FSO in focus A
S I indicated in my initial column last month, the government began publishing figures in relation to the
enforcement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 [FSO] in 2009-2010 – some three or more years after it came into force. The data which we have collated is extracted from those figures up to 2018-19, which at the time of writing are the latest figures that are available. In an attempt to obtain a global figure
for prosecutions since the FSO came into force, we asked fire and rescue services (FRSs) by way of a freedom of information request to confirm whether prosecutions have taken place between 2006 and 2009. Whilst we have received responses to those requests, the information gathered relates only to the number of prosecutions taken – with no detail in relation to the types of charges prosecuted. My own data is taken from cases that I
have been involved in since 1 October 2006 to date, in order to gather as much information as possible.
Breaches prosecuted
The government figures show that between 2009 and 2019, defendants were convicted of 1,904 charges. Of those charges, 443 (23%) related to Article 14 (emergency routes and exits). In my own cases, Article 14 represented 32% of all charges. This is clearly the most enforced article under the FSO, but this is likely to be because there are nine separate and distinct ways of breaching Article 14, whereas there are only a small number of ways in which other articles may be breached.
Premises prosecuted
This is an area where my own data was substantially at odds with the government statistics. The most common type of premises prosecuted across the country was shops, which represented 19.2% of all types of premises prosecuted. Shop premises
22 MARCH 2020
www.frmjournal.com
represented 1.5% of the cases I have been involved with - this may be explained by a number of reasons. I believe the primary reason to be down to
the way in which premises are described and recorded. I have been involved with many cases relating to living accommodation above a shop, but I would have recorded these premises as ‘multiple use’. This category is not used within the government statistics. The most common type of premises in the cases I have been involved with has been houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). These represent 24.8% of my cases and 17.5% of the national cases.
Prosecuting FRSs
The government statistics clearly show which FRSs were responsible for the majority of prosecutions, and which FRSs have had policies and procedures which have resulted in no prosecutions. The most by one FRS is 121, whereas three FRSs have not brought any prosecutions since the FSO came into force. In my view, the figures support the
contention that the nationwide location of an offence under the FSO is a significant factor in determining whether or not that offence will be prosecuted through the courts. Unless, of course, it is to be accepted that no fire safety offences have been committed in certain areas of the country, and only one or two offences in other areas between 2006 and 2018.
Warren Spencer drills down further into the detail of cases prosecuted under the Fire Safety Order, including building types and sentencing
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
