FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: messy on June 14, 2008, 12:40:13 PM
-
Date: 11 June 2008
The owner of a local hairdressers has been ordered to pay £8,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to breaches of fire safety legislation.
Thames Magistrates' Court fined Mustafa Ismail, £4,000 for nine breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
The Brigade investigated the premises on the 20 March 2007 and found a number of faults including no emergency lighting in the basement, no fire alarm and no smoke detection system. A notice was issued giving four months to fix the problems but when the inspectors returned on the 20 July 2007 they discovered that no works has been carried out.
The Judge noted that the offences were serious breaches of fire regulations and that the defendant had a history of non-compliance. She continued that had there been a fire at The Cutting Room and Beauty Basement on Middlesex Street, E1 there was a possibility of someone dying due to the lack of fire precautions.
The Defendant maintained that all the outstanding contraventions have now been remedied.
Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation Max Hood said: “It is important that business owners and employers understand that they must take responsibility for fire safety very seriously within their properties. I would like to thank the inspecting officers for their hard work in bringing forward this conviction.”
-
Nice one Messy, good to see the legisltion working somewhere other than Lancs.
-
bravo!
-
well done chaps and chapesses
-
LFB have been busy, have a look at this one, cost the property company £17,000
http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/15223
-
Or if you dont want to register with workplace law
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/detail.asp?id=960
-
Again, good news to see the fine, but again only following a fire. They were in breach of the regs before the fire too.
£11,000 to most large property management companis is probably less than the cost of fixing the fire doors and fire alarm accross a portfolio of businesses and seems very low for almost killing 4 people.
-
To be fair Chris, this 'post fire' audit procedure has only really be developed by the LFB since the FSO was introduced to take into account the enforcement status with comes with the Order. A fire is seen to be merely a trigger for such audits which are carried out in addition to programmed audits.
Yes in the past a FS IO would often (if not always) attend after a serious fire. But now we attend - unannouced- after EVERY fire - Whatever the cause and whatever the size - Even if in residential property if we suspect that premise has common parts (ie flats).
In addition to attending 'real' fires, I have been to audits originating from smoking toast setting off the AFD and subsequently being record as a fire for the sake of records (FDR1) and following an overheated lift and the good old favourite, an over heated choke on a strip light fitting. All get an audit and many audits pick up difficulties.
So although I accept that post fire audits look like a limp & retrospective 'stable door policy', there is real evidence to suggest than many (but not all) fires occur as a failing in management or systems which benefit from an immediate audit. Also in the case of arson, many premises targetted will receive a repeat visit by the vandal, so again, early intervention by the Brigade can be useful.
Lastly, although the company involved here were perhaps, as you put it: 'in breach of the regs before the fire too', it is not the responsibility or fault of the local FRS if that situation occurs. That's clearly down to the resp person, and post fire visits will often discover any disregard for the regs and act accordingly.
-
Being able to use this as a way in to the property, allows for potential larger risks to be ighlighted and maybe then, save lives.
-
Messy, totaly accept all your points. And must agree that post fire audits are an excellent idea.
-
Lets not knock prosecutions that have arisen after a fire. They still sends out a message to other businesses. Routine audits pick upon a lot of potential problems before they occur and stop fires from starting. But inspectors cant be everywhere at once and sometimes it does take a fire and post fire investigation to highlight failings. Eitherway as far as Im concerned justice prevails and that is extremely important, though of course it is immensley saddening if someone is injured or killed as a result.
-
So why aren't these prosecutions on the 9 o'clock news to put the fear of god into the company directors rather than getting a pargraph in the local rag if that .......???
It would be the best free publicity anyone could wish for.
-
Cos an £11,000 fine aint national news. News producers need to attract viewers to gain advertising revenue, BBC excepted, but as still measured in viewing figured.
-
I see a Suffolk Hotel has just been given a £200,000 fine.
-
I see a Suffolk Hotel has just been given a £200,000 fine.
Got any more details?
-
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED17%20Jun%202008%2023%3A38%3A36%3A157
A SUFFOLK hotelier who put the lives of guests at risk by flouting fire safety regulations has been ordered to pay fines and costs totalling more than £200,000.
Sentencing John Nevins, who runs the Brandon House Hotel in the High Street, Brandon, Judge John Holt described his failures as “woeful”.
“The potential for risk of serious injury to guests while they slept in your hotel was considerable,” he told Ipswich Crown Court yesterday. “You took on this hotel as proprietor and as such you should have been aware of the need to comply with fire regulations and fire safety certificates. It is a basic duty and I am sure you knew of those duties from the outset.”
Nevins, 59, of Hilborough Hall, Hilborough, admitted two offences of failing to notify the fire authority of structural alterations at the hotel and two offences of contravening the terms of a fire safety certificate. He asked for two offences to be considered.
Nevins, who the court heard has assets of £10million, was fined a total of £145,000 and ordered to pay £49,988 prosecution costs.
He was also ordered to pay £8,039 defence costs which had been publicly funded in addition to what he has paid privately.
After the hearing Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service's Divisional Officer Kevin Burton said: “This sends a very clear message to businesses providing accommodation to the general public that it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of anybody staying on their premises. Suffolk Fire and Rescue will enforce serious breaches of fire regulations because there can be no compromise on fire standards in making Suffolk safer.”
Hugh Rowland, prosecuting, said Nevins became the owner of the 22-bedroom Brandon House Hotel in early 2003 and failed to notify the fire authority of plans to convert a function room into bedrooms.
During a fire inspection in January 2004 it was discovered that Nevins had divided the function room into two bedrooms.
“One of the bedrooms had no means of fire escape at all except through the other room,” said Mr Rowland.
Suffolk Fire and Rescue wrote to Nevins reminding him of his obligation to notify them before making any alterations but when officers returned to the hotel in May 2004 they found changes had been made to the second floor landing that put guests and staff at serious risk of death or injury in the event of a fire.
Officers were so concerned at the danger that they served a prohibition notice banning the use of the whole of the second floor of the hotel until changes had been made.
Nevins had also breached the requirements of a fire certificate by failing to provide adequate emergency lighting on staircases to help people escape in the event of a fire and failing to regularly test fire alarms at the hotel.
A door to the hotel's boiler room also failed to comply with fire safety standards and the key to a fire exit in the kitchen which should have been left unlocked or easy to open if it was locked was found in the reception area, said Mr Rowland.
Michael Clare for Nevins said that since the investigation his client had signed a document agreeing to co-operate with future inspections and he intended to make sure everything was up to scratch for an inspection in July.
Mr Clare said the period when alterations were being carried out had been a busy time for Nevins and he had relied on his architect to deal with administrative matters although he accepted it should have been his responsibility.
He now employed a general manager with specific experience in health and safety and hygiene, he said.
§ Any businesses requiring advice on compliance with fire safety regulations should contact the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service hotline 01473 260588.
ADMIN - Would it be worth having a dedicated thread to prosecution news where we can all post cases as and when we find them?
-
ADMIN - Would it be worth having a dedicated thread to prosecution news where we can all post cases as and when we find them?
Good idea, I'll ask the boss. Let you know soon.
-
I have been reading all theses prosecutions with regard to the fire 2005 regs for england and wales. Has anyone heard of any prosecutions within the fire scotland act 2005??