 then the enforcing authority must use their powers under that legislation.
The Evil Eye Lounge has been accused of the following failures:
1. The escape routes were obstructed
2. The escape routes did not lead, as directly as possible, to a place of safety
3. The escape routes and exits could not be used as quickly and as safely as possible
4. The number, distribution and/or size of escape routes and exits was inadequate
5. Fire exits and doors on escape routes could not be easily and immediately opened from the inside
6. Emergency doors did not open in the direction of escape
7. The escape routes were not provided with adequate signage
8. The escape routes were not adequately lit
9. The escape routes did not have adequate emergency lighting in case of failure of normal lighting
All of which can be dealt with under the Fire Safety Order.
From my experience the areas where our office have successfully reviewed a licence are:
Incorrect plans - Where we have given a Licensee the option of carrying out work to a licensed area or removing it from the licence. He has taken it out of use but not varied the licence. We were then forced to review the licence to ensure the area wasn’t used for licensable activities. This was Pre RRO.
Lack of Building Regulation approval or completion certificate – Not my legislation, but it is prudent to request the completion certificate first.
As already mentioned Fire Authorities must use Lancashire as an example of best practice. It can be a slow process but we must build a case then prosecute. There are no short cuts, gone are the days of hiding behind the Licensing Act as we did under the 1964 Act.
-
Interesting ...... fire safety is obviously to a poor standard so apply to review the licence to restrict the occupancy.
gone are the days of hiding behind the Licensing Act as we did under the 1964 Act.
And thank goodness the days of hiding behind a fire certificate have also gone as many did under the FPAct 71
-
Just noticed an interesting letter in December issue of the IFE mag on page 9 from Warren Hessey, Lancs FRS, where certain offences under the RRO should be entered on the Police National Computer, he is also in support of a national register of enforcement of fire safety issues. By entering on the PNC its possible for those requireing a record check to be indentified around the country by Criminal Records Bureau
-
I support the actions of Lancashire and the work of Warren Hessey, all prosecutions should be placed on a central register, whether in the hands of the Police ( you try getting information out of them!) or Fire Gateway or through CFOA. They use Hampshire FRA web site as their means of devolving information. All sucessful prosecutions are in the public domain so as simple excel file should be easy to set up.
-
"Nightclub Owner Found Guilty of Fire Safety Breaches
18th January 2008
On Thursday 17th January, the owner of the Cellar Bar, King Street, Blackburn, Mr Daniel Hook was prosecuted under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 by Lancashire Combined Fire Authority.
The prosecution began after a complaint regarding overcrowding, from the police, was received by Blackburn’s Fire Station Manager. When the complaint was made it was estimated that there were 600 people in the nightclub, however the license only allowed for 360 people."
Interesting...and I thought a licence, (issued under the Licencing Act) could not specify maximum occupancy as this was a matter more properly dealt with under the Fire Safety Order, (if the number was because of fire safety).
If the licence maximum occupancy number was for fire safety reasons then surely it would have been disapplied by Article 43?
-
And there's more! £25,000 out of pocket
http://www.chichester.co.uk/chichester/Firehit-hotel-disregarded-guests39-safety.4030654.jp
-
I agree a great step forward but he probably made the 8k that night with the overcrowding and selling alcohol at inflated prices. The trouble with the legislation is that it is difficult for a Magistrate to determine the weight of the offence "death or serious injury@ prior to an offence and therefore the fines become immaterial. However after a fire an apply the same standard to persons injured then the fines rocket onto 6 figures per offence.
Criminal record to go with ir should be an adequate deterrent
-
I think I was at that club on the night in question, (I was the guy in flares & plimsoles), had trouble getting past the bouncer cos I didnt have a tie on, I went back to the hotel carpark, found some jump leads and placed them around my neck, the bouncer said "Okay you can come in - but don't start anything"....
-
I think I was at that club on the night in question, (I was the guy in flares & plimsoles), had trouble getting past the bouncer cos I didnt have a tie on, I went back to the hotel carpark, found some jump leads and placed them around my neck, the bouncer said "Okay you can come in - but don't start anything"....
lol