NEWS


Fines and prosecutions Fireworks company prosecuted in Cornwall


CORNWALL FIRE and Rescue Service (CFRS) undertook a prosecution of Big Bang (Fireworks) Productions Ltd after fireworks were stored without proper licences. The service stated that in 2016, the


company prosecuted had acquired ‘highly dangerous’ hazard type 1 (HT1) explosives and transported and stored them at Maker Barracks, in Kingsand, Cornwall, ‘without the necessary licences and without a suitable and sufficient risk assessment’. The explosives, which filled a small van, would have ‘caused damage comparable to that of a military land mine’, and were only discovered during a routine inspection by a fire service protection officer. The case was taken to Truro


Town Court, at which directors Steven Williams and Martin Edwards pleaded guilty to ‘failure to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment’, as well as acquiring and storing HT1 explosives without a licence. The two men were sentenced to 16 week custodial sentences for each count ‘to run


Mark Hewitt, CFRS’ chief fire


officer, commented: ‘It brings no pleasure to fire officers to take a company to court. However, where there is a blatant disregard for legislation designed to protect the public, it is necessary to ensure it is followed up. ‘In this case the circumstances


concurrently’ and suspended for two years, while their company was fined £1,000 per count and ordered to pay prosecution costs in full. Judge Linford told both men


that they ‘were criminally reckless in transporting a large number of highly dangerous fireworks’ that were HT1 explosives, and commended CFRS officers for the ‘very delicate and careful way they had dealt with the situation’. CFRS thanked Cornwall Council Legal Services, as well as Redcliffe International (Shipping) Ltd and Her Majesty’s Royal Naval Bomb Disposal, the Southern Diving Unit (SDU1), ‘who safely removed and destroyed’ explosives.


were serious enough to have created a very real risk of a serious explosion which could have cost lives.


‘I hope this case demonstrates


the need for companies and individuals to ensure they take responsibility for the safety of their employees and the public, and to understand that where they do not the Fire and Rescue Service will take action to enforce the law.’ Sue James, the council’s cabinet member for environment and public protection, added: ‘I want to thank our Cornwall Fire, Rescue and Community Safety Service for identifying and acting on this potentially dangerous situation. Another example of our staff keeping residents safe.’


Reading landlord pleads guilty to fire safety breaches


MOHAMMED NAZIR was ordered to pay a fine of £2,500 after officers discovered issues at his property in East Reading. In Your Area reported on


the prosecution of Mr Nazir, after Reading Borough Council officers visited his property on Grange Avenue ‘out of concerns it was being operated’ as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without a proper licence. On visiting the property, seven students were found to be living there, with fire doors ‘not fitted with smoke seals and self closers’ and internal doors having ‘disconnected self closers’, while a smoke detector ‘had not been maintained in good order’. At Reading Magistrates’ Court, Mr Nazir admitted breaching the Housing Act 2004 by failing to obtain an HMO licence for the house, as well as breaching


the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 in relation to the fire safety breaches. He was ordered to pay £2,500 in costs and fines as a consequence. John Ennis, lead member for


housing, commented: ‘It is simply not acceptable for landlords of HMOs to flout regulations when it comes to the safety of their tenants.


12 APRIL 2018 www.frmjournal.com


‘Most private landlords


behave responsibly but this case demonstrates that the council continues to stand up for Reading’s private renters. ‘I am glad that our private


sector housing team, with the support of our lawyers, are there to stick up for private renters and take action against the minority of landlords who fail to put in the required safety precautions.’


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