Author Topic: UK PROSECUTIONS  (Read 233990 times)

Offline Golden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #135 on: May 17, 2016, 01:27:24 PM »
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.

Offline Messy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #136 on: May 17, 2016, 05:53:51 PM »
Is this an enforcement notice ???

Offline Golden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #137 on: May 17, 2016, 06:19:24 PM »
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!!

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #138 on: May 17, 2016, 11:18:32 PM »
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.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #139 on: May 20, 2016, 01:18:59 AM »
Silver, I suppose you did notice that the 7.5 m is half right.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #140 on: October 06, 2016, 06:43:39 PM »
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.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline K Lard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #141 on: November 17, 2016, 10:05:41 AM »
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

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #142 on: November 18, 2016, 06:59:55 PM »
Silver, I suppose you did notice that the 7.5 m is half right.
Half wrong?
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #143 on: January 12, 2017, 12:45:43 PM »
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2017, 08:26:02 PM »
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.
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline jayjay

  • New Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 278
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #145 on: February 25, 2017, 12:13:00 AM »

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #146 on: March 10, 2017, 07:19:10 PM »
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


Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #147 on: March 11, 2017, 10:32:02 PM »
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.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS
« Reply #148 on: April 16, 2017, 11:02:04 PM »
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
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 11:05:23 PM by Dinnertime Dave »

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819