UK PROSECUTIONS

[Redone]

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

[Tom W]

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.

[Davidrh]

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 !!!!

[Chris Houston]

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.

[Ricardo]

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

[Ricardo]

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

[Ricardo]

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

[Ricardo]

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

[AnthonyB]

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

[AnthonyB]

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.

[Chris Houston]

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.

[afterburner]

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

[Big A]

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

[kurnal]

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

[MrH]

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