A landlord who pleaded guilty to five offences under fire safety legislation has been ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid community service.

Esther Bartlett, of Plymstock, was also ordered to pay a total of £6,929 in costs by Plymouth Magistrates Court on 19 April.

The service was alerted to suspected breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order by a housing officer in June 2009. An audit was then carried out and the residents told to move out of the flats the same day, after it was found the premises did not have adequate fire alarms, firefighting equipment or emergency lighting.

Station manager Alan Bowers said:

“We are pleased at the outcome of this case as Mrs Bartlett had put the lives of many people at risk. We do not take this level of action very often, but when we do, it is on premises where there is a serious and imminent threat to life from fire.”

In the same week, another landlord was sentenced at Plymouth Magistrates Court and ordered to pay £2,549 in costs and a fine of £3,500.

Philip Penprase pleaded guilty to three offences under the Fire Safety Order on 22 April, following investigations at his property in the Stoke area of Plymouth in June 2009.

Commenting on the case, Mr Bowers said:

“Our inspection programme specifically concentrates on sleeping risks across the Plymouth area. It is important that those people who are responsible for these types of properties understand the law regarding fire safety and what is required of them, and that they realise that any failings will be taken seriously by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority.”

Article Source: www.info4fire.com

London Fire Brigade is warning London’s business and premises owners that by not paying attention to fire safety laws, they are not only putting lives at risk but could also face heavy fines.

The Brigade has revealed that last year in London the courts ordered individuals and companies to pay over a million pounds in fines and costs, for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. Fines have been imposed on both small businesses and landlords, to international companies.

The record figure shows how seriously the courts are taking issues of fire safety and highlights the need for those in charge of premises to find out more about their responsibilities, and act.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order came into force in October 2006 and replaced over 70 separate pieces of fire safety legislation. The Order applies to virtually all buildings, places and structures, the main exception being private homes, and includes premises like shops, restaurants, offices, nightclubs, care homes, sports venues, houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) and also the communal areas of residential housing blocks and bedsits.

High profile cases last year included Shell International being fined £300,000 and the high street firm New Look paying over £500,000 in fines and costs. New Look’s fine was the largest ever imposed under the RRO and followed a serious fire at their Oxford Street store on 26 April 2007.

The role of the fire service is to enforce fire law, and London Fire Brigade can prosecute companies or individuals if serious or repeated breaches are found. A number of court cases since the introduction of the Fire Safety Order have shown that courts will issue large fines and have even sentenced people to jail on two occasions, for breaches of the Order.

London Fire Brigade carries out around 14,000 fire inspections of premises each year and although the majority of buildings are managed well, there are still too many buildings that do not have an adequate fire risk assessment and as a result have issues like blocked fire exits, inadequate fire alarms or poor training for staff.

London Fire Commissioner Ron Dobson, said:

“Over a million pounds in fines shows how serious the courts are taking fire safety, and now its time for the responsible persons at these premises to understand that ensuring buildings are safe for all the people that use them is not an optional task.

“When we are informed about fire safety issues or find them as part of our inspection programme, we will act.”

Article Source: London Fire Brigade

A former pub landlord has been ordered to pay £16,015 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation following a prosecution brought by the London Fire Brigade.

Mr Bhupinder Singh Mann admitted guilt on 16 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Sentencing occurred on Friday 26 February 2010 at Isleworth Crown Court.

The Star Public House on Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon, UB10 0LY was inspected by fire officers on 29 August 2008. The officers found a number of fire safety failings including no fire extinguishers, no emergency signage and no fire risk assessment. The officers explained their concerns and asked for the faults to be rectified.

Fire officers made further visits to the premises discovering that the majority of the problems still existed and issued an enforcement notice detailing the issues and when they needed to be completed by. When officers visited the premises again conditions had not improved but had deteriorated and the Brigade served a prohibition notice prohibiting the use of the upper floors of the premises being used by staff or guests because the risk to people from fire was so serious.

A subsequent visit confirmed that the upper floors property was still being used as accommodation and following a further inspection on 22 May 2009 Punch Taverns, the owner of the premises, took action at the recommendation of the fire officers on site and physically barred access to the upper floors.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order places a duty on a defined ‘responsible person’ for the premises (the person who controls the premises e.g. a landlord/manager/owner) to carry out a fire risk assessment, take appropriate measures to minimise the risk of fire and implement general fire precautions to protect people in the premises if a fire occurs. The assessment and the fire precautions must be kept under review by the ‘responsible person’.

London Fire Brigade’s Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation, Steve Turek, said: “Ensuring you know about fire safety law is not an option – if you are the person responsible for a premises it is a necessity. If people do not adhere to the legislation, then as shown in this case, we can prosecute.”

The manager of the Star Public House pleaded guilty at Uxbridge magistrates court on 7 December 2009 to two breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. He was ordered to pay £1015 in fines and costs.

Source: London Fire Brigade

A pub management company has been convicted of fire safety breaches at North Wiltshire Magistrates’ Court today.

Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service took out the prosecution against Publicana Ltd after finding a number of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

At the hearing, Publicana Ltd pleaded guilty to four charges and was fined £5,000 for each offence, as well as being ordered to cover prosecution costs. However, in light of the early guilty plea, these fines were reduced to a total of £15,000.

The offences came to light after Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service attended an incident at the Little George public house in New Road, Chippenham on 5 October 2008.

After an extensive investigation by officers of the Technical Fire Safety Department, charges were brought against Publicana Ltd as the tenants at that time.

The company had in turn contracted a licensee to run the pub on their behalf, and charges are still being pursued against this individual.

Among numerous fire safety failings that were discovered were fire doors and fire exits that had been screwed shut, multiple fire doors that had been propped open, obstructed escape routes, and failures to maintain any of the fire protection systems.

Publicana’s offences were based on the failure to carry out or record a fire risk assessment, failure to have effective policies for protection and prevention measures, and the failure to provide suitable and sufficient information to the sub-contractor.

Group Manager Julian Parsons, from Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service’s Technical Fire Safety Department, said: “It is rare for a Fire and Rescue Service to undertake prosecutions but, on this occasion, the offences were so severe we felt it was in the public interest to pursue charges.

“What this case has shown very clearly is that management companies always have a duty to ensure that public safety is not compromised, even if they have sub-contracted someone to act as licensee.”

He added: “Since these offences came to light, the Little George pub has changed management and subsequent inspections have shown that the issues highlighted by this case have been addressed. In addition, Publicana Ltd, which was cooperative throughout the investigation, has introduced stringent new management procedures to ensure that something like this does not happen again in premises it is responsible for.”

Article Source: The Wiltshire Gazette & Herald

A landlord has been ordered to pay over £20,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to breaches of fire safety legislation.

City of Westminster magistrates’ court fined the landlord £10,150 for seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The prosecution followed inspections of the property at 23 Streatham Common North Side in London on 17 April 2007 and 3 October 2007.

London Fire Brigade said the breaches included no fire safety procedures in place or a way of informing tenants about fire safety arrangements, storage blocking an escape route and smoke alarms which had been removed or had low batteries inside them. There was also no fire risk assessment for the premises.

An enforcement notice was served on the premises highlighting the work that needed to be carried out. Fire safety inspectors revisited the property on 3 October 2007 and found that that the notice had not been complied with.

Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation, Steve Turek, said: “Housing providers like the ‘Responsible Person’ in this case have to carry out a fire risk assessment and even more importantly act upon its findings in a timely manner. Landlords have to know their responsibilities to protect and inform their residents if a fire breaks out. The result of not taking appropriate action can have very serious consequences.”

High street retailer New Look has been fined £400,000 and ordered to pay £136,052 in costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of fire safety legislation, following a serious fire at its Oxford Street store in London.

Thirty five fire engines and around 150 firefighters attended the fire on 26 April 2007, when around 450 people from the store and surrounding premises were evacuated. The first call to the fire service did not come until an office worker in an adjacent building took action, and the delay meant that the fire had already broken through the second floor windows when firefighters arrived. Despite the building’s fire alarm sounding, the alarm was reset on at least one occasion, said London Fire Brigade.

Crews remained on the scene for the next three days and a section of Oxford Street was closed to traffic and the public for two days. The cause of the fire was never established and the store was subsequently demolished.

One charge to which New Look pleaded guilty was for an inadequate fire risk assessment which was found to have a number of flaws, including no record of the appropriate procedures to be taken during a fire alarm. Another breach was insufficient staff training, which led to a delayed evacuation of the premises. This lack of training, said LFB, also led to staff evacuating around 150 people through the main entrance which was directly underneath the fire on the second floor.

Other alleged breaches taken into account included the absence of an interface between the swipe card system and the fire alarm panel which would have deactivated the doors. In addition, green emergency door release units were fitted on the wrong side of the basement doors.

Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Councillor Brian Coleman, said: “Good business management includes taking responsibility for fire safety, knowing the law and acting on it. This conviction shows that large companies are not exempt from prosecution and that London Fire Brigade will take action when businesses do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a substantial fine.”

Sentencing of New Look took place at Southwark Crown Court on 25 November 2009.

In the light of this summer’s tragedy at Lakanal House in London, the fire safety duties of social housing landlords have come under the spotlight. Susan Horridge and Gary Ekpenyoung examine the main legal requirements.

Since the tragic events on the 3 July 2009, in which six people died in a fire at Lakanal House, a block of flats in London, there has been increased focus on social landlords’ duties regarding fire safety.

It is thought that the fire was caused by a faulty television, believed to be at least ten years old, which had been left plugged in on the 9th floor. The fire subsequently spread to the 11th floor, killing three adults and three children. Questions were raised and investigations are ongoing as to how the fire was able to spread so quickly.

Following the fire, the head of housing delivery and homelessness at Communities and Local Government, Terrie Alafat, wrote to all local authorities warning them of the safety issues which would create a hazard in similar blocks. She noted that the hazard at Lakanal House related to the positioning of a timber staircase inside each two-level flat, which cut across the top of a communal corridor and as a result, created a potential breach of the fire resisting construction of the ceiling. This type of hazard could allow a fire in one flat to burn through the timber stair and spread into the ceiling void of the corridor. However, such a hazard may not be readily apparent from visual inspections. She also added that the need to take action was a “matter for [the Local Authority's] judgment”. The Tenant Services Authority has sent a similar letter to all registered social landlords in England.

The main duties upon social landlords in relation to fire safety are covered by the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. In addition, where a social landlord provides electrical equipment or fixtures and furnishings to its tenants, they should also consider the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 and the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1998.

Housing Act 2004
The Housing Act 2004 brought in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which considers 29 categories of potential hazards, one of which is fire. Under the HHSRS, any residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. A dwelling should therefore be designed, constructed and maintained with non-hazardous materials and should be free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards.

The HHSRS provides a means of assessing dwellings which reflects the risk from any hazard and allows a decision to be made, in those particular circumstances, as to whether that risk is acceptable. For the purposes of the HHSRS, the assessment is solely about the risks to health and safety. Any issues regarding feasibility, cost or the extent of any remedial action are irrelevant to this assessment.

The HHSRS Operating Guidance sets out how to make an assessment of the fire hazard presented by a particular dwelling and covers potential for harm from fire, causes, preventative measures and relevant matters affecting the likelihood and harm outcome.

Hazard bands have been devised which group ranges of scores, ranging from bands A to J, with band A being the most dangerous and J the safest. The band into which a dwelling falls in respect of the fire hazard can then be used by a landlord to decide whether action should be taken to reduce the hazard, and also to prioritise actions across a landlord’s property portfolio. The enforcing authority also considers this when making a decision as to whether any enforcement action should be taken in respect of the property.

Fire Safety Order 2005
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 introduced duties in relation to fire safety in the common areas of houses in multiple occupation, flats, maisonettes and sheltered accommodation, in which personal care is not provided. The duty is placed on the ‘responsible person’, i.e. the landlord or in certain cases, the managing agent, who is required to carry out a fire risk assessment and take specific action to minimise the risk of fire in the common parts. The responsible person should take general fire precautions to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of the people on the premises and in the immediate vicinity. Once the general fire precautions that are necessary have been identified and implemented, the responsible person must put in place a suitable system of maintenance and ensure that any procedures that have been adopted are implemented by competent persons.

Whilst the Order does not apply to individual flats, in practice the responsible person may need to take into account the entire premises, including to some extent, the individual units of accommodation themselves.

General fire precautions include: measures to reduce the risk of fire occurring; measures to reduce the spread of any fire through the premises; means of escape and their safe use at all times; firefighting; means of fire detection and warning; action to be taken in the event of fire; and mitigating the effects of fire.

Enforcement action which may be taken includes the service of either an alterations notice, enforcement notice or a prohibition notice. Failure to comply with any duty imposed by the Order, or the requirements of any enforcement action, is a criminal offence and carries a fine and possible imprisonment on conviction.

Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, landlords must ensure that the gas fittings and flues are maintained in a safe condition. Gas appliances should be serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If the instructions are not available, it is recommended that these are serviced annually. Landlords must also ensure that a gas safety check is carried out annually on each appliance/flue.

The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 require that all electrical equipment supplied by a landlord is safe. There is no mandatory requirement for the equipment to undergo any safety testing, but the regulations require that any equipment supplied after 9 January 1995 shall be marked with the appropriate CE symbol. Suitable information or instruction booklets should also be provided.

If the landlord supplies furniture and furnishings in a property, they must meet the levels of fire resistance set out within the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1998. It is worth noting, however, that these regulations do not apply to carpets, curtains or duvets.

Conclusion
Social landlords are responsible for communal areas and as such, have to ensure that inspections and risk assessments comply with the HHSRS and Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, in addition to considering each of the regulations laid out in this article.

Whilst the duty only applies to the common parts, the entire premises, including the individual units, should also be considered. The risk assessments must be kept up to date and works carried out accordingly. In light of the fire at Lakanal House, social landlords may also need to look more closely at the construction of their properties, particularly in older dwellings, and consider any potential fire risks that may need to be addressed.

It is too early to say whether the local authority responsible for Lakanal House had complied with their duties. No doubt a thorough investigation will be undertaken and if they have breached their duties, liability and potential claims may follow.

Susan Horridge and Gary Ekpenyoung are solicitors at Browne Jacobson

Solitaire Property Management Limited has today been fined £1,500 plus costs of £2,000 after pleading guilty to two offences at Southampton Magistrates Court relating to charges of the company’s failure to comply with fire safety law.

Solitaire Property Management Limited failed to respond to a number of requests for information relating to the premises known as Sundowner Block, 31 Channel Way, Ocean Village, Southampton, under Article 27 of the Fire Safety Order.

Solitaire Property Management is responsible for the maintenance and management of blocks of flats and housing developments including both internal and external communal areas.

The successful prosecution was taken forward by Hampshire County Council solicitors for the two breaches and Solitaire Property Management received a fine of £750 per offence and were ordered to pay £1,000 to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority and £1,000 to Hampshire County Council.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has a responsibility to enforce the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and to identify those persons who have responsibility for the fire safety provisions in specific premises. Current fire safety legislation gives inspectors the power to make enquiries, enabling them to identify the ‘responsible person’ and direct enforcement action towards the correct person.

Assistant Chief Officer Steve Hamm, Head of Community Safety at Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, today said:

“We require information about premises to enable us to carry out our enforcement action and improve the safety of the people of Hampshire. Failure to answer our letters constitutes an offence under the Fire Safety Order and Solitaire Property Management has today been found guilty of this offence.

“We strive to work closely with businesses to help them with their duty to comply under the Fire Safety Order, but where their responsibilities are not taken seriously, the Service will always consider prosecution. This case clearly demonstrates how our fire safety officers are applying the law to help ensure the safety of our community and making Hampshire safer.”

In the last two years (Oct 2006 – 2008) there have been over 40 prosecutions in the UK against companies failing to comply with the Fire Safety Order. Additionally, fire services nationally have issued over 3,800 enforcement notices during the same period.

A number of common trends have emerged since the new fire safety law came into force. These include: blocked or locked exits, poorly maintained fire escape staircases, lack of staff fire training storage of combustible materials in boiler rooms, lack of fire alarms, lack of emergency lighting, lack of fire doors, and in many cases lack of suitable fire risk assessment.

Assistant Chief Officer Hamm added:

“We would like this case to act as a timely reminder to business owners and landlords throughout Hampshire that the Fire Safety Order is in place, and that the regulations placing responsibilities on businesses are there to make people safer.

“We will continue to use the Service’s powers where necessary in order to improve the standards of safety throughout the county. The Service believes the verdict, together with the scale of the fine, gives a clear message to members of the business community in Hampshire of the need to respond to requests for information.”

3rd Nov 2009

A former restaurant manager has been ordered to pay over £7,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation following a prosecution brought by the London Fire Brigade.

Mr Wei Chen was managing Kan’s Chinese and Thai Cuisine at the time of the breaches admitted guilt on 10 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Sentencing occurred on Monday 26 October 2009 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.

Mr Wei Chen was running Kan’s Chinese and Thai Cuisine on Ball’s Pond Road in Kingsland when fire inspectors visited the premises on Ball’s Pond Road, Kingsland on 11 June 2007. A number of fire safety breaches were found and an enforcement notice was issued requiring Mr Wei Chen to remedy the faults by 11 April 2008.

A further inspection took place on 29 April 2008 and all of the fire safety breaches were still evident. These included no fire warning system, no fire exit signs and inadequate fire safety training to staff. There was also no fire risk assessment done for the premises. It was noted in court that there had been a history of non compliance with fire regulations dating back to December 2005.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order places a duty on a defined ‘responsible person’ for the premises (the person who controls the premises e.g. a landlord/manager/owner) to carry out a fire risk assessment, take appropriate measures to minimise the risk of fire and implement general fire precautions to protect people in the premises if a fire occurs. The assessment and the fire precautions must be kept under review by the ‘responsible person’. In this case Mr Wei Chen was the responsible person.

Assistant Commissioner for fire safety regulation Steve Turek said: “Knowing about fire safety is not an option if you are the responsible person it is a necessity and if people do not adhere to the legislation then as shown in this case we can prosecute. The general public should feel safe from fire when going out to places like restaurants and the responsible person must make sure their premises comply with the regulations. All premises owners and operators must undertake a fire safety risk assessment, which is now mandatory, act upon its findings and put in place an emergency plan.”

News Article Source: London Fire Brigade

It’s fair to say that councils can be a little behind at times. Occasionally they get it right and make easier for us all. However, this wasn’t the case when we recently visited a council office somewhere down the M40…

The main council offices were 3 floors high. On investigation, we were stunned and shocked to find that their office building had NOT BEEN TESTED FOR…wait for it…20 YEARS!

As you would expect, their system completely failed a test and the work involved in making it operational again was considerable. If a fire had broken out in these offices, the Fire Service would have been powerless to stop the fire. The risk of loss of life was high and there’s no doubt that prosecutions would have followed a fire incident.

You’ve got to be kiddin’ me!

The council also asked us to test a 4 storey car park. According to council records, the building only had one dry riser system. WRONG! As you know, we always walk the building because it’s not safe to assume the customer knows exactly what they’ve got.

Surprise surprise, we found another dry system at the other end of the building. The council had “lost it” because they had allowed trees and foliage to grow outside of the riser outlet and therefore it was completely hidden from view.

As you can imagine, this system hadn’t been tested in years and therefore easily failed. If a fire had broken out at the wrong end of the car park, it’s unlikely the Fire Service would have been able to save the building. Yet again, a disaster waiting to happen, because the customer’s administration was inadequate.