NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Penalty for restaurant found to be ‘risking lives’
CHINA PALACE Worthing Ltd, the owner of the China Palace restaurant in Worthing, Sussex, has been fined £44,000 after a series of fire safety issues were found to be ‘risking employees’ lives’. The Argus reported on the
prosecution of the company at Worthing Magistrates Court, where Worthing Borough Council and West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS) held the case after a tip off saw inspectors discover staff sleeping in 12 rooms above the restaurant. The inspection in July 2019 also found fire doors ‘propped open’ and equipment blocking escape routes’, as well as ‘untested’ fire detection, and a prohibition order was served demanding repairs be made.
In addition, WSFRS found that
firefighting equipment in the rooms ‘had not been maintained’, and a follow up investigation in December 2019 concluded that ‘no substantive improvements’ had been made. In court, the company was accused of exposing the staff to a ‘serious risk of life’, and it pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations, with magistrates fining the company £44,226 for the four offences. Also, the magistrates stated that the firm had ‘exposed people living at the property to a serious risk of loss of life for more than six months with very little activity in relation
to repairs’, and council customer services chief councillor Heather Mercer said in turn that the case was a warning to companies housing staff in similar conditions. A council spokesman also noted that the ‘substantial fine’ showed that the courts ‘had recognised the seriousness of the offences’. Ms Mercer commented: ‘We
take very seriously the right of everyone in this borough to live in safe accommodation. Let this be a warning to anyone else who would house people in such conditions that we will not hesitate to prosecute you. I want to congratulate the members of our private sector housing team for their diligence and dedication.’
Building site fire risks land companies with fines The companies also failed
THREE CONSTRUCTION companies have been fined for their failure to implement fire safety measures on a construction site located in Worcestershire. Leicester Mercury reported
on the prosecution of the three principal contractors at the site in Pershore, where they were building a three storey timber frame extension to a sheltered accommodation residential home. An investigation by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) in October 2017 found no ‘adequate fire prevention controls in place, thereby putting members of the public at risk’.
to ‘fulfil their respective duties to plan, manage and monitor construction work in a manner that prevents risks from fire’, and the HSE stated that they should have ‘implemented a plan to reduce any remaining fire risks’ during the construction phase of the project, with the three including Midland Timber Engineering (Leicester) Ltd [MTE], E Manton Ltd and Thornton – Firkin LLP. All three pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at Worcester Crown Court. MTE was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay
16 JUNE 2020
www.frmjournal.com
costs of £6,413; E Manton Ltd was fined £26,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,944; and Thornton – Firkin LLP was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,133. HSE inspector Christopher
Gregory commented: ‘These cases highlight the need for all duty- holders to take proactive action to ensure they are not putting workers and others at risk from foreseeable fire risks by taking reasonably practicable actions, in accordance with industry standards, to comply with their duties under the respective regulations.’ He then added: ‘Fire kills and members of the public have a right to be protected.’
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
