FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom W on September 16, 2014, 09:31:15 AM
-
Hang your head in shame London. >:(
A man whose daughter died in an apartment block blaze wants clearer rules on fire safety responsibility.
Sophie Rosser was returning to a flat in London's Canary Wharf in August 2012 when she saw the building alight and rushed inside to warn her fianc?.
A coroner criticised safety failings but said the Cardiff-born 23-year-old's death was accidental.
Ms Rosser's father Julian said: "Nobody was blamed because the coroner wasn't sure who the responsible person was."
Rescue attempt
Executive PA Ms Rosser was returning home from a birthday party in the early hours of the morning when she saw smoke pouring from the fourth floor of Meridian Point in London's Docklands, an inquest in April 2014 heard.
She had rushed into the burning building to alert her fianc? Oscar Silva who was in their fifth-floor apartment.
He had escaped to a balcony and was rescued by fire crews, but Ms Rosser collapsed in the smoke and later died in hospital from her burns.
Coroner Mary Hassell told the inquest in Poplar, east London, that Ms Rosser's death could have been avoided if a self-closing fire door had not become stuck on the floor preventing it from closing.
Other safety failings - including a lack of testing of smoke alarms and risk assessments - were also criticised but were not blamed for the fatality.
Mr Rosser, from Whitchurch, Cardiff, said the family was frustrated that the coroner was not able to identify where the blame for poor building maintenance lay - with the owner, the property management company, or fire risk assessors.
"I want changes in the law to make it clear who's responsible for fire safety," he said.
"Nobody was blamed because the coroner wasn't sure who the responsible person was.
"We would have hoped as a family that the coroner would have cleared the way for corporate manslaughter charges to be brought against the companies involved.
"The problem with the law at the moment is that it does not make any single entity responsible for the regular inspection and maintenance of fire doors in communal areas so that everybody can pass the buck as happened in Sophie's case."
Mr Rosser has spoken out as part of Fire Door Safety Week, backed by a range of organisations including the UK government and the Chief Fire Officers Association.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29213648
-
When was the inquest held?
It is normal for any prosecution to be held until after the coroner has published his findings. Now the coroner has reported the process of prosecution can start. As far as the issue of who is the Responsible Person is concerned it will be up to the Courts to finally decide as in the case of Penhallow.
-
This one is a few years old and has been debated at length on other forums. Basically the young lady came home from a party and entered a building that she knew was on fire and died on the fourth floor in trying to reach the fifth. It is difficult to determine the exact reason why she was on the fourth but one of my theories is that she got in the lift and that opened there as someone had called it from there or due to heat issues with the call button. To be brutally honest all of the people that lived in the block and were at home at the time were safe and well; the one that entered a smoke filled stair/lobby (not sure on this detail) died.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tragic-architect-sophie-rosser-died-7047270
I'm really not sure why London should hang its head in shame about this one. The father is obviously desperately upset and is chasing answers but in my opinion the majority share of the blame for the death of his daughter is obviously down to her poor judgement. Secondly the resident who caused the fire and subsequent actions are questionable. There were other errors but again the clarity of the reports on line and even to the coroner is poor and it is difficult to judge.
-
Have to agree with Golden, from the brief description of the original post the person who died entered a building that was on fire. Tragic.
-
I'm really not sure why London should hang its head in shame about this one. The father is obviously desperately upset and is chasing answers but in my opinion the majority share of the blame for the death of his daughter is obviously down to her poor judgement. Secondly the resident who caused the fire and subsequent actions are questionable. There were other errors but again the clarity of the reports on line and even to the coroner is poor and it is difficult to judge.
Forgive me but am I right in thinking that it's case dropped for the fire service now? They aren't taking it any further?
-
The fire service would have carried out a post fire audit of the premises alongside the fire investigation to determine whether or not there were grounds for prosecution or for any other enforcement action. A quick search of the LFB public register reveals a number of enforcement notices were served on the 'owner' 'other person having control' and I'd assume that the notices were served for separate cores of the development hence the number. I would be surprised given the number of articles and notices that no prosecutions were/are being taken but given the complexities of the case (including the fact that the victim entered a building that she knew was alight) it may well be difficult to pin down the RP in this situation or be realistic about the chances of succeeding in any prosecution under the RRO however it is clear that names are available. It may well be that a case is ongoing or being prepared but from the father's statement this doesn't appear to be happening.
From streetview it is obvious that these is quite a modern development and is a sad but interesting case study into the application of the RRO. Having carried out a number of FRAs in the area I agree that it is difficult to ascertain who owns what and who is responsible for repairs.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/boro_summary_info.asp?id=31
-
I can appreciate that but it doesn't mean you give up. The building is owned by a company which has three directors listed, surely it's not going to take an enormous effort to bring it down to their responsibility.
With regards to London fire service, they issued a number of enforcement notices, never took it further and there was a fire and a girl died. I don't think I'd felt I'd done my job properly if I was the inspecting officer.
It is not the act of the girl doing something she shouldn't, it's the act of the owners of the premises not doing thing and to some extent the LFA
-
In light of the new information and having re-read the original post the term 'responsible person' is possibly being used in two different contexts; the RP under the RRO is known however the article is alluding to "who's responsible for fire safety". If the failings did not directly affect the outcome should they be prosecuted. The father mentions corporate manslaughter which is entirely different and from my basic understanding of this legislation it would be almost impossible to bring a prosecution in this case.
It is difficult without the full detail and like many press reports I get reminded of the famous Rumsfeld quote "because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-
So Piglet if you are driving home in broad daylight and someone deliberately jumps in front of your car and dies as a consequence would you expect to be prosecuted if one of your headlights wasn't working? Are we now going to recommend signs on every block of flats to indicate 'DO NOT ENTER IF ON FIRE'?
There may also be an issue here with the definition of 'relevant person' with respect to the RRO.
It is also the London Fire Brigade - not service or LFA - this is not being pedantic but an illustration that if you issue a notice with the wrong details you will not win a prosecution.
Fires happen everyday, every other person in this block survived and to my knowledge were not injured in any way, it is not the inspecting officer's role to decide whether or not to prosecute that would be up to the LFB/LFEPA legal advisers, it may have nothing to do with the owners of the premises as they may not have any responsibility depending on what contracts have been drawn up with the managing agents.
-
That is not really a fair comparison.
I am not talking about the actions of the girl. The premises were dangerous, the fire service knew it, even though they have powers to act they didn't. There was a fire and someone died.
FWIW I would take writing a legal notice with a lot more care than I do writing on firenet.
I see your point about it not being the fire officers call to decide upon taking to prosecution but to someone not in the fire service, I don't care. You are all as one, ultimately the Chief would be Responsible.
I don't know how the fire started or how it spread so can't comment but as you said the fire service issued a number of notices so they knew there was a risk to life.
It is a strange one when the girl knowingly went into a dangerous environment but the owners and fire service knew it was dangerous in the first place.
-
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tragic-architect-sophie-rosser-died-7047270
Its quite well explained in the press report; everybody who adhered to the stay put design fire strategy for the building was unharmed.
-
Golden that's great.
Shame it was a known dangerous building and no one did anything of worth about it though.
That would be my gripe.
-
How do we know that the RP didn't comply with enforcement notice? Only becomes an offence if you don't comply with an enforcement notice if straight offences were found during post fire audit it would be straight to prosecution do not pass go do not collect 200 and do not issue enforcement notice.
-
Cleveland I think the enforcement notices were issued as a result of the fire that occurred in August 2012 - notices issued in December 2012, nobody has suggested the RP didn't comply with the notices. The talking point is really why enforcement was the chosen path rather than prosecution; I would suggest that both the offences were not serious enough to prosecute over and that the RP was difficult to identify. The notices lay it on a bit thick but the points made may be defendable in court so enforcement was preferred.
-
Thats what i mean. So no good Piglet saying fire service should have prosecuted as there may not have been a prosecutable case.
-
As far as I can see from the reports, the alleged problem related to the fire detection - I think the unfortunate lady was well aware of the fire so this isnt really an issue. have I got that wrong?
-
Another issue is the difficultly of prosecution under the Order, where there is a two part test, there must be a breach and that breach must result in a threat of serious injury or death. The first part is normally easy it is the second part that can cause the problem. Looking at reports none of the people who in the building when the fire started were injured or died. The only person who did, as wee brian says, was aware of the fire and entered the building therefore imperiling themselves.
The easy way is via enforcement or prohibition orders, either the RP complies, in which case job done or he doesn't, in which case he is done for not complying with the orders.
If you take the other case such as Penhallow then someone did die as a result of a breach, then direct prosecution is easier.
-
Wee B my only thoughts about the 'detection' in this case is that the newspaper report stated they weren't connected to an alarm; my initial reaction was that the detection was there to operate AOVs or the like and not to give general alarm.
-
I was thinking the same - not sure there was anything wrong with it, but we're working from press reports so the're probably rubbish.