Penhallow risk assessor in court.

[Speyside]

It looks at first glance as if the fire risk assessor for the hotel is in court as a defendant. Anyone know details of the case and if he is indeed the fire risk assessor the owners 'employed' as competent; this could be very significant following the alarm engineers prosecution recently.

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/two-appear-in-court-to-face-penhallow-hotel-charges

[Meerkat]

Anyone know details of the case and if he is indeed the fire risk assessor the owners 'employed' as competent;

Yes he is.  From this link http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/HOTEL-WARNINGS/article-1053197-detail/article.html

"Martin Tricker, health and safety consultant with Hawthorn Safety Consultancy, who said he was responsible for advising Holdsworth hotels, told the court that the hotel did not have the L2 system installed, which would have meant smoke detectors and a 75-decibel fire alarm in every bedroom."

Indeed, this will be one to follow.  And for all those of us who have ever said "no" to a potential client because we didn't consider we had the necessary expertise - be glad you did.... (I know I have and I am)

[SandDancer]

Hi Meerkat, I cant access your link (damn firewall grrrr:( )  could you give me a brief synopsis of it please?

[Golden]

From what I can see in the newspaper report of the inquest there are a number of barristers trying to lay the blame at other peoples doors. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong but the risk assessor believed that the AFD within the building was adequate as it had been in place for a number of years and didn't make any recommendations to upgrade to L2. The hotel owners barristers are claiming that he should have made this recommendation and that an L2 system was 'required' after October 2006.

So the barristers are claiming that the legislation changed and required L2 post RRO and the risk assessor is claiming that the legislation was not retrospective and the existing system was fully functional (assumed) and adequate for the purposes of giving warning in case of fire.

[Meerkat]

It's a newspaper report from the inquest in June 2009.  Disclaimer - I have no first hand knowledge of the incident at all so am only going by what I read.  

It appears that the hotel had been told by Cornwall Fire Service (in July 2006) that their alarm system needed upgrading but this had not been picked up or mentioned in the subsequent fire risk assessment.  The Assessor was "... responsible for advising the hotel group on all aspects of health and safety from February 2007 and had looked at the hotel's fire risk assessment in March of that year."

At the inquest it looks as though the Barrister for the Company running the hotel was trying to imply that it was the assessor's fault for not bringing this to the attention of his client.  "Jonathan Waite QC, the barrister representing the Holdsworth Group, said .... "Looking back at it now and knowing how Holdsworth were relying on your advice, was it a glaring admission not to flag up the need to install the L2 system?""  The Coroner told the assessor that he did not have to answer the question as "under what is known as Rule 22, he did not have to respond to questions which may or may not incriminate him."

There's clearly more to it than that as a separate Fire Safety Consultancy had also at some stage given advice that the alarm system should be replaced and this seems to have been disregarded, however I don't know enough about the case to comment.  I'm sure there is further discussion elsewhere on the forum from a while ago and someone will be along to point out where in a minute I expect!

[SandDancer]

Thanks Meerkat,
 I was curious as to why the Advisor would face action, but from your synopsis it makes it a bit clearer as to why...............goes to show why a register of Fire Risk Assessment Advisors is required!

[Golden]

Sanddancer I really can't see how this goes to show how a register is required!! This is an inquest not a criminal court and until all of the evidence is heard it is impossible to determine what the verdicts will be.

[SandDancer]

"Looking back at it now and knowing how Holdsworth were relying on your advice, was it a glaring admission not to flag up the need to install the L2 system?""

Golden,
my thoughts based on the above,  but you are right I shouldn't judge until its done and dusted!

[Golden]

Mr. Waite is clearly trying to place the blame on someone else apart from his client in putting this question, I think it is quite telling that the parties involved have QCs representing them at a coroners court as they all know there's likely to be huge implications in the criminal courts. There are a number of interesting issues in this small article - the training and disabled evacuation are mentioned later in the piece.

The coroners court will be very interesting but it won't be until the criminal case is heard that we really know the answers and the effect it will have on the fire industry.

[Meerkat]

The coroners court will be very interesting but it won't be until the criminal case is heard that we really know the answers and the effect it will have on the fire industry.

The Inquest was held some time ago (June 2009).  It returned an open verdict on the direction of the coroner as arson was suspected but not proven.  http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/SHOCK-HOTEL-INFERNO-VERDICT/article-1071749-detail/article.html

A comment from the linked article "The inquest had been told the hotel, part of the Holdsworth Hotels group, did not have the required fire safety procedures in place.  Guests giving evidence said the fire alarm could not be heard on the third floor where all of the people who died were staying. Witnesses also spoke of suitcases being left in the corridor overnight."

The coroner commented "that all hotel and guesthouse owners needed to be reminded of their responsibility to comply with fire safety measures." and (with regard to the RRO) "In particular, one aspect of the order stipulated that they must ensure that their premises have been subject to a fire risk assessment which is reviewed regularly and identify those general fire precautions that need to be put in place."

However you are correct that the criminal trial will be the one that has the lasting effect on our industry.

[Golden]

Thanks Meerkat; its clear that you are a very knowledgeable and thorough contributor (unlike myself) and will soon be held in the same regard as the top contributors to this forum whilst I have some work to do methinks.

I was associating the two reports and taking my info from the newspaper without looking at the respective dates - very careless!! I think it will be a number of years before the truth is known in this case; the judgement on the FRA will be the most interesting particularly if either the owners or the consultant are cleared of their charge.

[Meerkat]

Kurnal?  Kurnal!    I wouldn't presume to be that knowledgeable, but actually we don't look anything like each other.  Try Compare_the_consultant.com and you'll see 

[Golden]

Thanks Meerkat - I've edited my post to correct the mistake and acknowledge your post.

[jayjay]

If you use the link to Meerkats This is Cornwall, then select Penhallow Hotel in the second paragraph it opens a page with a whole host of reports on the fire and inquest going back to the time of the fire.

I think this case may show that relying on older standards or Building Control approvals is no defence if a fire risk assessment identifys that somthing is not compliant with current standards. The use of the term "Legislation Not Retrospective" will not help once an issue has been identified. Not respective is a common reason given to me for not needing to consider some fire risk assessment recomendations.  

[Speyside]

I know that in Scotland the fire risk assessor would be classed as a Duty Holder and if a case did go to court via the prosecutor fiscal if it was in the interest of protecting the public, the assessor could face the full force of the law.

I think in England there does need to be some accountability of the fire risk assessor who is after all selling their expertise. If something they have done isn’t fit for purpose as determined by a court then he or she should have to face the music. I know that some of the assessors on here won’t agree, but in my opinion it will improve standards as those with limited ability may start to think twice about doing dodgy assessments if they may end up paying for it some time in the future.