Tenant responsibly.

[nearlythere]

Should people be criminally liable where their behavior or actions has contributed to an outbreak of fire which has the potential to cause harm to others? I'm not talking about the person which set fire to the bike but the person who owns it and parked it in the building.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42540133

[Tom Sutton]

They are, in England/Wales and in NI they could be, in Scotland their own law. I believe if you set a fire in a building and people lives are at risk it is arson, if not, it is malicious firing.

[nearlythere]

They are, in England/Wales and in NI they could be, in Scotland their own law. I believe if you set a fire in a building and people lives are at risk it is arson, if not, it is malicious firing.

Tom. Of course if you set a fire then you may well be prosecuted for arson etc. I'm thinking more of the bike owner and it being stored in the building particularly in a common escape route.

[Clevelandfire 3]

NT - yes under the RR(FS)O the irresponsible tenant can be collared and placed up in front of t'judge and t'jury or most likely t'magistrate. See article 32(2)(10)

[nearlythere]

NT - yes under the RR(FS)O the irresponsible tenant can be collared and placed up in front of t'judge and t'jury or most likely t'magistrate. See article 32(2)(10)

I know they can be CF and have read comments on the forum that the FRSs would be reluctant to and probably wouldn't do so. But should they not be as a matter of form?

[lyledunn]

No. Prosecuting the tenant would be a waste of valuable resources. Heavy fine on the landlord. They can then police the stupidity of the tenant. Likely the only thing that the culprit was guilty of was trying to avoid his motorbike being nicked. He may have been too thick to see the fire safety risk or he just didn't give a toss providing his precious bike was OK.  All tenants should be made aware that storage of items in common hallways and landings will not be tolerated. A big sign warning of confiscation along with robust enforcement might do the trick. However, it's all baloney, Grenfell may a herald change in attitude for a while but enforcement will ever remain a barking dog with no teeth.

[nearlythere]

No. Prosecuting the tenant would be a waste of valuable resources. Heavy fine on the landlord. They can then police the stupidity of the tenant. Likely the only thing that the culprit was guilty of was trying to avoid his motorbike being nicked. He may have been too thick to see the fire safety risk or he just didn't give a toss providing his precious bike was OK.  All tenants should be made aware that storage of items in common hallways and landings will not be tolerated. A big sign warning of confiscation along with robust enforcement might do the trick. However, it's all baloney, Grenfell may a herald change in attitude for a while but enforcement will ever remain a barking dog with no teeth.

But Lyle is that not like prosecuting the Road Safety NI because some drivers are too thick to see the risk their poor driving habits expose others to? All drivers are made aware of road safety day and daily and if they fall short can be and are prosecuted. 

[kml]

NT - yes under the RR(FS)O the irresponsible tenant can be collared and placed up in front of t'judge and t'jury or most likely t'magistrate. See article 32(2)(10)

Not in NI,  as the common areas of flats are not considered relevant premises under the Fire Services order ( our version of the RRO) other than where there are facilities provided for firefighters.

[nearlythere]

Offence due to fault of other person
43.?(1) Where the commission by any person (?A?) of an offence under this Part is due to the act or default of some other person (?B?), B shall be guilty of the offence.

(2) B may be charged with and convicted of an offence by virtue of paragraph (1) whether or not proceedings are taken against A.

[Clevelandfire 3]

yes inddedy NT - so the answer is the FRS can and sahould be prosecuting your any persons offence (the tenant)

[lyledunn]

But the tenant has no money, no job, no prospects, no consideration and of course no motorbike! Pursuing a prosecution is a waste of public funds. The landlord should be prosecuted for failing to properly guard against such breaches. It won't be long before they police their properties with the vigour required.

[SeaBass]

It?ll be a question of expediency. If the RP can demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to devise, implement and enforce, suitable and sufficient control measures, then the spot light will be on the tenant, not the RP.   The key issue will be the definition of suitable and sufficient that the Fire Authority, and ultimately the Courts, apply to the established control measures, their implementation and enforcement by the RP, or their appointed competent person. 

I am aware of a case where the Fire Authority accepted that the RP had taken reasonable steps, by writing to a tenant on three separate occasions. 

[Clevelandfire 3]

wot Seabass sez above - each case on its merits based on public interest test

[lyledunn]

The RP may have taken reasonable steps but it is obvious,after the fact, that they were not sufficient.