NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Company fined for ‘serious’ fire breaches at hotel
BUILDING OVERSEER VPS (UK) Ltd was prosecuted after serious fire safety breaches at a former hotel in Chesterfield. Derbyshire Times reported on
the prosecution of VPS over the Chesterfield Hotel building, which it was contracted to oversee. The property had been empty ‘for some time’, with Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (DFRS) undertaking an inspection during which they found that VPS had ‘failed to ensure’ fire doors were checked regularly, as well as that the fire alarm was tested weekly ‘on and before’ 27 October 2017. At that point, several members of the public had been renting rooms in the 73 room property, said DFRS deputy chief officer Gavin Tomlinson, and he added: ‘On October 27 2017, during a routine risk awareness inspection of their local area, firefighters from Chesterfield noted activity at the Chesterfield Hotel, a property that had been empty for some time.’ Mr Tomlinson explained: ‘Their
enquiries resulted in fire safety inspecting officers attending, to find that a number of people, referred to as property guardians, were occupying rooms on the premises. ‘Due to fire safety concerns
identified, a prohibition notice was served immediately, meaning the
occupants were not allowed to sleep at the premises until remedial work had been carried out to rectify the officers’ concerns.’ He also stated: ‘Such was the serious nature of the breaches of fire safety, the fire authority commenced legal action against VPS (UK) Ltd. If a fire had occurred, as there was only one escape route in such a large building, the occupants would have been at serious risk. The blocking of escape routes by locks or boarding cannot be tolerated unless robust alternative provisions have been put in place to ensure the safety of all occupants.
‘Owners and companies
overseeing the security of vacant buildings should recognise that they have a legal responsibility to ensure that any sleeping
accommodation they provide for guests, employees, guardians or any other person has a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment in place, which is reviewed regularly, and also ensure that facilities provided for safety from fire are maintained to a suitable standard. ‘DFRS is able to offer advice and guidance to enable businesses to comply with the requirements of the fire safety law. However, if a business does not follow the advice or the breaches are significant, then the service can use formal enforcement powers to ensure compliance.’ The news outlet noted that during a hearing at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court, VPS pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and was fined a total of £70,000
Landlord receives fine for attic fire hazard Both of these amounted
NASIF BOTROS was prosecuted after receiving a prohibition notice for an attic room that featured a ‘serious fire safety hazard’. The Comet reported on the
prosecution of Mr Botros after Stevenage Borough Council had given him a prohibition notice under the Housing Act 2004, preventing occupation of the attic in a property in The Noke in November 2014. This was handed out due to the ‘poor standard of works to convert the attic to habitable accommodation’, with this having resulted in a ‘serious fire safety hazard and one of excess cold’.
to Category 1 hazards under the Housing Act, and in July 2018 environmental health officers undertook an inspection of the property ‘acting on information received by the council which suggested the attic room was being lived in’. They found that this was the case and that this contravened the prohibition order, and while some improvements to the fire safety had been made, the staircase leading up to the attic ‘was deemed a serious safety risk’.
18 MARCH 2019
www.frmjournal.com
This had been constructed ‘within
a cupboard’, and was ‘excessively steep, with no handrails’, as well as no guard at the top of the stairs. In turn, the conversion ‘required improvements’ to both heating and insulation ‘that had not been made’, with Mr Botros prosecuted under Section 32 of the Housing Act for contravening the prohibition notice. At Luton Magistrates’ Court,
he was found guilty in his absence and fined £1,760, as well as being ordered to pay the council’s full legal costs of £2,571 and a victim surcharge of £170.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
