NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Restaurant manager sentenced for fire breaches
SYED HUSSAIN admitted four breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [FSO] at his Indian restaurant in Matlock, and received a suspended jail sentence and fine at court. Derbyshire Times reported on the case against Mr Hussain at Derby Crown Court relating to the Matlock restaurant, which had been inspected by Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (DFRS) firefighters in August 2018. They identified ‘faults’ on the fire alarm system, with a following safety audit finding that the alarm ‘was not functioning’, and that sleeping accommodation had been provided on the upper floors of the property. As a result, enforcement notices
were served on both Mr Hussain and the owners of the building. DFRS made ‘numerous’ attempts to contact all those involved, however letters ‘were ignored, or unanswered’, and a follow up visit from DFRS inspectors found that people were still sleeping on site, with the breaches identified in the enforcement notice ‘still outstanding’. Consequently, a prohibition notice was served to Mr Hussain in April 2019.
Nevertheless, this notice was ‘subsequently contravened’, because workers ‘continued to sleep on the premises’, and DFRS decided to formally prosecute Mr Hussain, who was charged with four breaches of the FSO. In court, he admitted the four
breaches, and was sentenced to 12 months in custody, suspended for two years, as well as being ordered to pay £5,000 in costs and to carry out 200 hours of community service. Steve Wells, DFRS group manager,
commented: ‘Had a fire occurred in this building, the lack of a fire alarm meant the people sleeping upstairs
would have had insufficient warning to get out. Providers of any form of sleeping accommodation, including flats, bedsits and houses in multiple occupation, must accept that they have a responsibility to ensure that the accommodation they provide has a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment in place. ‘They have a responsibility to
ensure the measures provided for safety, including fire doors, fire alarms and smoke detectors are maintained to a suitable standard. Escape routes must not be allowed to be used as storage, or places for waste disposal.’
HMO landlords and managers prosecuted
A NUMBER of landlords and managers were prosecuted by Newport City Council over a range of breaches in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), including ‘serious’ fire safety breaches. Wales247 reported on the
sentencing of the HMO landlords and managers, who were prosecuted by the council because the homes were not licensed, along with other issues including fire safety. Firstly, Jamshed Rana – who was
the owner and landlord of two properties – was found guilty in his absence of operating two unlicensed HMOs alongside a ‘number’ of safety regulation breaches, and was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £460, as well as a victim surcharge of £170. The manager of those two
properties meanwhile, Omar Rana, was also found guilty in his absence in relation to charges including ‘serious breaches of fire safety regulations’, rooms being ‘too small for habitation’, and exposed wiring to a hot water heater. As a result, he was fined £20,000 and was ordered to pay costs of £460, plus a victim surcharge of £170. Both related cases took place in March. Other prosecutions meanwhile
related to cases undertaken in January, with ADO Options and its director Aniela Orlicka pleading guilty to 27 offences, including failing to have licences for four HMOs, and ‘serious breaches of fire safety regulations’ in some of these. Both were fined £14,550, and were ordered to pay costs
14 JULY/AUGUST 2020
www.frmjournal.com
of £4,505, together with a victim surcharge of £84. Michael Davis, the owner of
three of those properties, was separately fined £6,210, ordered to pay costs of £2,799 and a victim surcharge of £30. Ray Truman, cabinet member
for licensing and regulation, stated: ‘Operating properties without the necessary fire precautions leaves tenants at serious risk of death. ‘Regulations in relation to
HMOs are there to protect and safeguard tenants so we take seriously any breaches of the rules. Landlords and property owners have to meet their obligations under the law or we will not hesitate to take robust action, as shown in this case.’
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
