NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Large fines for ‘potentially catastrophic’ student block
THREE COMPANIES have been ordered to pay £670,000, the largest fine under current fire safety legislation, after admitting ‘potentially catastrophic’ fire safety failures at a student accommodation block. Leeds Live reported on the
prosecution of Trinity Developments Ltd, Niche Homes Ltd and APP Construction Ltd, which are respectively the owners, managers and developers of the Trinity Halls student accommodation block in the city. At Leeds Crown Court, the companies were prosecuted by West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYFRS) after it inspected the site amid concerns from parents of students moving their children into the block. In September 2016, a concerned
father called WYFRS to report the building, as he had been moving his daughter into the block ‘but became concerned by the state of the premises and would not let his daughter stay’. WYFRS inspectors attended and discovered ‘breaches in legislation’ across the block, and found out that students had moved in on the upper ground floor ‘while other floors were still under construction’. Failures that ‘contributed to
the significant risk’ included a ‘lack of appropriate fire alarms and detection’, exposed timber framing, storage of flammable items on stairwells and ‘no markings indicating fire escape routes’. There was only one ‘available’ fire escape that was ‘compromised due to
combustible materials’, so students ‘would not have had early warning to evacuate’ and ‘would have had to travel 35 metres to get to the nearest fire escape, almost double the recommended limit of 18 metres’. At that point, 27 students had
moved in, but WYFRS inspectors issued a prohibition order that forced them to move out ‘for their own safety’. Judge Mairs, the case’s judge,
stated that the situation had the ‘potential for catastrophe’ and praised WYFRS for issuing the prohibition order ‘quickly and reducing the time students were put at risk’, with all three companies admitting a series of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Trinity Developments Ltd and
Niche Homes Ltd both admitted the same four breaches, including: failing to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment; failing to take precautions to make sure the premises were safe from risk of fire; failing to provide an appropriate fire detection and alarm system; and failing to provide an adequate number of fire escape routes and exits. APP Construction Ltd admitted failing to provide an adequate number of fire escape routes and exits as well. The three ‘were all offered credit
in court for their early guilty pleas’ at previous hearings, although Judge Mairs said that all three companies had ‘high culpability’, adding that the ‘risks were so
18 APRIL 2020
www.frmjournal.com
obvious that a member of the public spotted them – so they should have been obvious to the companies involved’. APP Construction Ltd was fined £450,000, Trinity Developments Ltd £160,000 and Niche Homes Ltd £60,000, with all three agreeing to pay respective costs of £9,000, £6,000 and £6,000. Chris Kemp, WYFRS senior fire
protection manager, commented: ‘This case demonstrates the importance that those responsible for building construction, development and occupation have in understanding their duties and acting responsibly to take account of the safety of the people they are responsible for. ‘As Judge Mairs highlighted, the dangers and risks found at Trinity Halls were so obvious, anyone without a technical fire safety background could identify them. The conditions that were found on site were such that some of our senior officers have not seen such blatant disregard for the law and the safety of residents in 28 years. ‘[WYFRS] are committed to ensuring the communities of West Yorkshire are safe and feel safe in the buildings they use. We will continue to work with building owners to support them in achieving this, however when we are faced with concerns such as were found at Trinity Halls, we have no alternative but to consider legal action against those responsible for putting people at risk.’
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
