Fire safety failures at a house in multiple occupation in North London have resulted in a £32,000 fine.
Ed Watson outlines the prosecution

Camden Council in North London recently prosecuted two companies and their director for managing a house which posed a serious fire risk to its tenants.  The property in question was an unlicensed house of multiple occupation (HMO), which contained several hazards that would have put the tenants at risk in the event of a fire.  Highbury corner Magistrates’ Court fined them more than £32,000.

The house, situated in Swiss Cottage, did not feature a fire detection or alarm system, there were no fire doors, and potentially flammable materials were unsafely stored in cupboards.  In addition, the only smoke alarm in the property was not working and there were no escape routes from the upper floors.

The three-storey townhouse was designed to be occupied by one family.  It was let to seven tenants through two management copies, BP Associates Limited and Blix Limited.  Alex Begun was a director of both companies.  BP Associates Limited was in a letting contract with the freehold company, and Blix Limited collected rent and management the property on behalf of its sister company.

Both companies manage a large portfolio of properties throughout the Camden area and its neighbouring boroughs, including licensed HMOs and individual flats.  They were therefore familiar with the need to licence the property in Swiss Cottage, and were aware of their responsibilities as a landlord.

Fire Risks

Camden Council’s enforcement team discovered a range of fire risks in the property after carrying out a detailed inspection.  Two officers visited the house and found it had been let as an HMO, but with no planning consent.  The house features a living room and kitchen on the ground floor, with a staircase leaving up to bedrooms and bathrooms on the two upper floors.  On inspection, it was found that none of the doors to the upstairs rooms offered a 30 minute fire resistance, and the doors to the ground-floor living room and kitchen were missing.  In addition, the property had not automatic fire detection or alarm system, and no emergency lighting.  There was a single-point battery operated smoke detector installed, but this was not working.  Further investigation found that while the first-floor landing was spacious, it was full of laundry and other flammable possessions belonging to the tenants.  Elsewhere, a storage cupboard and a cupboard under the staircase on the ground floor also contained flammable materials.  With missing doors to the kitchen and living room (these being classed as the highest-risk rooms) and flammable items in the escape route, a fire could have spread quickly through the building trapping the residents.

Mounting the Case

To prove the landlord was breaching fire regulations, Camden Council had to show that the house met the definition of an HMO, as set out in the Housing Act 2004 in England and Wales.

As such, the Council had to provide evidence that the residents were unrelated tenants, not living together as partners, and that they occupied the property as their ‘only or main residence’.  In addition, the Council had to show that the house was only being used for living accommodation, that the tenants paid rent, and that they shared kitchens or bathrooms.  Further to this, it had to show that the managing companies met the definition of ‘person managing’, as set out in Section 263 of the Housing Act.  To do this, the Council had to prove that the companies received, or would receive, rent or other payments form the occupiers and were an owner or lessee of the premises.  When carrying out such an investigation and mounting a potential prosecution, it can be difficult to obtain all the necessary information if tenants are not willing to give statements or attend court.  In this case, the defendants owed the owner more than £20,000 in rent and they had received ‘notices to quit’.  This meant there was a risk that the tenants could leave before the court hearings, and it might become difficult to keep in contact with them.
However, despite these difficulties, the Council was able to collect statements from the tenants and obtain enough evidence to take the case to court.

The two companies were found guilty of failing to licence the property, eight offences relating to neglecting fire safety precautions and three other management offences concerning cleanliness.  The failure to submit a licence application was an offence under the Housing Act 2004 Part 2.  The management offences related to the contraventions of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006.  Mr Begun tried to prove that he was responsible for the financial control of the companies but was not involved in the practical management of the house.  However, as a director of each company, he was also convicted and fined twice for each offence.  Each company was fined £13,800, including costs, and Mr Begun was fined £4,800 for his failures as the companies’ director.  The first £500 of the total £32,400 must be paid by 29 March 2010.

Breaching Regulations

Prior to changes to the law in 2006, it was an offence for a landlord to fail to maintain existing fire precautions.  This meant, for example, that a landlord could not previously have been prosecuted for a fire door that had no self-closing device, but if a self-closing device had been fitted as was not working, the landlord would have been in breach of regulations.  The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 contain additional safety clauses which the Council was able to use to bring about the prosecution for the fire breaches.  Like previous legislation, it contains clauses whereby the manager must ensure ‘that all means of escape from fire are kept free from obstruction and are kept in good order and repair’.  However, these regulations contain an additional offence: the manager must take all such measures as are reasonably required to protect the occupiers of the HMO from injury, having regard to:

• The design of the HMO
• The structural conditions in the HMO
• The number of occupiers in the HMO

This can relate to any hazard, including fire, and in this case the Council argued that the complete absence of fire prevention measure meant that the landlord was not protecting the tenants from injury.  It is believe this is the first time this clause was used to refer to a fire hazard.

If Mr Begun had applied for planning permission and a licence for the HMO, he would have been advised of the steps he needed to take to comply with relevant Building Regulations.

Fire Precautions

The Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) publish a national standard and guidance on fire precautions in various types of HMO.  The higher the building, the greater the fire risk, because the property is likely to be occupied by more residents.  It also means the escape route is longer from the top of the house to the bottom.  The greater the fire risk, the more fire precautions need to be put in place.

In this case, the property should have had a 30 minute fire-resistant structure between each room and storage cupboard, and the ‘protected escape route’.  This means the doors to each room needed replacing with 30-minute fire doors.  The underside of the staircase needed to be under-drawn with a 30 minute fire-resistant construction.  Cupboards should have either been empty and locked shut, or been of 30 minute fire-resistant construction.

In addition, the property should have had a Grade A LD2 fire detection and alarm system, comprising a heat detector in the kitchen, and smoke detectors in each bedsit and landing.  It also needed break-glass call-points on the wall of each landing, at the head of the staircase flight, and by the front exit door – all connected to a zoned control panel situated in the hall.

The house required emergency lighting to illuminate the escape route, and information to tenants on what to do in the event of a fire.  There should also have been a fire blanket fixed to the wall near to the kitchen cooker.  Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, enforced by the fire authority, landlords are required to undertake a fire risk assessment to identify the fire precautions that a property needs.

When a landlord applies for an HMO licence, they supply plans of their property.  The application also allows the landlord to state what fire precautions are ready in their property.  An environmental health officer then arranges an inspection, to check the information supplied by the landlord.  If the Council decides the fire precautions are inadequate, they use the plans of the property to draw up scheme, which is then checked by the fire authority.  This scheme advises the landlord what additional works are needed, and they are subsequently given a reasonable amount of time to upgrade the property.

Following their prosecution, Mr Begun and his companies are now unlikely to be allowed to be HMO licence holders.  This means the other properties they hold licences for may need to be re-licensed.  The defendants, following the accumulation of more than £20,000 in rent arrears, are no longer involved in the management of the property.  It was considered that it was in the public interest to prosecute to protect tenants, as the defendants manage a large number of HMOs and flats in London

Source:  Fire Risk Management – January 2010