FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Chris Houston on July 11, 2008, 02:42:43 PM
-
Please use this thread only for the purposes of linking to topics on prosecutions. Please don't post them directly here, as this is not the place to discuss prosecutions.
Please include the following data:
Date:
Fire Service:
Fine:
Defendant:
Offence:
I will delete any discussion about the prosecutions from this thread.
-
Date: July 08
Fire Service: London Fire Brigade
Fine: £17,400
Defendant: JJB Sports PLC
Offence: six breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=3249
-
Date: June 08
Fire Service: London Fire Brigade
Fine: £4,000
Defendant: Mustafa Ismail (hairdressers)
Offence: nine breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=3130
-
Date: May 08
Fire Service: London Fire Brigade
Fine: £11,000
Defendant: P.T.F Properties Limited
Offence: failing to maintain a fire alarm, failing to maintain a fire door and two charges of failing to provide a safe means of escape
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/detail.asp?id=960
-
Date: June 08
Fire Service: Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service
Fine: £145,000
Defendant: John Nevins (Brandon House Hotel)
Offence: failing to notify the fire authority of structural alterations at the hotel and two offences of contravening the terms of a fire safety certificate.
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
-
Date: June 2008
Fire Service: Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
Fine: £4000
Defendant: Lee Owen (Wirral Night Club)
Offence: Enforcement Notice. Works required were not completed within the time allowed bt the FRS
http://www.means-of-escape.com/press-releases/press50.aspx
-
An older one, but hopefully worthy of note.
Date - April 2005
Fire Service -Wilthsire
Fine - £12,000
Defendant - Chippenham tool hire company, The Hire Station
Offence - The Fire Precautions Workplace Regulations (as amended) 1999.
under Regulation 15.
1 Failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
2 Failure to provide a suitable and sufficient system of emergency
lighting.
3 Failure to provide a suitable system of fire detection and warning.
http://archive.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/2005/4/28/87904.html
-
Date - Feb 2007
Fire Service - London FRS
Fine - £200,000
Defendant - Park Care Homes Limited, who owned and operated Ravenscroft Park Nursing Home in Barnet.
Offence - The Defendants pleaded guilty to 13 Summonses (see link for further details)
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/detail.asp?id=844
-
Date -
Fire Service - Essex Fire Authority
Fine - fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000
Defendant - Feyzullah Ozgurcu, a partner of Crystal Restaurant in St Botolph’s Street Colchester
Offence - five breaches of a prohibition notice
http://www.essex-fire.gov.uk/pages/index.asp?area=4&id=81
-
Date - September 2007
Fire Service - East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service
Fine - £250,000
Defendant - [The Argus] Co-op
Offence - A catalogue of faults was uncovered at the chain's outlets in Brighton, Saltdean, Seaford, Polegate, Forest Row and St Leonards.
http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2007/9/14/241876.html
-
Date - Dec 2006
Fire Service - West Mids
Fine - £10,000
Defendant - JJB Sports
Offence - Eleven separate breaches, relating to means of escape and the failure to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment were grouped into five charges leading to an offence under Article 32-(1) (a);
No Link available, I can provide details in necessary
PS by Forum Admin:
Link kindly provided by twsutton
http://newsweaver.co.uk/crownoffice/e_article001029560.cfm?x=b11,0,w
-
June 2008
FRS Oxon
Fine £12k
Defendant Mohammed Ali Rana (Estate Agent)
Offence: 4 breaches of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/news.cfm/current/1/item/2879
-
Date: 9/5/2008
Fire Service: West Sussex
Fine: £25,000 with £11,000 costs.
Defendant: Mill House Inns Trading
Offence: According to evidence given before the court the fire alarm panel had been switched to silent, fire doors had been wedged open, staff had not received adequate fire safety training, fire alarms had not been tested correctly, and there was no overall emergency plan.
http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/05/09/320738/hotel-company-fined-more-than-35000-after-fire.html
-
July 2008
FRS: WMFS
Fine: £1,865
Defendant: UP-A LOFT
Offence: Botched loft conversion failing to meet Building Regs re fire safety
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3118653&c=2
-
Date: 4/7/2008
Fire Service: Northampton
Fine: £20,000 with £1,955.85 costs.
Defendant: Mark Henderson Badenoch
Offence: The offences included not having a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment; inadequate smoke sealing on a door resulting in the second floor escape route becoming smoke logged; inadequate fire alarm repair arrangements; and the fire alarm not being in good working order.
www.fseonline.co.uk
-
Date: 3/7/2008
Fire Service: Berkshire
Fine: £4,000
Defendant: Paul Daily
Offence: 10 charges under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.
www.fseonline.co.uk
-
Date: 19/11/2007
Fire Service: ECFRS
Fine: £41000
Defendant: Nightway Ltd
Offence: 12 breaches, including fire doors wedged open, no clear escape route and an exit staircase obstructed by rubbish.
-
Hello all
You know what would be a good idea.
Listing all the failed
prosecution attempts by fire brigades including the costs they have to pay !!!!
-
David/BA,
This thread isn't for debate and discussion. There is a thread for discsussion about this thread and you are quite entitled to make your comments there. I will delete this and the above two posts shortly, suggest you re-post if you want to discuss in the correct thread.
-
Date - 30 July 2008
Fire Service - Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
Fine - £3,300 for both offences, with £1,928 full costs awarded to Lancashire Combined Fire Authority, a total of £8,543.
Defendant - Shuaid Aram Peracha the secretary of Retson Ltd who operated the New Central Hotel, 64A Reads Avenue, Blackpool
Offence - Breaches resulting in offences
Failing to test fire alarm, emergency lights and firefighting equipment.
Storing combustibles close to ignition source in an area with no fire separation.
Failing to make a suitable Fire Risk Assessment.
Failing to maintain the Fire Alarm in efficient working order.
Failing to provide adequate fire doors on 12 bedroom doors.
Failing to provide adequate fire separation to an external fire exit.
Failing to keep give adequate training to staff.
Failing to comply with an enforcement notice.
The magistrates commented that "they considered these extremely serious as it involves the protection of the public".
The mitigation put forward by the defence stated that everything was now compliant and that the company were in a poor financial position.
The Magistrates decided to deal with what they considered the two worst offences (failing to comply with an enforcement notice and failing to provide a risk assessment) as specimen offences and awarded fines of ( see above)
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Blackpool-hotel-34posed-threat34-to.4348945.jp
-
Date - January 2008
Fire Service - Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service
Fine - £10,377.68
Defendant - Aftab Hussain (owner and landlord of a HMO)
Offence - Failure to provide adequate fire detection and emergency lighting,
Failure to adequately protect the means of escape,
Failure to provide adequate fire fighting equipment.
http://www.bucksfire.gov.uk/BucksFire/News/HIMOlandlordfined.htm
-
Date - January 2008
Fire Service - Lancashire Fire & Rescue
Fine - £2,000 for each of the offences, plus £2,250 costs
Defendant - Sefer Enver
Offence - No working fire alarm
No emergency lighting
No fire risk assessment in place; and
Piles of flammable boxes blocking escape routes.
http://www.lincsafe.co.uk/images/uploads/January_08.pdf
-
LANDMARK CASE AGAINST PROPERTY LANDLORD
Offence & prosecution under the Housing Act 2004 (worthy of note)
Date - Jan 2008
Fine - £1,500
Defendant - Roderick Williams
Offence - Under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, letting accommodation illegally without the required licence
http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=8528&tt=cotswold
-
Date: August 2008
Fire Service: Suffolk
Fine:£20,000 plus £7,312 costs
Defendant:Munro Importers Ltd
Offence:Munro Importers Ltd pleaded guilty to nine fire safety offences brought by Suffolk Country Council, including:
*
failing to produce a suitable risk assessment;
*
fire doors being wedged open;
*
blocked and obstructed exit routes;
*
restricted aisles and gangways; and
*
inadequate fire safety training.
Background:
A spokesman for Suffolk County Council told the Evening Star that an investigation of the fire safety provision at the company started in November 2007.
An officer of Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Department visited the company to check that a self-risk assessment had been adequately carried out.
The officer found a number of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 that placed members of staff and people visiting the premises at significant risk if a fire occurred.
The company said it had not cut corners to save money, that self-assessments could leave people struggling in the dark, and that since the inspection, considerable improvements had been made with staff now receiving regular training.
However, the magistrates emphasised the seriousness of the offences in court and said the company had placed 22 employees at significant risk. Munro Importers was fined £20,000 plus £7,312 costs.
Source: Workplace Law (registration required): http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/16203
-
Nightclub failed to risk assess use of candles, leading to customer burns
The owners of a nightclub have been found guilty of breaching the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO) after a man suffered serious injuries on a night out.
Ultimate Leisure Limited, which owns the Sea Nightclub in Newcastle, was found to have breached its duty of care to take general fire precautions in the event of a fire on the premises. The nightclub’s fire risk assessment for the premises was also deemed to be unsuitable and insufficient.
The prosecution is as a result of an incident where a man suffered serious burns on a night out at the nightclub on 23 June 2007.
Andrew Reilly was standing against a shelf on a balcony overlooking the dance floor on the first floor of the club just after midnight. On the shelf was a tea light candle. As Reilly leaned against the shelf he felt his back getting warm and discovered that his shirt was on fire. He ran to the toilets and took his shirt off and attempts were made to put out the fire.
Reilly was taken to Newcastle General Hospital where he received initial treatment and later transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital Burns Unit. He had received severe burns to his back in the incident.
The nightclub's risk assessment made no mention of the use of tea light candles and staff had not been given any training on how to deal with an incident involving naked flames.
Kevin Hepple, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service's area manager for community safety, says:
"There is no doubt that on this occasion Ultimate Leisure failed in their responsibility to protect their customers against fire and as a result someone has been badly injured. The outcome of this case is absolutely the right one.
"I would like to take this opportunity to drive home the message to owners and managers of public premises that it is their responsibility to ensure staff and customers are safe from fire. This includes carrying out regular fire risk assessments, ensuring there are adequate fire exits and that there is a suitable fire alarm system."
Ultimate Leisure Limited was issued with a £4,000 fine and ordered to pay £975 costs.
-
Gents,
Could I ask you to repost the 2 above in the suggested format? I don't want this to be a discussion, but more like a database.
-
Date: 22nd August
Fire Service: Central Scotland Fire & Rescue (attending) HM Fire Inspectorate for Scotland (Enforcing)
Fine: 4 yerars imprisonment
Defendant: Prison rules prevent naming prisoner.
Offence: |Wilful Fire Raising in HM Prison
http://news.bb.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7576814.stm
-
Date : 20/10/08 Wood Green Crown Court
Fire Service : London
Penalty : 4 months imprisonment (Mr Parlak) and £21,000 fine (company)+ £8,800 costs.
Defendant : Parlak and Watchacre Properties
Offence(s) : Summons 1 – Article 9 – Failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons were exposed.
Summons 2 – Article 11 (1) – Failure to make and give effect to appropriate fire safety arrangements.
Summons 3 – Article 13 (1)(1) – Failure to provide appropriate fire fighting equipment.
Summons 4 – Article 13 (1)(a) – Failure to provide appropriate fire detection measures, namely adequate smoke alarms in the common parts of the premises.
Summons 5 – Article 14 (1) – Failure to ensure that routes to emergency exits from the premises and the exits were clear (in relation to the gas fired boiler).
Summons 6 – Article 14 (2)(a) – Failure to ensure that persons were able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible, in that the escape route was not properly protected (because the intermescent strip and cold smoke seal were missing from the top edge of the second floor habitable room and there were combustible materials stored in the exit route including a washing machine, television, clothing and furniture).
Summons 7 – Article 14 (2)(g) – Failure to ensure that there was adequate signage at the premises to indicate the emergency exit and route.
Summons 8 – Article 15 (1) - Failure to establish and give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent fire.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_210ct08.asp
PS Members have noted this was the first prosecution under the RR(FS)O
-
CPS have said there is insufficient evidence to charge anybody in connection with the Penhallow fire
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/158_08.html
-
Date: Wednesday 28 October 2008
Fire Service: West Midlands Fire Service
Fine: £1000 per offence, 7 offences plus £6000 costs
Defendant: Green Court Limited (HIMO)
Offences: Seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
-
Date: 8 December 2008
Fire Service: Cheshire
Fine: 20,000
Defendant: Centrol Recycling Group
Offence: 8 offences
http://www.cfoa.org.uk/10383
-
Date:16 December
Brigade: London:
Premises: HMO
Defendant: Property manager
Fine:£5,600 + costs (total £13K)
Seven Summonses under RR(FS)O 2005
Link: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1022.asp
-
Ladies, Gents, I started this thread in the hope that it would contain a list of prosecutions only, not a discussion about them. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss prosecutions, all other comments have been moved to a new topic.
-
23 Jan 2009
Leicestershire FRS
Chinese Restaurant fined £2400
Inoperative alarm
External escape loose
see CFOA home page right hand side
davo
-
Date - January 2007
Fire Service - Surrey Fire and Rescue Service
Fine - £100,000
Defendant - Southern Cross Healthcare
Offence - inadequate fire safety standards at one of its care homes, in a boiler room, the boiler room was a high fire risk area that should not be used as a store. In addition, the company did not have an adequate system in place for reviewing fire safety arrangements at the home.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2040891_care_home_company_fined_for_fire_safety_breach
-
Feb 2009
Notts FRS
Fine £6k
Defendant Simon Fields
Offence Landlord failed to install fire safety provisions
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Radford-landlord-fined-safety-errors/article-703863-detail/article.html
-
latest prosecution news with some pictures
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/05/12/landlord-fined-over-death-trap-student-housing-72703-23601254/
-
Summary of above for those in a hurry!
May 2009
Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service
Defendant: Gurmail Singh Lally
Premises: Bolam House, where 40 students, including three illegal immigrants, were living
Action:prohibition notice, followed by Guilty plea on 13 charges for breaches of safety regulations, for which he was fined £500 for each. He was also ordered to pay costs of more than £5,000, bringing his court bill to £11,602.
Offences: included a laundry chute being used as a fire escape, disconnected alarms hanging off walls, exit routes blocked by rubbish, fire doors had been removed, exit routes were not properly labelled and metal bars covering bedroom windows.
Link includes two of the evidential photos
-
Date: 19/5/09 (following fire in Sept 2007)
Fire Service : London
Offence: x9 including no EP and locked MOE
Fine (Total with costs) £16,766
Restaurant fire originated in ducting. Staff running around like headless chickens and refused to evacuate when requested by LFB
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1112.asp
-
Date:2 June 2009
Fire Service: London
Fine: £300,000 plus £45,000 costs
Defendant: Shell International Ltd.
Offence: See press release
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1119.asp
-
Date: 12 June 2009
Fire Service: London
Fine: six months imprisonment + £5k costs per defendent
Defendant: building’s owners (house converted into bedsits) Michael de Havilland and Sally Fox
Offence:see press notice
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1121.asp
-
Date:17 June 2009
Fire Service:London
Fine:£25,000 (inc costs)
Defendant:Shoalacre Ltd.
Offence:Guilty plea to 7 contraventions of RRO
Press notice http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1126.asp
-
Date:23 June 2009
Fire Service:London
Fine:£500 plus £5000 costs
Defendant:Girish Chadha, A director of Maureen O’Brien Ltd (in administration) the company which formerly owned the high street chain Joy
Offence:RRO x 11
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_PR1130.asp
-
Mountain of Fire And Miracles Ministries International
London
Fined £30,000 for three contraventions including breaching a prohibition notice
http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=9098&viewcomment=1 (http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=9098&viewcomment=1)
-
Kent Fire and Rescue service.
Breach of an Article 31, Landlord fined £1550
http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/KFRS/pageid/518/rec/more/offset/20/releaseid/982/Press/Press.html (http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/KFRS/pageid/518/rec/more/offset/20/releaseid/982/Press/Press.html)
-
Date - 16 October 2009
Brigade - Devon & Somerset F & S
Premises - Edwardian in Heavitree Road, Exeter
Defendant - Michael Scott-Hake
Fine - £3415 and ordered to pay costs of £4900
Offence - enforcement orders breaches related to sub-standard fire doors and inadequate smoke detection in some areas.
-
25th November 2009
Defendant - New Look Clothes Store
F&RS - London
Not Suitable & Sufficient Fire Risk Assessment - £250,000
Failure to provide adequate training £150,000
£136,000 costs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8379503.stm
Largest fine under the FSO
-
Date:23/11/09
Fire Service: London
Fine:£10,015 + costs
Defendant:Mohammed Khan (HMO Landlord)
Offence:7 under fire safety order see
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2009_PR1261.asp
-
see link for latest prosecuition resulting in Jail
http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2010-05-10-Landlord-jailed-after-flat-fire-tenant-left-with-80-burns
-
JayJay
HSE link to same prosecution
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-e-05.htm
davo
-
Date: 26th April 2010
Fire Service: Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
Fine: £210,000 incl £28,000 costs
Defendant: Cooperative Group
Offence: Failing to keep the rear emergency exit doors unlocked for use in an emergency;
· fitting a lock requiring a security code on an emergency door between the retail and storage areas, which could not be easily opened in an emergency;
· obstructing a fire alarm and call-point in the storage area - thus potentially delaying fire alarm activation and early warning to building occupants;
· a lack of suitable and sufficient fire safety instruction and training for the store manager;
· a fire alarm system that was not regularly tested;
· having no means of early detection of fire in the retail area and thus not providing early warning to the occupants of the manager’s office for safe evacuation.
-
Not a prosecution under the fire safety order but under CDM (not the chocolate). See link below. The implications are that if Fire Safety design was found to be poor (fire engineering) then liability may be established. This could be in addition to the responsible persons liability.
It would be interesting to know if a building inspector was involved in the construction and signed of these premises.
http://www.shponline.co.uk/incourt-content/full/architects-and-construction-firm-both-at-error-in-fatal-fall
-
10 Aug 2010
From the FIA website and their "Midweek Messages" copied by permission.
North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service has issued a reminder for businesses to ensure they comply with fire safety requirements after a restaurant owner was slapped with a fine of £15,000 for not abiding by the rules.
The breaches came to light after a fire started at China Wok restaurant in Stokesley, north Yorkshire, in January this year, which resulted in two people being trapped on the upper floors of the premises. Fire fighters were able to rescue them, but subsequent investigations revealed breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which included a lack of a fire alarm and detection system.
Mr Shun Lin Lam was found guilty of ten breaches, including allowing people to sleep on the premises without an escape route, emergency lighting or a fire extinguisher. Prosecuting officer Karen Galloway said: "The contraventions in this case were serious and would have continued had the fire authority not acted immediately by serving a prohibition notice on the responsible person."
-
27 Jul 2010
From the FIA website and their "Midweek Messages" copied by permission.
A London-based food factory owner has been prosecuted and fined after breaching fire safety regulations.
Mong Liu of New Kong Nam Food Production Company was fined more than £20,000 after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation following the indictment.
She admitted guilt on seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, including having no adequate means of fire detection at her Brettingham Road, Edmonton premises.
In addition to having inadequate emergency lighting in place, a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment had also not been completed. She also had no emergency plan in place and there was no evidence of fire safety training.
-
10 Aug 2010
The importance of businesses complying with regulations has been highlighted by the prosecution and fining of a landlord who was ordered to pay £8,500 for fire safety breaches.
Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service mounted the prosecution of Widnes businessman Antonio Meloni at Runcorn Magistrates Court after they discovered adequate fire risk assessments had not been carried out. The landlord pleaded guilty to eight counts of breaching the Fire Safety Order 2005 in his three-storey property where the top two floors had been transformed into a number of flats.
Fire services conducted a routine check of the premises and discovered blocked escape routes, locked fire escapes, as well as an inadequate fire alarm system, which prompted them to stop the flats from being used.
From the FIA website and their "Midweek Messages" copied by permission.
-
18 August 2010
Fine and costs £10800
Wales
A landlord in Wales has been ordered to pay thousands of pounds after pleading guilty to charges relating to breaching the Fire Safety Order (2005) and other offences.
Health officers from Swansea Council Environmental discovered the eight-bedroom property at 34 Bryn Road, Brynmill, was in a poor state during a routine visit, which also revealed fire safety issues. Owner Peter Teifion Jones, who rented the property to students, pleaded guilty to 12 charges and was fined £8,500, in addition to being ordered to pay costs of £2,287 and a £15 victim surcharge.
Text copied from FIA Midweek messages with permission.
-
Date: 19 August 2010
Fire Service: North Wales
Defendant: Mr Simon Roberts
Premises: CEX entertainment exchange
Fine: £1050 + £1000 costs
Offences: Guilty plea to 3 Charges of locking and blocking fire exits from a shop premises contrary to Art 14 of RR(FS)O
-
27 Sep 2010
A London hotel and its manager have been ordered to pay more than £30,000 in fines and costs after being found guilty of breaching fire safety regulations.
Malik Mohammed Bashir, manager of Ventures Hotel, and Awan Investments, which owns the hotel, were ordered to pay £5,000 and £27,000 respectively.
Concerns raised by two guests prompted officers from London Fire Brigade to visit the establishment where they found violations, including blocked emergency exits, wedged open fire doors and unsuitable or insufficient fire risk assessments.
Copied from the FIA website with permission
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=208466532&gid=3155267&type=member&item=30665892&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fbit%2Ely%2F9xZvNq&urlhash=NBqo&goback=%2Egde_3155267_member_30665892
-
Penhallow hotel owners face charges under Fire Safety Order
For full text please visit info4fire @
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/penhallow-hotel-owners-face-charges-under-fire-safety-order
-
Date: 14th October 2010
FRS: Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service
Defendant: Ms Christine Doyle
Premises: Wash and Press Commercial Launderette, Liverpool
Fine: £4500
Costs: £4500
Offences: Failure to carry out suitable and adequate fire risk assessment, 2 breaches of Prohibition Notice, Failure to maintain adequate means of escape for employees, Failure to provide emergency lighting, Failure to take general fire precaution measures.
3 further charges were dropped following guilty pleas from Ms Doyle to the other 6.
District Judge Harrison stated that employers could not treat their duties under the FSO as "just red tape"
-
For info
Poundstretcher West Yorkhire THIRD prosecution
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/poundstretcher-chain-pays-55-000-for-fire-safety-breaches
davo
-
See attached prosecution of fire alarm engineer fined under RRO
http://www.bafsa.org.uk/snews_full.php?id=00000972
-
Date: 10 Dec 2010
Enforcer: HSE
Defendant: Music Box Karoke Ltd plus Site Manager
Premises: K2 Nightclub Manchester
Fine: £6000 (company) £450 (manager)
Costs: £3313 (company) £2710 (manager)
Offences: Various breaches of the Construction Design & Management Regs, including failure to prevent risk of injury from fire and explosion, failure to provide and maintain fire fighting eqpt and fire alarms, failure to prepare and implement emergnecy arrangements (all relating to construction sites as the offences occurree during a construction project)
The HSE investigating inspector said "We were called in after receiving a complaint about the safety standards on site and were shocked by what we found. The basement and corridors were blocked with waste materials so it would have been extremely difficult to escape in a fire. There was a Chinese restaurant open to the public on the first floor and the neighbouring buildings were also occupied. Just one spark could have set light to any of the piles of cardboard, and then dozens of lives would have been put in danger."
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-nw-47musicbox.htm
-
How many more are there before somebody does something and closes them all???
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/poundland-pays-out-20-000-for-fire-safety-breaches
davo
-
I spoke too soon, luckily this happened at 7AM ;D
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/poundstretcher-store-destroyed-in-town-centre-blaze-video
davo
-
From the South Wales Argus 26th February 2011.
THE FORMER owner of the Raj Gate restaurant, Ponthir, was given a four month suspended sentence for what a judge called "very grave" offences which put the lives of staff and customers at risk.
Abdul Kadir, 55, of Mackintosh Place, Cardiff appeared at Cardiff Crown Court yesterday after pleading guilty to 13 charges in a prosecution brought by South Wales Fire Service.
The offences included 11 counts of failing to comply with a fire service order thereby putting people at risk of death or serious injury in the case of a fire and two counts of failing to comply with a prohibition notice.
Prosecutor James Harrison told the court that fire safety advisor Michael Evans was requested to attend the premises in August 2008 by Torfaen council.
He found problems including obstructions in emergency exit routes, inadequate fire alarms and detectors and extension leads trailing through the kitchen. It was also found there had not been a fire extinguisher test since 2004 and the extinguisher there was missing a pin and seal.
Mr Harrison said the risk was considered so serious, Kadir was issued with a prohibition notice, meaning he couldn’t trade until the problems were rectified.
However, this prohibition order was breached on August 21 and September 3, when the restaurant was found to still be trading without the problems fully addressed.
For Kadir, Leighton Hughes, said he took over the restaurant in 2007 when it was "already in a perilous state of disrepair".
He said the business was making no money and the only way Kadir could afford to get the work done was to stay open while it took place.
Mr Hughes said: "The business was limping along and Kadir was robbing Peter to pay Paul in a way. All the work he was asked to undertake was undertaken."
The restaurant ceased trading in summer 2010 and is now in the hands of a bankruptcy trustee, the court heard.
Judge Christopher Llewellyn-Jones said: "A prohibition order says ‘stop trading until work is done’, this was ignored", adding the two breaches of the prohibition order were "very grave" offences.
He took into account Kadir’s previously clean character and sentenced him to concurrent sentences of one month for each of the first 11 charges and four months, again concurrent, for the breaches of the prohibition orders, each suspended for 12 months.
Kadir must also undertake 250 hours community service and pay £5,329.76 prosecution costs.
-
Newquay update
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/03/23/owners-of-newquay-hotel-where-three-staffordshire-people-died-admit-charges-65233-28391810/
davo
-
Newquay update
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/03/23/owners-of-newquay-hotel-where-three-staffordshire-people-died-admit-charges-65233-28391810/
davo
Worst fire in the industry for 40 years yet not in the public interest?
-
Guilty plea means no case law or precednet set.
To pick up on the Atherstone thread no vested interest here either and definitely no commercial pressure from the industry or the governments desire to reduce regulatory burden.
-
for info
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/landlord-pays-158-000-for-breaches-after-tenants-flee-from-blaze
nice juicy fine at last!
-
http://bit.ly/hI2CLv
Fatal fire care home manager fined for fire safety breach
-
Penhallow Hotel owners fined £80K for safety breaches
The owners of a Cornish hotel destroyed by fire have been fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £62,000 costs for failing to meet fire safety standards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-13277331
-
Also long item at:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/halifax_firm_fined_80_000_fine_for_hotel_blaze_that_killed_three_1_3347181 (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/halifax_firm_fined_80_000_fine_for_hotel_blaze_that_killed_three_1_3347181)
-
Building managers fined £100,000 after failing to act on fire risk assessment (info4fire.com)
http://bit.ly/jxoXcJ (http://bit.ly/jxoXcJ)
-
Not a link to the prosecution, just a Word document titled Fire Risk Assessment Competency Document!
Don't be clever, post this properly in the correct thread not hide it like a malware link!
-
Heres the link edita meant to post.
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/building-managers-fined-100-000-after-failing-to-act-on-fire-risk-assessment
I would be interested to know more background in respect of the "failure to provide a fire alarm system" as mentioned in the news story.
-
Thank you Kurnal - I must have shortened the wrong link for this story - nothing sinister intended!
The line I got from London Fire Brigade is that the fire risk assessment indicated a need for a linked alarm system, but this was not implemented.
-
Business owners and companies contracted to provide Fire Risk Assessments to businesses are being advised to pay greater attention to Fire Safety legislation following the sentencing of two Mansfield men at Nottingham Crown Court today.
David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Market Place, Mansfield, was jailed for 8 months and ordered to pay £15,000 costs after pleading guilty to 15 Fire Safety offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
John O’Rourke, who runs Mansfield Fire Protection Services, Mansfield, was also jailed for 8 months and was ordered to pay £5,862.38 after he pleaded guilty to two breaches of Fire Safety requirements in relation to the inadequacy of Fire Risk Assessments he provided for Mr Liu’s hotels.
The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct Fire Risk Assessments and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.
-
Heres the link edita meant to post.
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/building-managers-fined-100-000-after-failing-to-act-on-fire-risk-assessment
I would be interested to know more background in respect of the "failure to provide a fire alarm system" as mentioned in the news story.
I've looked up Gloucester Terrace on Google street view and there is a strong possibility that the age and type of premises is such that they wouldn't have the required compartmentation for a 'stay put' evacuation strategy & so a linked alarm for a full single stage evac may be required in lieu of structural upgrades.
-
Landlord to pay £17,000 over ‘death trap’ Walsall house
Friday 8th July 2011,
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/07/09/213390/
-
I think this to be the first in NI under the new legislation.
30 January 2013
NIFRS Welcomes Fire Safety Prosecution against Belfast Hostel Owner
Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service (NIFRS) has welcomed the prosecution of a Belfast Hostel owner for breaches of Fire Safety Legislation.
The owner of the Linen House Hostel, Kent Street, Belfast was prosecuted yesterday (Tuesday 29 January 2013) at Belfast Magistrates Court and fined £1200 plus costs relating to 8 charges of fire safety. These included failure to carry out a Full Fire Risk Assessment to ensure that there are adequate measures to reduce the risk of fire in the premises and ensuring that people are able to escape if there is a fire.
As the enforcing authority for Fire Safety Legislation in Northern Ireland, NIFRS is warning that repeated failure comply with Fire Safety Legislation could result in prosecution.
Dale Ashford, Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service explains:
“Owners of premises have an important job to ensure they work with us as the enforcing authority to make their premises as fire safe as they possibly can be.
Unfortunately in this instance, the owner of the Hostel failed to comply with the legislation and refused to co-operate with us. Therefore we had no alternative but to pursue prosecution.
“Since the changes in Fire Safety Legislation were introduced in November 2010 responsibility for fire safety in the workplace now clearly rests with people who are responsible for non-domestic premises and those with any degree of control of premises.
“To date we have audited over 6000 premises right across Northern Ireland to ensure that the required fire safety standards are being met and we have been working closely with premises owners and managers providing free fire safety advice to ensure their premises are up to standard.
“We have issued 16 enforcement notices to those premises who repeatedly do not comply with the required fire safety standards and in the most serious cases of failure to comply, we will exercise our power as the enforcing agency and we are currently pursuing a number of prosecutions.
“This incident aside, we are pleased and encouraged by the responsible approach taken by the majority of the business community to fire safety since the changes in fire safety legislation in Northern Ireland and we thank them for their co-operation in assisting us to protect our community.”
-
NT, thanks for that.
Have checked local news reports on radio and TV and local Press. No mention of the 'first fire prosecution' in Northern Ireland anywhere that I can find.
It appears that only persons like ourselves find this info on websites, forums etc. It does not get to the general public and businesses to inform and educate.
It is not a huge deterrant to be fined £1200 for a range of offences. It does not send out much of a message to prospective offenders. Surely as the first in N.I. it should have received a mention on the media otherwise how do we get the message across.
I don't relish prosecution, but if people blatantly disregard the regulations, a clear message should be delivered to all.
In my experience to date the appropriate person does not understand their responsibilities, some businesses do not know there is new fire legislation, those that do, dont want or cant spend money on fire safety.
As fire professionals our job is to inform and educate but if the courts don't send a clear message to offenders are we on a hiding to nothing.
Rant over, DF
-
Readers might remember the fire in a block of flats near Malton, North Yorkshire in which two young apprentice jockeys died in a fire in September 2009. The fire was started maliciously, and the culprit was jailed in 2010, after being found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He received an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of 7.5 years. His conviction was upheld following an appeal in 2011.
Last Friday, the landlord of the block was jailed for 12 months for offences under the Fire Safety Order. He pleaded guilty to two offences at the block of flats and two offences at an adjacent HMO. He was given 12 months for each of the four offences, with the sentences running concurrently. The judge said that the landlord, Alan Foster, had shown a complete disregard for the fire safety of residents (he had allowed the continued storage of combustible materials in the singe stairway of this small block of flats). He also concluded that the deaths of the two young people would have been significantly less likely but for the breaches in the FSO.
The building work at the block had been approved by an Approved Inspector called JHAI Ltd. North Yorkshire FRS made a complaint to the CIC in respect of certain matters relating to their approval. The CIC Discipinary Panel decided that their had been a very serious breach on their part, and they received a very serious reprimand. They received this sanction in October 2012 and it remains on the CIC website until October 2013.
-
Belfast health trust admits breaching health and safety laws
Not a fire safety this time but could just as well have been.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23768689
So much for the requirement to provide information to contractors.
-
A landlord has been jailed for nine months for fire safety failings in a number of homes across Kettering, including a property where a young boy died following a blaze.
http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/top-stories/landlord-jailed-for-fire-precaution-failures-at-kettering-properties-1-5526542?goback=%2Egde_3874106_member_273718477%2Egde_3874106_member_276439210#%21
-
Pub chain and licensee prosecuted by Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service
The landlord and licensee of a Warrington pub have been prosecuted for failing to put in place adequate fire safety measures. Landlord of the Rams Head Inn in Grappenhall, Punch Partnerships PML Ltd (Punch Taverns) and the licensee at the time Graham Dennett, 61 of Barnswood Close in Grappenhall, both appeared before Warrington Magistrates on Thursday, October 24, where they pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
The case began back on August 5 2011 when a fire involving a tumble dryer broke out at the Rams Head Inn in Grappenhall. As with all incidents at commercial premises Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service carried out a post fire inspection at the premises. The inspection identified issues with fire safety, including the absence of an appropriate fire exit from the first floor guest and staff accommodation.
Punch Partnerships faced one charge of failing to provide a suitable and safe escape route while Mr Dennett was charged with four offences - failure to provide sufficient firefighting equipment, insufficient testing of smoke alarms and emergency lighting, failure to pass on fire risk and emergency information to staff and lack of a fire risk assessment review.
After hearing the submissions, Judge Knight fined Mr Dennett, £100 for each of the four charges plus costs of £269. Punch Partnerships were fined £2000 plus £8000 costs.
Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Mark Cashin, said: "We welcome the sentence handed out by the court as this was a serious breach of fire safety. Our aim is always to work closely with local companies giving them all the support and guidance they need to ensure the safety of both their staff and their customers. Prosecution is very much a last resort but in serious cases we will use our powers to enforce the regulations and prosecute offenders.”
Alex Stacey, 62 of Well House Drive, who carried out a fire risk assessment on the property in 2008, was also given a Caution for his part in the failings. DCFO Cashin added: “I cannot stress enough the importance of businesses making sure that they carry out a robust fire risk assessment. Failure to have one could cost you thousands and more importantly it could cost someone their life. Make sure whoever is doing your risk assessment knows what they are doing - I genuinely believe that there is a risk of people dying due to unqualified and poor quality risk assessors. These individuals are a risk to both life and businesses. Please visit our website to discover more about how to appoint a competent Fire Risk Assessor.”
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states that if you are the Responsible Person of premises you must make sure you carry out a fire risk assessment, although you can choose to appoint a 'competent' risk assessor to carry out a fire risk assessment on your behalf.
However, you will still be responsible in law for meeting the requirements of the order. A guide, put together by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council, is available to download on www.cheshirefire.gov.uk the guide provides advice on finding a specialist person or body, and identifies the certificating bodies that operate registration schemes.
-
Quite ironic the poster in the window says Firetrap
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/12/03/wolverhampton-sport-shop-hit-by-37k-fine-after-fire-exit-blockage/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/12/03/wolverhampton-sport-shop-hit-by-37k-fine-after-fire-exit-blockage/)
-
Hotel owner jailed for 12 months.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/05/02/death-trap-hotel-owner-is-jailed/
-
Just seen this one on the LFB website; a serious fine again.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_Croydoncarehomeslapped.asp#.U4dqIfldV8E
-
Not a prosecution but an enforcement action with the serving of a prohibition notice relating to maintenance of the fire systems within the building - not quite so sure about the local rag's description of 'upmarket' though and a quick scan of Facebook/TripAdvisor shows that the place has been an accident waiting to happen for a while!
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Residents-forced-leave-upmarket-gated-spa/story-23026300-detail/story.html#ixzz3G0nQtlqf
-
Successful prosecution in Leicester.
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Highfields-landlord-Haresh-Rambhai-Patel-jailed/story-23148568-detail/story.html
-
Prosecution of care home owners. Fine of ?120,000 plus costs of ?50,622.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/latestnewsreleases_carehomeproviderslatedfordeathofelderlywoman.asp#.vcfpv5rdunu
-
Record fine for hotelier for fire safety breaches.
https://andyrayblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/shocking-pictures-reveal-why-record-fine-was-doled-out-to-hotelier-for-fire-safety-breaches/
-
Re the hotel prosecution, the article in question contains numerous inaccuracies.
-
This is the details as published by LFB
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_former-owner-of-the-radnor-hotel-hit-with-brigades-biggest-ever-fire-safety-fine.asp#.VR8GhNzF930
-
CT What are the numerous inaccuracies it appears to follow the LFB report?
-
Landlord who pocketed 4000 pounds a month cramming 16 people in house jailed after blaze broke out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/landlord-who-pocketed-4k-month-5456064
-
Tony and Tam, the LFEPA website also contains inaccuracies, including an allegation that the Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge to which he did not even need to plea because it was dropped! It is not currently appropriate for me to outline the other inaccuracies.
-
Here's my thoughts on this. I found the tone of some of the reporting of this case rather nauseating though it's a fact of life that PR departments and the newspapers never get a story 100% right. It's not the role of the fire service to go out to "secure big fines" that's for the courts to decide.
Lets stand back and look at the salient points.
Abject management of fire safety in a hotel placed relevant persons at risk in case of fire.
The fire service took some initial steps through enforcement measures to reduce the risk. When their enforcement action and advice went unheeded they took action in the courts. The court agreed with the fire service and the responsible person was punished.
We are all safer as a result of robust enforcement by the fire service and the message this gives to others who may also put people's lives at risk through their ignorance or neglect of duty. That is a very good thing.
Publicity supports the promulgation of this important message. Unfortunately that's when the PR people take over. Their agenda is unlike ours, most of us being interested only in protecting people from fire. The PR machine exists to promote the public image and status of the brigade. Their presentation is characterised by notes of victory and triumphalism. The celebratory nature of the news story in several media streams I found a turn off. I was sorry that lives had been put at risk, I was glad that the fire service had taken decisive action, that a firm example had been made of those responsible and that this would give a strong message to others. To go further is akin to cheering at a public hanging.
-
It would also be nice if the PR machine actually got their facts right and did not promulgate misinformation. Big Al, the difference is that the Court of Appeal cannot easily reverse a public hanging.......
-
On 10th November 2014 Mr Eli Zohar pleaded guilty to two offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 following inspection of 38 Westminster Road, Morecambe by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service.
Total of 10,500 in fines and he was also ordered to pay 12,000 in costs to the fire service and a 120 victim surcharge.
http://www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/2015/01/fire-safety-prosecution-38-westminster-road-morecambe/
-
Lytham St Annes landlord fined for breaking fire safety law.
http://www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/2015/03/lytham-st-annes-landlord-fined-for-breaking-fire-safety-law/
-
On the 18th March 2015 Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service successfully prosecuted Mr Stuart De?Ath, the landlord of a number of premises in the Lytham St Annes area, for eighteen separate breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 relating to three of his premises.
Seems like a very apt name for the landlord. ;D
-
?Death Trap? Gilson Hotel in Hull put ?thousands of lives? at risk
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-Death-Trap-8217-Gilson-Hotel-Hull-8216/story-26325989-detail/story.html (http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-Death-Trap-8217-Gilson-Hotel-Hull-8216/story-26325989-detail/story.html)
-
8 months jail & ?11,000 costs.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/03/jailed-wolverhampton-pub-owner-put-lives-at-risk-after-blocking-fire-exits-with-boxes/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/03/jailed-wolverhampton-pub-owner-put-lives-at-risk-after-blocking-fire-exits-with-boxes/)
-
Does anyone know the background of Mr Craig Stonelake who, as the fire risk assessor, was prosecuted by D&S F&RS over the unsuitable FRA in the large restaurant in Newton Abbot?
-
Nope, the website (pages still viewable via the back door) says nothing, neither his own or CRS Fire Risk Services LinkedIn pages show any fire safety experience or training, just a reference to a bit of further education at a community college, so it's anyone's guess as to whether he is ex-FRS, ex-extinguishers or whatever.
The company Twitter account suggests several small businesses in the area have 'benefited' from his FRA & extinguisher servicing expertise.
Press release from the FRS
http://www.dsfire.gov.uk/news/newsdesk/PressReleaseArticle.cfm?ReleaseID=1560&siteCategoryId=3&T1ID=26&T2ID=36
-
Landmark fire safety prosecution lands shisha bar managers in jail
Check out http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/updates/news/23june2015_oasis_lounge_management_sent_to_jail/#.VYu-qkdDbJI.linkedin
-
I used to thing it was dangerous to drive through Moss Side late at night. Now I have to worry where I have a shisha. I think I will live the city a miss. Even Glasgow sounds safer.
-
Press Release - Hotel owner given suspended prison sentence for fire safety failures
Posted on 26/06/2015
A Paignton hotel owner has been given a suspended prison sentence after ?hair-raising? fire safety defects were found within the premises.
David Schofield, owner of the Park Hotel on the Esplanade in Paignton, was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years, at Exeter Crown Court on 25 June.
He had previously pleaded guilty to seven offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
In summing up prior to sentencing, Judge Wassell said: ?I need to send a very serious message to hotel owners. The failures at this hotel were a potential tragedy in waiting. The number of defects was just hair-raising.
?To receive complaints from guests, some heard a fire alarm some did not, that 28 fire doors had failed to close properly, that 10 were not even fire doors. Furthermore, there were dangerous electrics, that there were elderly people staying at the hotel and exit doors were wedged shut. There were a catalogue of dangerous findings at the hotel and the fire service was quite right in closing it down.
?Anyone running a hotel in this dangerous condition needs to know the seriousness with which these matters are taken and with that only a custodial sentence will do. In terms of failings it is difficult to imagine one worse.
?I would like to compliment the fire service on the case that they have brought, the evidence and how the case was put forward.?
The offences related to failures of the fire safety standards at the Park Hotel in 2014, including:
? Not having an adequate working fire alarm system
? A large number of the fire doors in the premises not meeting the required standard
? Large amounts of flammable materials stored throughout the hotel
? Breaks in the fire separation between areas in the premises
? Poor planning in case of an emergency
? Inadequate means of escape in case of fire and poor standards of maintenance.
Station Manager Glen Wells, Fire Protection Officer for Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service, said: ?I have inspected hundreds of hotels over the last 29 years and the Park Hotel in Paignton has to be among one of the worst for the sheer number of things that were wrong regarding fire safety matters at the premises.
?Had there been a fire there the residents and staff would have been at very serious risk of death or injury as a result of the poor fire safety standards.?
Station Manager Wells added: ?Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service is committed to ensuring that hotels and guest houses in both counties meet the required standards of the fire safety legislation, and people that use them are quickly made aware of any fire and can safely evacuate.
?Where premises fail to meet these standards and those failures place people at risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire then the Service will take necessary action against the people responsible.?
Schofield had stated at a previous hearing that the offences were not deliberate and that he did his best regarding the hotel.
Judge Wassell added that, had Schofield not had good character and no previous convictions, he would have been sentenced to 16 months in prison.
Schofield was also ordered to pay the full costs of ?9,274.
http://www.dsfire.gov.uk//news/newsdesk/PressReleaseArticle.cfm?ReleaseID=1614&siteCategoryId=3&T1ID=26&T2ID=36
-
And another HMO - see my old team at Enfield and Haringey are still banging up the errant landlords!!
http://t.co/X8p9EaRX6q
-
You once hung around in Enfield, Silver? Were the team to which you referred armed robbers?
-
Avon Fire & Rescue Service (AF&RS) has welcomed the outcome of a court case in which a Bristol businessman was successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Garreth Wilson, who is the person responsible for student accommodation at 5 Nine Tree Hill, Cotham, Bristol, pleaded guilty to three charges relating to breaches in fire safety at the property. The charges were:
? Failure to undertake a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.
? Failure to ensure escape routes and exits lead as directly as possible to a place of safety, in that self-closers had not been fitted to the kitchen and lounge doors.
? Failure to ensure that the fire alarm system was maintained to an appropriate standard, in that there was a missing fire detector in the basement kitchen.
Today (Monday 6 July) at Bristol Crown Court His Honour Judge Martin Picton sentenced Wilson to six months in prison. He was also ordered to pay AF&RS full costs of ?12,441.91.
In June 2014 Wilson was given a four month custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay costs for similar fire safety breaches. These followed a fire in January 2012 where two women had to be rescued from the roof of the property by firefighters.
Today?s sentence included three months for each of the charges, which will run concurrently, and a further three month sentence, to run consecutively, for breaching the previous suspended sentence.
On sentencing HHJ Picton said: ?Parents paying rent expect an appropriate level of care. Fire safety measures, you?ve got to do it, there?s no excuse.?
Head of Technical Fire Safety for AF&RS, Group Manager Matt Peskett, said: ?We are satisfied with the outcome of this case and that the sentence reflects the severity of the charges.
?As the responsible person for the property Mr Wilson had a duty to ensure the safety of those living in the accommodation. Without adequate fire safety measures lives were put at risk.
?Part of the role of the fire and rescue service is to enforce the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and ensure all business premises and public places comply so people are safe when inside.
?Landlords should be aware that where they provide accommodation they have a duty of care and a moral responsibility to look after their guests and residents. They should carry out a risk assessment and ensure their premises are up to the appropriate standard.
?Failure to do so can result in loss of life and where this comes to our attention, whether there is a fire or not, this may result in prosecution.
?We would like to remind all businesses that they have a duty to comply with fire safety legislation and I hope this case will show just how serious we take our responsibilities to protect the lives of people in our community.?
-
Avon Fire & Rescue Service (AF&RS) has welcomed the outcome of a court case in which a takeaway restaurant owner received a prison sentence for breaches of fire safety law.
Misbah Uddin Chowdhury was sentenced today (Monday 6 July) at Bristol Crown Court after pleading guilty to seven charges.
For each charge he was sentenced to three months in prison to serve concurrently. He was also ordered to pay AF&RS the full costs of ?17,572.58.
Mr Chowdhury was remanded in custody on Friday 29 May following a previous hearing and as already served five weeks of the sentence.
The prosecution was brought by AF&RS following an inspection of the Kashmir Tandoori Takeaway at High Street, Portishead, on Wednesday 26 September 2012.
The premises consisted of a takeaway shop on the ground floor with six bedrooms used by staff on the first and second floors. During their inspection officers from Avon Fire & Rescue Service found the lack of fire separation between the sleeping accommodation and the restaurant made the escape route unsafe. There was also no fire alarm and detection system, emergency lighting or fire doors.
A prohibition notice was served restricting the bedrooms being used as sleeping accommodation until work was carried out to remedy the failings. However, during a follow-up inspection on Tuesday 16 October 2012 it was found that at least two bedrooms in the property were being used in breach of the notice.
Following an extensive investigation by Avon Fire & Rescue Service Misbah Uddin Chowdhury was identified as both a leaseholder and licensee; and therefore the person with control of the premises in relation to fire safety regulations.
A prosecution was brought by Avon Fire & Rescue Service against Mr Chowdhury for seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
On sentencing His Honour Judge Lambert said: ?You chose to allow people to continue sleeping there. Anyone who slept there was sleeping in a death trap. It was sheer luck that no one died. It was utterly irresponsible and entirely illegal. It was an appalling risk to continue. You should have stopped using the premises there and then.?
Station Manager Steve Quinton, from Avon Fire & Rescue Service?s Technical Fire Safety Team said: ?We are satisfied with the outcome of the case and believe the sentence sends a strong message to restaurant and takeaway owners in the area.
?Part of the role of the fire and rescue service is to enforce fire safety regulations which ensure public places are safe for customers and staff.
?Sleeping accommodation above a commercial kitchen represents a significant risk to life unless adequate fire protection and alarms are in place.
?Following our first inspection Mr Chowdhury was given the opportunity to rectify the issues identified. His failure to act, and thereby continue to put people?s lives at risk by allowing the bedrooms to be used, was a clear breach of fire safety law.
?Restaurateurs have a duty to comply with fire safety legislation and I hope this case will show how seriously we take our responsibilities to protect the lives of people in our community.?
-
How can absent self- closers result in escape routes not leading as directly as possible to a place of safety?
-
Seen in last week's Hertfordshire Advertiser:
http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_and_hatfield_companies_fined_over_fire_safety_breaches_1_4126807
Two companies managing rented properties in Hatfield have been ordered to pay more than ?42,000 after admitting breaking fire regulations and other failures.
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.
However Cllr Mandy Perkins, cabinet member for housing, said: "We hugely value the contribution that good quality rented accommodation makes to the local housing market, but we hope this sends a clear signal to managing agents that they must comply with the law."
-
Liverpool Echo...
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/former-fireman-put-tenants-lives-9731970
-
Former fireman put tenants' lives at risk by renting out flats that were fire hazards
Adrian Webb and wife Lynn Joyce Webb were fined ?8,000 each after breaching orders at converted house on Rice Lane, Walton
An ex-fireman went from saving lives to putting them at risk ? after renting out flats that were fire hazards.
Adrian Webb gave up his job as a firefighter 12 years ago after starting his own property business with wife Lynn.
But the pair, who live in a plush four-storey home on Mill Lane, Rainhill, were found to have been renting out three flats at a converted house on Rice Lane, Walton last year that had no fire alarms or fire doors, with key-operated locks to exit doors.
Liverpool council today said the couple had been putting their tenants? lives at risk in a ?flagrant? breach of safety regulations after ignoring prohibition orders designed to make their properties safe.
A hearing at Liverpool magistrates? court heard that council environment health officers had visited the house, which had been converted to three self-contained flats, in July last year.
As well as finding they had no fire alarms or fire doors, the officers also found rooms riddled with damp, a lack of handrails to staircases, no adequate heating and a collapsed ceiling due to a water leak that had gone unattended by the landlords.
The council said the kitchens were poorly laid out and unsafe, with electric cables trailing across the floor and a chest of drawers was being used as a kitchen worktop.
Shocking photographs released by the council show the state the flats were in when officers first inspected.
Prohibition orders, which came into force in July 2014, were then made on the property, banning anyone from living the problems were fixed.
But a few months later, in December last year, council officers became aware that despite the orders, the property was occupied.
They re-inspected and found that people were living in each of the three flats and that work they had ordered had not been completed ? with the property merely having been tidied up and redecorated.
Liverpool city council said there were still no fire precautions or adequate heating and the kitchens were the same.
Inspection reports had also not been provided to the council, as required by the orders, to demonstrate that electrical installations were safe.
Adrian, 51, and Lynn Joyce Webb, 49, were convicted in their absence at Liverpool magistrates? court on July 16 on four counts each of failing to comply with prohibition orders made by the city council?s environmental health officers.
They were each fined ?8,000 for the offences and were both ordered to pay a ?120 victim surcharge and the council?s costs of ?1,326.
According to Mr Webb?s Linked In profile, he worked at Merseyside fire service for 17 years from 1986 to 2013.
In 2005, Mr Webb featured in a Liverpool Daily Post story about giving up his job as a fireman to start his own property business, which detailed how at the time he had a portfolio of homes across Liverpool and St Helens, half renovated and rented out and the other half modernised and sold on.
Cllr Frank Hont, cabinet member for housing, said: ?This was a flagrant breach of safety regulations which put tenants? lives at risk and the fines imposed in this case show the court has taken a very serious view of it.
?People have a right to live in safe and well-maintained property and we will have no hesitation in taking action against landlords who endanger people?s safety.?
The ECHO has approached Mr Webb for a comment.
-
Landlord/retained firefighter jailed for 15 months after pleading not guilty to gross negligence manslaughter but guilty to breach of Article 8 of the Fire Safety Order in section 257 HMO in case involving 5 deaths.
http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/154953/update-prestatyn-landlord-jailed-for-15-months-after-five-people-died-in-fire.aspx
-
I am assuming that, in the prosecutions thread, it is intended for FAILED prosecutions to be included.
This week, at Preston Crown Court, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Authority dropped all 21 charges against 3 defendants, including 2 companies registered in Delaware, USA, in relation to 7 alleged breaches , and consequent offences, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order at an HMO in Morecambe. A significant reason for this appears to have been a joint experts' report (by the Defendants' expert witness and the Prosecution expert witness) that, in their joint opinion, in the majority of the 7 charges, a breach of the FSO and consequent risk of death or serious injury in case of fire was not established by the prosecution evidence.
-
A significant reason for this appears to have been a joint experts' report (by the Defendants' expert witness and the Prosecution expert witness) that, in their joint opinion, in the majority of the 7 charges, a breach of the FSO and consequent risk of death or serious injury in case of fire was not established by the prosecution evidence.
I don't suppose that the report is in the public domain?
-
This is a problem with the way the RRO is worded in that a breach of the Order only becomes an offense if there is a risk of serious injury or death which is a difficult concept to prove if nothing has happened. It is simple to prove if there has been a fire and people were injured or possibly died or had difficulty exiting the building but without such an incident it is a major issue.
I have been involved in two issues, one where a prosecution was in progress and the charges just stated that there was a risk of serous injury or death with no attempt to justify such a statement. In the other there had been a small fire in a hotel, the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system, the hotel had been safely evacuated with no injuries to anyone and a fire officer was getting very excited.
In the first issue the usual bargaining took place and the defendant pleaded guilty to one of the charges and the rest were dropped. In the second issue we had long discussions with the fire officer and wrote reams into the FRA for an incident where everything worked. Go figure!
This is going to be a difficult problem to solve particularly due to the way the legislation works and how it is worded. ADB, BS9999 etc. are only guides not actual legislation so the usual arguements can arise i.e. travel distance: if 18 m is ok why is 18.1 m not? The other issue is the skill, knowledge and experience of the enforcing officers whether or not they have the credibility to prove the issue in court.
To solve these issues it would probably require a revision of the Order and more and a consistant high quality of Enforcing Officer. Unfortunately I can't see either of these happening.
-
Lardy, No not in the public domain at all.
-
Shame!
-
Lewisham
http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=115929
I suppose this will get Colin going agian.
-
Even I was shocked by this report - Assistant Commissioner WTF!!
-
Another
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_Propertygiantprosecutedaftershelteredaccommodationblaze.asp#.VrN5yLKLRhE
-
http://nottstv.com/nottinghamshire-landlord-sentenced-ignoring-fire-warnings/
This premises had an L2 fire alarm, fd30s protected moe separate to the commercial area but the RP put a tumble dryer on the sleeping moe. FRA flagged it, RP didn't move it, it caught fire with employees trapped on the 2nd floor.
-
Silver, you have lost me. What were you shocked about?????
Michael, why would it get me going???
-
Personal ;D I know the AC :o :o :o
-
Colin, any mention of LFB usually does.
-
Yes Mike but my theory is that it's a smokescreen to cover his unrequited love. I often read about this sort of thing in my Mills and Boon subscription.
-
Many housing associations use this technique to secure void flats. The main flat fire door at the entrance is covered externally by a steel door within its own outer frame. The steel frame clamps onto and hooks around the flats fire door frame which creates a secure concealed fixing but in doing so prevents the fire door from closing fully onto its rebates. The resulting gap is usually about 50-75mm. Very often the fire doors so covered have also been vandalised and tenancy rules often prevent rapid action being taken to clear the flat. One would hope and expect all services to be disconnected in a void flat but you cannot rely on this.
Something that needs to be publicised throughout the housing sector.
-
Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service
Date24 March 2016
380,000 pound fine
imposed on Shaftesbury Care Group Ltd
Donwell House Care Home in Washington.
See link for more details
http://www.twfire.gov.uk/news/news/?entryid67=83535
-
Another 'almost Rosepark revisited' incident. What is the point of an FRA if they're not going to carry out the actions - the care groups or management companies have to learn given the ever growing elderly population and the huge increase in care homes. For information I've looked up this site and its a 2 storey purpose built home probably 90s build or maybe even later - so no excuses with respect to inherent fire safety provisions and this is all down to poor management. This happened at 6.30pm when I'd assume that there was a decent compliment of staff on duty and many of the occupiers were in lounges, etc. - good job it wasn't overnight. Good report from local paper - http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/pensioner-treated-hospital-after-washington-7768844
-
Need some help on this one - just seen a notice issued to one of my schools (single storey primary - exits from each classroom direct to open air) and the notice refers to article 13 and requires "additional smoke detectors within the corridor" to "ensure that there is no more than a 7.5 metre gap between smoke detectors" Also that "This should conform to BS 5836 Part 6". Could anyone give me any assistance?
I see the level of training of fire safety inspecting officers is getting better ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) - if only this was the one mistake in the notice.
-
Is this an enforcement notice ???
-
No its only a NoD but the standard is shocking .... however the notice does give a schedule of steps and indicates 'action required'. I want to play with them for a little while and make them squirm unfortunately my client is happy to do most of the work even though its not required. There is some arguable stuff about Exit signs above doors in normal use from a classroom, assembly point signs (can't see any mention of these being required in the guidance), fire doors not being compliant with BS - but there is a particular procedural issue and the smoke detection debacle above that I'd like to go to town on.
WRT to the spacing between detectors I'd assume this is a standard paragraph so this obviously isn't the first to be issued!!
-
We are, of course, all on the same side here but I think you're absolutely right in your approach. Enforcing officers have to work to the same standards as the rest of us, not standards that have come out of their tiny tiny brains, no matter how well intentioned.
-
Silver, I suppose you did notice that the 7.5 m is half right.
-
Silver, I suppose you did notice that the 7.5 m is half right.
Does the FRS have, to any extent, control of the fire safety measures when it issues a NoD or EN? Probably not but this is criminal activity.
Reminds me of an Action Plan issued by FRS for the installation of an emergency lighting system in a warehouse within 2 weeks. It was early summer and the warehouse closed at 5pm every day.
-
Care home company fined ?30,000 for fire safety failings
A care home company has been ordered to pay fines and costs totalling ?42,966 for breaking fire safety laws following a blaze at a residential care home in Penge, which left an elderly woman seriously injured.
GCH (Burrow House) Ltd, which runs Burrows House care home on Derwent Road, was sentenced for three offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 at Croydon Crown Court following the successful prosecution by the Brigade.
At an earlier hearing the company had pleaded guilty to:
? not having a fire risk assessment
? blocking a fire escape route with combustible materials and wedging fire doors open
? failing to keep firefighting equipment in working order.
The fire, which broke out on the evening of 14 October 2013, was caused after an electrically operated armchair left in a corridor caught alight.
Although the fire was contained to a first floor wing of the home, one resident, who was rescued by fire crews, was taken to hospital suffering from severe smoke inhalation.
Put on a life support machine, she spent more than a month in hospital before being released. Two other residents were taken to hospital following the fire and a number of others were treated at the scene.
Following the fire, the Brigade's fire safety inspecting officers visited the care home and raised a number of concerns. The Brigade notes that one of the most serious was the failure to keep the corridor clear of combustible materials such as furniture.
According to Brigade inspectors, this had prevented the corridor being used as an escape route, resulting in the serious injury of one of the residents and putting the lives of other residents at risk.
Fire risk 'totally unacceptable'
London Fire Brigade's Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety, Dan Daly, said: ?This was a very serious fire which nearly saw someone lose their life.
?Protecting London's most vulnerable residents is our priority.
?Families entrust the care of their loved ones to places such as this, and to find people being put at risk from fires in places where they should be safe in this way is totally unacceptable. ?Building owners and care home managers have a clear responsibility under fire safety laws to ensure that people living in their premises are safe from the risk of fire.
?If we find people are ignoring those responsibilities, we won't hesitate to prosecute.
?The fine handed down in this case should serve as a stark warning that the courts take these matters just as seriously as we do.?
GCH (Burrow House) Ltd, were fined ?10,000 for each offence under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and ordered to pay the Brigade full court costs of ?12,966.
London Fire Brigade
November 2016
-
Silver, I suppose you did notice that the 7.5 m is half right.
Half wrong?
-
Good bust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38596028
-
Barry fire safety expert's 'valueless' charity shop checks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38991921
A fire safety consultant who gave "valueless" risk assessments has been given a six month suspended sentence and 180 hours of community service.
Brian Fakir, 59, appeared at Cardiff Crown Court on Tuesday on behalf of MB Fire Consultants in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan.
He pleaded guilty to 13 charges in relation to checks he carried out at four St David's shops in south Wales.
Fakir claimed the assessments were "drafts".
The St David's Hospice charity shop in Pontypool caught fire in August 2014, and at one point fire crews were pulled back because of the ferocity of the blaze.
A few months later another shop in nearby Newbridge was also damaged by fire and had to be demolished.
No prosecutions were brought in either case, but concerns were raised that two similar properties had been destroyed within months of each other.
South Wales Fire and Rescue Service investigated, and found Fakir was paid as a consultant to produce risk assessments for many of the charity's shops across Wales.
It said none of the risk assessments he provided were suitable or sufficient in other premises such as Abergavenny, Cwmbran and Merthyr Tydfil.
He later pleaded guilty to 13 charges in relation to four premises with the most serious issues in Blackwood, Bargoed, Aberdare and Caldicot.
The court heard people were put at serious risk of death because of poor escape routes, a lack of fire alarms and insufficient precautions to reduce fire and the spread of fire.
At the Aberdare shop, there was insufficient emergency lighting, doors with inadequate fire prevention mechanisms and no mention of a neighbouring business which relied on a connecting door as its means of escape.
At the Blackwood shop, Fakir "entirely missed" the fact the building had a basement.
He claimed his assessments were drafts, but Judge Tom Crowther QC said there was no evidence of this.
"Your assessments failed to address the most obvious risks, and it seems to me they were valueless," he said.
"There can be little more frightening than a fire in a building.
"Those of us who work in the crown court have seen its consequences."
He ordered Mr Fakir to complete 180 hours of unpaid work in the community, and handed down a six month sentence, suspended for two years.
He added that the fact that someone could set themselves up to provide advice about fire prevention with no formal qualifications was "jaw-dropping".
South Wales Fire and Rescue Service said it hopes the conviction will help bring in new rules to regulate the industry.
-
Lakanal House
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39078845
-
A Fire Risk Assessor from Barry pleaded guilty to 13 separate charges relating to failures in carrying out suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments. The fire risk assessment failed to identify serious fire safety deficiencies in a number of St David?s Hospice Care premises.
http://www.southwales-fire.gov.uk/English/newsandevents/news/Pages/Fireriskassessorpleadsguiltyto13charges.aspx (http://www.southwales-fire.gov.uk/English/newsandevents/news/Pages/Fireriskassessorpleadsguiltyto13charges.aspx)
-
The gentleman from Barry is quoted on a website as saying he will not over engineer fire safety solutions, so it would appear he kept to his word.
-
Surrey retirement scheme - 360,000 pound fine and 100,000 pound costs.
https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southeast/property-firm-to-pay-460k-for-retirement-home-fire (https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southeast/property-firm-to-pay-460k-for-retirement-home-fire)
-
London landlord prosecution-
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_record-fine-over-fire-safety-failures-26-may-2017.asp#.WS-_7bHTWhB (http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_record-fine-over-fire-safety-failures-26-may-2017.asp#.WS-_7bHTWhB)
-
Re the London landlord.
I fail to understand how a prosecution was taken under the RRO in connection with any provision WITHIN a flat.
Secondly reading between the lines (dangerous, I know) I take it that if there was a fire risk assessment in place identifying a 'stay put' strategy the fine for failing to provide adequate fire detection in the common areas would not have been pursued.
-
www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2017/08/03/smethwick-blaze-landlord-spared-jail-but-ordered-to-pa
-
Bath restaurants owner receives a prison sentence.
https://www.avonfire.gov.uk/prosecutions/2059-bath-restaurant-owner-receives-prison-sentence-due-to-multiple-safety-failings (https://www.avonfire.gov.uk/prosecutions/2059-bath-restaurant-owner-receives-prison-sentence-due-to-multiple-safety-failings)