NEWS AND UPDATES
- Coming Events
- Care and Sheltered Housing Fire News
- Hotel and Accommodation Fire News
- Food Industry Fire News
- Nursing Home Fire News
- School Fire News
- Village Hall Fire News
- Prohibition and Enforcement notices
- Arson
Record fine under fire safety legislation for fashion house New Look
Fashion Retailer New Look has been fined a record £530,000 for fire safety breaches following a blaze at its central London store in Oxford Street two years ago. The fine is the largest to date under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, and represents another prosecution victory for London Fire Brigade.
The retailer’s fire safety standards were condemned by the judge who found the store guilty of two fire safety breaches which constituted ‘a risk of death and serious injury’ to the store’s staff and the public.
Thirty fire engines and 150 firefighters were needed to tackle the blaze on 26 April 2007. Crews remained at the scene for the next three days. The blaze caused major disruption to surrounding businesses and impacted on traffic and the public, including the temporary closure of nearby buildings. The fire completely destroyed the building and was subsequently demolished.
The first call to the brigade was from a member of the public, instead of the store’s staff. The delay in notifying the emergency services meant that the fire had already developed by the time firefighters arrived at the scene. According to witnesses, staff initially ignored smoke pouring out of a window and a fire alarm sounded but was reset several times during the fire. The court heard that eventually staff panicked and evacuated customers but did not seem to have a plan of how to action the procedure.
Following the fire, London Fire Brigade carried out fire safety inspections at the premises and found numerous serious fire safety breaches, including an inadequate fire risk assessment, which showed no record of appropriate fire procedures to adopt when the fire alarm activated. The training of staff was also found to be insufficient, which led to a delayed evacuation and staff being unable to follow a safe emergency evacuation procedure, to raise an alarm, or respond to a fire or alarm signal. In addition, shoppers were led by staff to take an inappropriate exit route and were forced to duck ‘shards of glass falling from above’.
During the hearing the store was criticized for having storage blocking escape routes and other deficiencies, including basement fire exits being unavailable to staff and the public due to the incompatibility of a swipe card system and the fire alarm.
New Look was fined £400,000 (£250,000 for failing to supply a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment for the premises and £150,000 for failing to adequately train staff) and ordered to pay £136,052 in costs.
Commenting on the outcome, chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, 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.’
Lancaster Council has been fined £3,000 for failing to carry out a proper fire risk assessment on one of its properties.
23/10/2009
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service took the local authority to court following the blaze on the ground floor of a three-storey block
The case comes in the week that a series of freedom of information requests made by Inside Housing revealed that 282 blocks of four or more story’s across England had not received formal fire risk assessments before 3 July this year. That is the date a blaze killed six people in a Southwark Council tower block, Lakanal House.
The Lancaster Council case came after two residents escaped and another was rescued uninjured from flats in a three-storey building in the Morecombe area in March last year.
Fire crews investigating the blaze found a fire alarm system was not working, fire doors were not self-closing or fitted with smoke seals, a fire exit door was not fitted with an appropriate lock and no FRA had been carried out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
All landlords have a duty to carry out FRAs under this regulation.
The council pleaded guilty to four charges including failing to carry out a fire risk assessment, failing to maintain a fire alarm in working order, failing to provide suitable fire separation and not putting appropriate fastening on a final exit door.
The property was managed for the council by Adactus Housing Group, which also pleaded guilty to the first two charges.
Lancaster Magistrates’ Court fined the local authority £3,000 and Adactus £2,000 earlier this month. They were also ordered to pay £2,728 and £1,818 court costs, respectively.
John Taylor, a spokesperson for Lancashire Fire and Rescue, said: ‘We are more than willing to help landlords comply with the order but it does illustrate that we are willing to take councils to court. We will not show favor to public sector [above] private sector. We take our responsibility seriously.’
Heather McManus, corporate director (regeneration) at Lancaster Council, said: ‘We fully accept that there were failings in the management agreement and lessons have now been learned.’
Adactus did not wish to comment.
Landlord prosecuted for fire safety breaches in HMO
October 2009
Camden Council has fined two companies and their director a total of £32,400 for managing an unlicensed house of multiple occupation (HMO) which posed a fire risk to tenants. The prosecution, which took place on 29 September, is the first of its kind where defendants have been convicted of a ‘failure to take measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury’.
The three-storey town house in Swiss Cottage, North London, was let to seven tenants and had missing doors, no fire detection or alarm systems, and no fire doors to prevent the rapid spread of fire.
Two management companies, BP Associates Limited and Blix Limited, were each fined £13,800. The director of both companies, Alexander Begun, was fined £4,800. There were eight offences in total relating to neglecting fire precautions, and three other management offences, including a failure to licence the property.
Commenting on the case, councillor Chris Knight from Camden Council said that the safety of tenants in the borough is a priority and that dangerous or illegal practices that are potentially life-threatening for tenants will not be tolerated
School body fined £8,000 following ‘serious failings’ in fire safety
October 2009
Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority has successfully prosecuted the governing body of St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School in Chalfont St Peter for breaching fire safety regulations. The governing body was fined £2,250 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £5,750.
Several articles pertaining to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were breached, including failure to take general fire precautions, failure to adequately implement the findings of a fire risk assessment, and failure to appoint fire wardens.
Commenting on the case, the District Judge at Wycombe Magistrates Court said the breaches reflected ‘serious failings by the school’ and stressed that no action had been taken by the body over a number of months to improve fire safety standards at the school.
The prosecution was brought in the interests of public safety because the breaches placed children and teachers in the school at serious risk. It is hoped that the case will remind governors, headteachers and those in charge of schools that all reasonable steps must be taken to maintain the safety of all children from fire
Company fined £25,000 for breaching fire safety at Edgware house
12:23pm Friday 19th June 2009
A SOUTHALL company has been fined £25,000 following a fire at a house in Edgware.
The blaze started when electrical systems under the stairs of the building, in Turner Road, overloaded, on November 14, 2007.
But when the London Fire Brigade returned the following day they found there were no working fire alarms and fire doors were not properly maintained.
This meant a fire in the stairwell would have left anyone upstairs with no way out other than through the windows.
Shoalacre Ltd, of the Broadway, admitted seven counts of breaching fire safety legislation at Harrow Magistrates Court, on Wednesday.
Steve Turek, assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation, said: “I urge landlords, business owners and employers to take their fire safety responsibilities very seriously.
“All premises owners and operators must make themselves aware of the regulations, to undertake a fire safety risk assessment, which is now mandatory, and act upon its findings.”
Shell pays £345,000 in record FSO fine 03/06/2009
The upper floors of the tower were being refurbished at the time.
In what is the largest penalty under the legislation to date, Shell International Ltd has been fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 costs after pleading guilty to breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order at its UK headquarters in central London.
Sentencing took place at the Inner London Crown Court yesterday after the company pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Fire Safety Order.
The London Fire Brigade prosecuted the company following two small fires in the space of three weeks at the Shell Centre on London’s South Bank. A subsequent inspection on 12 January 2007 found extensive breaches including blocked escape routes and fire exits, defective fire doors and excessive fire loading. The fire loading had been dramatically increased because of refurbishments taking place in the upper floors.
The London Fire Brigade served a prohibition notice which restricted the use of the Shell Tower and basement levels. Under the notice, only people working to remedy the fire safety deficiencies were allowed to enter those parts of the building. A further inspection was carried out on 15 January 2007 – all the fire safety failings were remedied and the prohibition notice was lifted.
It was also discovered that Shell’s fire risk assessment had not been reviewed or updated since March 2003. For around three and a half years since then, according to London Fire Brigade, the condition of the general fire precautions in the building had deteriorated.
“Shell failed to respond properly to their risk assessment for three and a half years and had it not been for the fires which led to the inspection, it could have been considerably longer,” said assistant commissioner Steve Turek. “Had Shell acted upon the findings of the 2003 risk assessment at the time, they would have avoided putting their staff at risk.”
The first fire was on 19 December 2006 at 2.25am. Four fire engines and around 20 firefighters attended the blaze. The second fire, on 5 January 2007, was started by cutting equipment setting fire to insulation material. Around 40 people left the building before the London Fire Brigade arrived.
London fire commissioner, Ron Dobson, added: “This conviction shows that major companies are not exempt from prosecution and must take their responsibilities under the RRO seriously.”
In response to the conviction, a Shell spokesperson said: "We are sorry for the shortcomings but must emphasise there were no injuries to people. We put things right immediately and have also had an independent review of our fire safety plans and condition of the building. Shell Centre is safe and we are complying fully with the law."
Co-op fined over safety breaches
A catalogue of serious safety breaches in a major supermarket chain's stores across East Sussex put shoppers' lives at risk, fire crews have said.
The Co-op Group was fined £250,000 after 38 out of 41 of its stores failed to meet proper safety standards.
The fine was imposed after the firm admitted 13 offences. Costs of £11,176 were awarded to the fire authority.
In a statement the Co-op said it deeply regretted the breaches, and correct safety procedures were now in place.
The breaches came to light in July 2006, when a member of the public alerted East Sussex Fire and Rescue to fire safety issues concerning the Co-op store in London Road, St Leonards.
|
We can assure our customers that procedures are now in place to avoid any similar breaches of health and safety regulations |
It prompted a full inspection of all of the group's stores across East Sussex where almost all of them were found to have broken fire safety regulations.
Among the breaches uncovered were obstructed or locked fire exits, fire doors wedged open, and a lack of fire alarms in some premises.
Fire service spokesman Richard Fowler said: "You put your trust into the owners of that business... what you don't expect is for a fire to occur and to find yourself trapped in a building, not able to get out of the premises.
"That was the situation we were potentially faced with in these stores."
Previous prosecution
The case against the Co-op, relating to offences at six stores, was heard at Brighton magistrates court on 3 August, with sentencing at Hove Crown Court on 14 September.
East Sussex Fire and Rescue had previously prosecuted the Co-op store in 2006 for breaches in fire safety codes of practice.
In a statement, the Co-op said it took health and safety issues very seriously.
"We can assure our customers that procedures are now in place to avoid any similar breaches of health and safety regulations.
"At the time of these regulation breaches, the group was introducing more stringent health and safety procedures.
"The Co-operative Group deeply regrets the breaches but reiterates the measures now in place ensure the safety of its valued customers and staff."
Story from BBC NEWS
First prohibition notice issued under new legislation
18 October 2006
Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service has issued its first prohibition notice under legislation which came into force on 1 October.
The document was served yesterday on a four-level townhouse in Conniburrow, Milton Keynes, which has been converted from a single private home to what is known as a house in multiple occupation or HMO.
The notice prohibits the use of the third and fourth levels of the house until a fire alarm system and emergency lighting have been installed, and a fire door has been put in between the communal ground-floor kitchen and staircase. It was issued in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Chris Bailey, who heads Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service's Protection Group, said: "We have taken this action in the interests of the safety of all the occupants."
The house was brought to the attention of Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service's fire safety team at Broughton Fire Station after firefighters attended a fire there at the weekend. The notice was served early yesterday evening after an officer carried out a fire safety audit.
Chris added: "I would like to thank the watch managers and crews at Broughton Fire Station for their diligence and professionalism in bringing this to light."
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, known as the RRO for short, reforms and rationalises current fire safety laws previously contained in over 100 pieces of legislation.
The new rules apply to nearly every type of building, structure and open space except for private homes and individual flats in a block or house, although communal areas are affected.
Restaurant owner fined £10,000
A Colchester restaurateur was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000 in a prosecution brought by Essex Fire Authority which has set a new legal precedent.
It is probably the first time an undertaking to a court has been used to further fire safety and the Service’s legal expert Roy Carter says “it is clearly a device that would be of significant use to all British fire services in protecting the lives of relevant people when prohibition notices have been breached and adjournments are granted”.
The case was initially heard on December 20 when Feyzullah Ozgurcu, a partner of Crystal Restaurant in St Botolph’s Street was prosecuted for five breaches of a prohibition notice served on him in relation to his business premises. He was before Colchester magistrates yesterday (January 17) for sentencing.
In summing up, magistrates told him: "These offences were over a period of six months during which time the Prohibition Notice was re-inforced by repeated visits from the fire service.
"Initially, we accept the seriousness of the notice may not have impressed itself on the defendant but by the end of that period he fully intended to act in breach of the notice."
In sentencing, magistrates said they had taken into account the position of the Fire Service as to the risk posed by the premises. After the hearing, Roy Carter, head of ECFRS' legal team, said: "Today's result concludes several months of investigation undertaken by ECFRS' officers and necessitated by the defendant's reluctance to comply with life saving fire safety regulations.
"His outright refusal to abide by the terms of a Prohibition Notice, served by ECFRS, amounted to a flagrant disregard for the law and - had a fire occurred - would have put his employees in imminent risk of serious injury or death.
"Essex County Fire and Rescue Service will continue to work closely and in co-operation with businesses in Essex to secure fire safe work places. I would urge all members of the business community to review their fire precautions - taking into account the new fire regulations that came into force last October."
This is only the second time ECFRS has had to resort to law to enforce a Prohibition Notice since 1971, when the law was introduced.
The circumstances of the case applied both before and after the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) as the offences occurred when the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was in force. The technical question as to what legislation could be used for the prosecution was settled by ECFRS’s barrister David Stotesbury and the prosecution was brought under section 10B of the 1971 Act.
The prosecution was brought after ECFRS discovered circumstances that presented imminent risk to life in the event of fire breaking out on the premises. A Prohibition Notice was served but subsequent follow-up inspections revealed the Notice was being breached and the defendant showed disregard for the Notice’s terms and the safety of his employees and members of the public.
When the defendant appeared before Colchester magistrates on December 20 after an earlier adjournment, he pleaded guilty to all five summonses for breaching the Notice. His Counsel made an application to the court for an adjournment before sentencing so that mitigating circumstances may be considered by the Prosecution. This was agreed, subject to his client giving an undertaking to the court that he would comply with the Prohibition Notice in its entirety.
The undertaken was given when the court made it clear to the businessman that should he breach the Notice in the interim he would most likely see the matter of his sentencing being sent to the Crown Court, where he might face a custodial sentence or a fine of up to £25,000.
