5 ISSUE 15 • 2010 • WWW.FIA.UK.COM NAMED & SHAMED


Further prosecutions under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order [RRO]


Southampton


ATS Euromaster was successfully prosecuted from inadequate standards under the Fire Safety Order. During an inspection by Hampshire Fire & Rescue a number of contraventions of fi re safety measures inside the building were discovered. These included: • Not providing any lighting in an escape route


• Insuffi cient fi re safety training for the manager


• Not having carried a suitable fi re risk assessment • Obstruction of a fi re exit • Failure to provide adequate means of giving warning in case of fi re It was fi ned £7,500 after pleading guilty to the fi ve charges.


Southampton


The Co-operative Group was fi ned £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of more than £28,000 after pleading guilty to six breaches of the Fire Safety Order.


After carrying out fi re safety inspections at one of the Co-op’s Southampton stores Hampshire Fire & Rescue Authority found that the organisation had failed to keep the rear emergency doors


unlocked and had fi tted a lock requiring a security code on the emergency door between the retail and storage areas, which prevented the door being opened easily in an emergency. It was also noted that the


Group failed to ensure that the store manager was given suitable and suffi cient fi re safety training and they had failed to ensure that the fi re alarm system was tested on a regular basis. Southampton Crown Court also heard that breaches occurred at two other Southampton premises and a store in Portsmouth.


Southampton


A landlord of a house of multiple occupation (HMO) was ordered to pay fi nes and costs of £25,000 after pleading guilty to seven charges relating to inadequate fi re safety standards. Mr Hoskins, owner of a


property in Shirley Avenue, Southampton did not have a suitable fi re risk assessment for his building and did not have a working fi re alarm to warn the tenants if a fi re started. Hampshire Fire & Rescue


Service’s Fire Protection Group also discovered a number of fi re precaution failures including missing and disabled fi re doors,


as well as combustibles blocking escape routes. Together these failures made the situation so dangerous that Fire Offi cers prohibited Mr Hoskins from allowing people to live and sleep in the building. However, at a subsequent inspection it was found that Mr Hoskins had allowed tenants to remain in his premises, contrary to the Prohibition Notice, exposing them to risk of death or serious injury should a fi re start. In summing up Judge Hope stated that Mr Hoskins had not been fully frank and helpful to the investigating offi cers and that he had a ‘cavalier attitude to fi re safety’.


Bayswater, London


Malfax Investments Ltd admitted six offences under the Fire Safety Order and was ordered to pay over £21,000 in fi nes and costs following a prosecution brought by the London Fire Brigade. The Averard Hotel on Lancaster Gate was inspected by fi re offi cers who found a number of fi re safety failings, including inadequate fi re detection and alarm system, problems with the external means of escape and inadequate and defective fi re doors. As a result of these failings an enforcement notice was issued detailing the issues and when they needed to be completed. The company disclosed a fi re


risk assessment that detailed a number of failings and advised the steps needed to address them but Malfax Investments Ltd had failed to act on these and implement any actions required to ensure peoples safety in the event of a fi re.


The hotel closed shortly after


the enforcement notice was issued.


Tadworth, Surrey


The landlord, the manager and the lessee of the Royal Phoenix Chinese Restaurant were fi ned


in excess of £13,000 with costs of £13,000 over seven breaches of the Fire Safety Order. Colin Perry (landlord), Mrs


Wen Chun Yeoh (manager) and Mrs Pei Yu Liang (lessee) failed to carry out a suitable and suffi cient fi re risk assessment which resulted in the premises having no safe escape route from the fi rst fl oor, an inadequate fi re alarm system and inadequate emergency lighting. The building, which was in a poor state of repair, had areas with high fi re loading. One room was found to contain a stack of Bamboo chairs and a petrol strimmer and there were signs of discarded smoking materials.


Barnet, London


The retailer, Tesco, has been fi ned £95,000 and ordered to pay £24,321 in costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.


London Fire Brigade


prosecuted Tesco following a fi re and subsequent inspection of a supermarket in Colney Hatch, Barnet. When fi re-fi ghters were called they found the premises locked but managed to get the attention of a shop fl oor worker who was restocking after closing hours. Fire-fi ghters then discovered that there had been a fi re in the staff kitchen but that it had been put out by staff using extinguishers and a fi re blanket. There was a signifi cant amount of smoke in the kitchen, the corridor and staff locker rooms and fi re crews had to ask several times to evacuate the premises. This incident led to concerns


about fi re safety within the store and it was inspected by the Brigade the day after the fi re. The inspector found a number of breaches of fi re legislation, which included a failure to review the shop’s fi re risk assessment. Other serious defi ciencies included a failure to ensure escape routes were kept clear and an inadequate fi re


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12