Fire authorities throughout the country are now actively enforcing the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). Click on location links below for details of recent prosecutions.
- Reading, Berkshire
- Brixton, London
- Southall, Middlesex
- Waterloo, London
- Cliftonville, Kent
- Nottingham
- Erith, London
- Accrington, Lancashire
- Widnes, Cheshire
- Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
- Brandon, Ipswich
- Ipswich, Suffolk
A landlord was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs following a prosecution for failing to take adequate fire safety precautions.
He admitted two charges of placing persons at serious risk of death or serious injury from fire and for failing to provide an appropriate dire alarm system.
A company director was ordered to pay £5,500 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to 11 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).
A fire safety inspection in July 2007 found that there were no emergency procedures, excessive storage in escape routes and no appropriate fire safety training for staff and an enforcement notice was issued. A follow-up inspection in December discovered that the enforcement notice had still not been complied with.
A property management company has been ordered to pay over £25,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation.
The prosecution followed a fire on 14 November 2007 at a house which had been converted into flats. The fire started under the stairs due to an overload of the electrical systems. Inspecting officers visiting the premises the next day found several fire safety failings including no means of detecting fire in the building and fire doors that were not properly maintained.
Shell International Ltd was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of the RRO.
The London Fire Brigade prosecuted Shell following two small fires in the space of three weeks in January 2007 at the Shell Centre on York Road. An inspection was then carried out which found escape routes and fire exits blocked, defective fire doors and excessive fire loading. The fire loading had increased because of refurbishment taking place in the upper floors.
The deficiencies were so severe that a prohibition notice was served, restricting the use of 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, whilst staff and members of the public were prevented access until the areas were considered safe enough to occupy.
It was also discovered that Shell's own fire risk assessment had not been reviewed or updated since March 2003. The 2003 fire risk assessment had identified some of the same failings that were observed during the inspection in 2007 and during the following years the general fire precautions in the Tower had deteriorated.
Kent Fire & Rescue Service successfully prosecuted a landlord for failing to ensure adequate safety measures were in place at a house of multiple occupancy.
He offered a plea of guilty to contravening Article 31 of the RRO and was ordered to pay a total of £1,550.
A landlord/hotel proprietor received nine month's suspended sentence, 180 hours community service and £2,000 for breaches of fire safety legislation. Following a complaint, officers from Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service visited the premises and served a prohibition notice.
This was due to a lack of a fire alarm and other basic fire safety, which presented a serious risk t guests. He was further instructed not to use the upper floors as sleeping accommodation until remedial work had been done. He was subsequently prosecuted when he ignored the this notice exposing guests to serious risk.
His Honour Judge Stokes said that ignoring the notice had put a number of lives at risk and it was only because of personal mitigation and an early guilty plea that stopped the landlord being immediately sent to prison.
A church organisation was ordered to pay £30,000 in fines and costs after leading guilty to three contraventions of the Fire Safety Order at Woolwich Crown Court.
This follows the issue of a prohibition notice which restricted the number of people on the ground floor of the premise to 600. However when the premises were later inspected by the fire brigade, around 1,200 were found in the main hall during a service. One fire exit was blocked by a steel bar and another adjoining was chained and locked. There was also the risk of an explosive and fast spreading fire by the 'haphazard' storage of 18 gas bottles coupled with the use of naked flame heaters in the hall.
The landlord of a commercial property pleaded guilty to seven breaches of fire safety legislation and was fined £670 per offence (a total of £4,690) and ordered to pay costs of more than £2,000 by Hyndburn Magistrates.
The seven charges included:
- Failing to provide a single risk assessment
- Failing to maintain the fire alarm system
- Failing to provide emergency lighting
- Failing to provide suitable fire fighting equipment
- Storing combustible materials at a means of escape
- Failing to provide fire separation
- Failing to keep exits clear and available
The first prosecution brought by Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service was against a recycling company and a fine of £20,000 plus costs of £10,000 were awarded by Runcorn Magistrates Court.
The prosecution followed a complaint which referred to fire safety issues and a visit to the premises revealed a large number of serious fire safety contraventions. These included an external staircase being obstructed with gas cylinders; fire exit doors obstructed or which could not be opened; exit routes that had no lighting or signs were obstructed; combustible materials being stored against the boundary fence of a tanker storage area and fire extinguishers that had either been discharged or were empty.
A businessman was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years and ordered 100 hours of community service following breaches of fire safety legislation at his premises. He was also fined a total £24,000 and had to pay costs of £9,000.
Officers had inspected the three storey building and made recommendations which needed completion before the building could be used as an indoor car boot market. Following a complaint the fire officers visited again and found that the premises were being used but the works had not been completed. A statutory notice was then served to prevent the premises being used until the work was finalised. He ws eventually prosectued when it became apparent that he had ignored the original advice and continued to trade without ensuring his premises were safe.
The owner of an Indian restaurant pleaded guilty to the charge of contravening a prohibition notice when it was discovered that he was allowing people to sleep above his restaurant despite being issued a notice to stop this practice. As there was only an escape route into an enclosed courtyard he was putting them at ris. The court ordered him to pay in excess of £7,000 which included a fine, costs and a contribution towards the services bringing the case.
A hotelier was charged with four breaches of the Fire Safety Order. These ncluded bedrooms without means of escape, inadequate emergency lighting/artificial lighting, incorrect testing of the fire alarm system and a prohibition notice being issued to stop the second floor being used.
However he continued to ignore reccommendations and fire safety officers believed that the risks would ultimately lead to fire deaths in the hotel.
He was fined a total of £145,000 for the offences and ordered to pay £49,488 to Suffolk Fire & Rescue and £8,039 for legal costs he had claimed and was not entitled to.
A company in Ipswich was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs in excess of £7,000 following a guilty plea to nine offences under the Fire Safety Order.
These included an unsuitable risk assessment; inappropriate storage of cylinders and fire doors wedged open; emergency routes blocked or obstructed; exits not sufficiently illuminated; failure to maintain structural fire precautions, alarm systems, emergency lighting and fire fighting equipment; failure to appoint one or more competent persons to assist in preventative and protective measures and inadequate fire safety training provided to employees.
Anolex Limited: Residential Fire Safety, Fire Risk Assessment Hampshire and south east, Risk assessment, Fire Safety Law, Fire Safety Law and Legislation, Health & Safety, Legislation, Training, Fire Training, Fire Safety Advice. London, surrey, kent, wiltshire.