NEWS


Fines and prosecutions Estate agent prosecuted over ‘substandard’ safety


MILLER METCALFE Estate Agents Ltd was prosecuted over a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Bolton, which had a series of fire safety issues. Bolton News reported on the


prosecution of the firm over the property in Deansgate, which was home to two ground floor businesses and a single flat on the first floor, in which the same tenant had lived since 1985. The firm let out the second and third floors in April 2017 as one flat to three more tenants, which resulted in it being reclassified as an HMO and, as such, required the company to ‘follow strict safety requirements’.


During a council inspection, it


was discovered that the property had no fire protected escape route in order to allow occupants


to evacuate safely, while in addition, it was not fitted with the required interlinked fire alarm system, something which was stated to be ‘particularly concerning given the size of the building and commercial premises below’. As a consequence, the council served an emergency prohibition order ‘immediately’, which prevented the second and third floors from being used as accommodation. Occupants of the flat


were found alternative accommodation, and at Bolton Magistrates’ Court the company admitted three offences, including that it had not taken ‘all reasonable measures’ to ensure tenant safety, and that it had failed to put contact details on display in the property as


stipulated by HMO regulations’. It was fined £3,000, alongside being ordered to pay costs of £1,496 and a £120 victim surcharge. Executive cabinet member


for environmental services at Bolton Council, Adele Warren, commented: ‘Everyone has a right to feel safe in their own home and this result sends a clear message to landlords that put people at risk by cutting corners or ignoring regulations. As a council, our first priority is to work constructively with landlords to help them comply with all the relevant legislation. ‘However, we will not hesitate


to take legal action against those that flout the rules and put profits before the health and safety of Bolton residents.’


THE OWNERS of Kuda in York have applied for planning permission to fit new fire escape doors, having been fined £42,000 after a prosecution by North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (NYFRS). York Press reported on the


club’s application to fit new doors after NYFRS discovered that more than 1,300 people were in the club on 24 November 2017, when the fire safety assessment had outlined that customer numbers should be limited to 645.


An NYFRS spokesman stated that most of the guests were


Prosecuted nightclub to install new fire doors young people ‘who had been drinking alcohol’, so if a fire had broken out ‘there was a real risk that they would have become trapped in a burning building’. As a consequence, the club’s


owner Deltic Group Ltd was prosecuted by NYFRS, with Judge Geoffrey Marson sentencing the owners to pay a fine of £42,000 and costs of £16,666 in June. Judge Marson stated in turn


that ‘a very dangerous situation had developed’ at the nightclub, and that ‘had there been a fire, it is too awful to contemplate


18 OCTOBER 2019 www.frmjournal.com


what might have happened’. Due to the ruling, the club is now applying to get planning permission for new fire escape doors, with a statement in the application commenting: ‘The existing door is a plain,


black painted non-original modern door, which will be replaced with a new bi-fold door. The new door will have an adjacent door and will be painted black to match. ‘These works are required to


further improve the fire safety of the unit’.


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