LANDMARK FIRE SAFETY PROSECUTION OF FIRE RISK ASSESSOR

[William 29]

WARNING TO LOCAL BUSINESSES AFTER LANDMARK FIRE SAFETY PROSECUTION
 
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.
 
Fire Protection Officers from Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service had visited both premises and found that the fire precautions which should have been provided to protect residents and employees in the event of a fire were inadequate. This presented a serious risk to the lives to Mr Liu’s customers and staff, so they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises as hotels until suitable improvements had been made.
 
Mr Liu was prosecuted because he was the responsible person for both premises, and failed to make sure they were safe for customers staying there. Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he carried out Fire Risk Assessments at both hotels, but those assessments were wholly inadequate.
 
Today Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is reminding all owners and occupiers of buildings of their legal responsibility to protect their customers and staff against the risk of fire and warning them that, where necessary, action will be taken against anyone found to be in breach of Fire Safety regulations.
 
Ian Taylor, Fire Protection Group Manager at Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, said: “It is a legal requirement for places of work to have a Fire Risk Assessment. Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment and Fire Safety measures appropriate for different types of premises are available on the Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service website and also on that of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The guides are to assist employers to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment.
 
“If employers are unsure about their own ability to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment within their premises they should seek advice from a competent person. In ascertaining someone’s competence to provide Fire Safety advice I would encourage people to ask for references, be aware of what Fire Safety training and qualifications they have and check to see if they are registered or accredited with an appropriate third party body.”
 

[bungle]

Is there any information on the failings of the fire risk assessment? I have seen someof thetick box type that were factually incorrect and significant findings that were totally irrelevant!

[Indiana]

Does anyone know how the fire risk assessor was prosecuted i.e. was it under article 32(10) or by virtue of article of 5(4)?

[William 29]

Sorry I don't know any other details other than the info posted, I'll see what else I can find out.

[Tom Sutton]

Check out http://www.chad.co.uk/news/mansfield_pair_jailed_for_hotel_fire_safety_breaches_1_3561159 a little more info.

[Edita]

I now have more details of the offences in this case at:

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fire-risk-assessor-and-hotel-manager-jailed-for-fire-safety-offences-updated-11-07-11

[Tom Sutton]

Does anyone know how the fire risk assessor was prosecuted i.e. was it under article 32(10) or by virtue of article of 5(4)?

Was responsible under Article 5(3) failed to comply with Article 9(1) failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to which relevant persons were exposed.

[Jim Creak]

I am a liitle surprised that Mr Liu got prosecuted, after all he relied on the competence of Mansfield Fire Protection. If I were Mr Liu I would think about an appeal. If I were Mr Liu I would argue that I am not a Fire Engineer and that is why I employed the services of Mansfield Fire Protection to carry out the process and instruct me accordingly.

It is interesting that the case law now suggests that the RP can not rely on the external consultant for absolution. It is also interesting that this prosecution is as a result of routine inspection not incident.

I think this indeed is a landmark.....I am impressed with Nottingham enforcement team.....there are plenty more where these two came from.

[William 29]

There has always been a requirement on the RP to ensure that the persons conducting the fire risk assessment are competent to do so.  I think there are many ways and means out there now with the various risk registers of assessors to do this.  I do have some sympathy in this case and it does look like an example has been made by the Courts.

[Midland Retty]

I agree. But do the RPs know how to check competency in this respect, I still feel there far too little information out there to assist the RP.

Put yourself in their shoes, if they you know nothing about the industry how do you know about the likes of the IFE, FIA, et al ?

And even if you did a bit of homework I could set up a new trade association tomorrow called "The Fire Risk Asessessor Association" if I wanted - doesn't mean to say it would be any good, yet people might assume it was a pukka , responsible association, especially if I produced a glitzy website, and jazzy leaflets.

[Eli]

Midland

New guidance for the RP is being produced and should be available shortly after the competence standard has been released. You do hit the nail directly and squarely on the head re your fake association and the lack of adequate signposting. A National register of assessors is the way forward; the one stop reference register; signposted by everyone in the fire industry with a requirement for UKAS accreditation will be a huge step in the right direction.

That way you could set up your F.R.A.A. but the approval you ran wouldn’t be accredited so they wouldn’t appear on the national register; which everyone would use as a starting point. I don’t believe there is an alternative unless prosecutions of assessors are going to increase massively.

[Eli]

I am a liitle surprised that Mr Liu got prosecuted, after all he relied on the competence of Mansfield Fire Protection. If I were Mr Liu I would think about an appeal. If I were Mr Liu I would argue that I am not a Fire Engineer and that is why I employed the services of Mansfield Fire Protection to carry out the process and instruct me accordingly.

It is interesting that the case law now suggests that the RP can not rely on the external consultant for absolution. It is also interesting that this prosecution is as a result of routine inspection not incident.

I think this indeed is a landmark.....I am impressed with Nottingham enforcement team.....there are plenty more where these two came from.

Jim

The way to avoid being prosecuted as an RP is to complete a very robust due diligence process and the use of accredited registers is normally held to be material evidence of due diligence. It is for the accused to prove that they couldn’t have reasonably done any more to avoid committing an offence. I don’t believe that in this case the hotel manager could prove that he took all due diligence in selecting his assessor. 

[Jim Creak]

A National Register just puts another beauracratic layer, increases cost and does not improve standards. Look at ordinary Health and Safety  IOSH, NEBOSH and a practitioners national register but still problems with risk assessments. It is enforcement that improves standards so well done Nottingham......hope Essex can do the same......at arms length of course

[Eli]

Jim

Where is the money coming from for increased enforcement and prosecutions? It all costs, and as inspection is barely adequate now what will it be like in 12 month or 2 years time? Industry is going to have to self regulate I am afraid, and that can only be done through an effective voluntary system. The issue here is about offering the RP a safe way to select a competent fire risk assessor and to marginalise the cowboys by encouraging the RP to use the safe way.

One prosecution in five years isn’t an incentive for the bad assessor to improve or pack up altogether; hundreds of assessors maybe; but have the FRS got funds for the fight? No!

I know you wont agree Jim but those who ‘can’ need to demonstrate it, those who ‘buy’ need to know about it, so those that ‘can’t’; don’t do it any more.

Carrot or the stick?   

[Midland Retty]

I can see both sides of the argument.

I've spoken to numerous assessors / consultants who tell me that the cost of joining accredited schemes is astronomical, and indeed it was a consultant here on firenet who first explained to me the sheer work involved in becoming accredited, the beaurocracy, the numerous pitfalls and potential problems that could be faced along the way, and other dubious practices on the part of adjudicators. I do sympathise for assessors trying to make a responsible, decent living.

But if I want my gas boiler serviced I know I have to seek a Gas Safe accredited engineer. Fire Risk Assessments are just as life safety critical and must be undertaken by someone competent.

Would we allow gas engineers to be unregulated? The answer is no. So where do we go from here? Should we not just grasp the nettle and go for an independent accrediatation scheme like Gas Safe for risk assessors? Entry requirements should be fair and at minimal cost to the assessor, the simple goal being to prove the assessor is competent, and can be accredited.