Number of fires for which reports were received: 109

Total estimated loss in these fires: £108,408,657

January 2009

Total estimated fire damage reported by insurers caused by the following fires costing £250,000-plus or involving fatalities: £400,000

1. – Retail showroom, Inverness, Highlands and Islands : £400,000

Source: Fire Risk Management – January 2010

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

Source: Fire Risk Management Nov 2009

The prosecutions followed a fire on 31 March 2007, in a house that had been converted into bedsits.  After the fire, safety inspectors from the London Fire Brigade found a number of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.  These included inadequate fire detection systems, lack of proper fire doors on bedrooms or to the communal kitchen, no emergency lighting in the stairway, no portable fire fighting equipment and no fire risk assessment available for inspection.

As a result of the breaches listed a further inspection was arranged and the owners were asked to be present.  An enforcement notice was then issued explaining the breaches that needed to be dealt with but after further visits over a number of months the inspecting officers found that no work to make the building safe had been completed.

Brian Coleman AM FRSA, Chairman of the London Fire Brigade and Emergency Planning Authority said, “This is our second prosecution resulting in a custodial sentence and again sends out a strong message to landlords and building owners.  Our role is to keep Londoners safe, and where we see that you are not taking your legal fire safety responsibilities seriously, we will take action.”

For help and information on your Fire Safety responsibilities please contact  Workplace Fire & Safety Ltd

Source: Focus Magazine – Issue 12 / 2009

Contact Workplace Fire & Safety Ltd for further information

Guidance on the changes can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/firstaid

Source – Safety Management October 2009

After many months of discussion the revisions to BS5306-3: 2009 have been published.  But are the changes revolutionary or straightforward; do they require variations to your procedures or are they merely rubber-stamping what you already do?

For a start the title has changed from Code of Practice for the Inspection and Maintenance of Portable Fire Extinguishers to Commissioning and Maintenance of Portable Fire Extinguishers – Code of Practice.  This was changed because it is now understood that inspection is part of the commissioning process and so the title now reflects the true nature of the work.

The new version of the Standard also acknowledges that extinguishers should be fit for purpose and maintained correctly and that those installed meet actual requirements.  The Responsible Person must ensure that a Competent Person is employed to undertake these tasks, thereby ensuring that he meets some of his obligations under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order (FSO).

The Responsible Person, who in previous versions was referred to as the user, now has a number of duties under the FSO including a check for missing parts and that results are put on record.  It also states that if they have any doubt they should always consult a Competent Person.  Furthermore, they should always advise their Competent Person of any changes that are likely to affect the extinguisher cover.

The interval for basic service has been changed to reflect the fact that it is almost impossible to visit premises exactly 12 months from the previous appointment and the basic service now has a tolerance of one month either side.  Also during this service the technician must complete a weight check on all extinguishers including the cartridge operated type.

The extended service has also changed the intervals between services and for water, water based or powder extinguishers this should be carried out five years from the date it was commissioned or six years from the date of manufacture; whichever is the sooner.  However, if the extinguisher is a primary sealed powder type then the service may be carried out 10 years after commissioning or 11 years from the date of manufacturer.  Again, whichever is the sooner is the rule.

For some time now there have been concerns raised regarding the ageing and wear of plastic head caps and the Standard now attempts to deal with these.  Firstly, a definition of a plastic head cap has been included; secondly it recommends that plastic head caps should be replaced at the end of an extended service and before reassembly of the extinguisher and lastly, in the interest of safety, if a head cap has been painted, or if it shows signs of UV degradation then it should be replaced before a test discharge is completed.

Labelling has also come under scrutiny with the new version and there is now guidance on labelling and marking.  It recommends that distributor and service provider labels do not block out any markings required by EN3.  Also, the maintenance label (which used to be called the Maintenance record) should have the full postal address of the service provider and a statement that it has been serviced to BS5306-3.  This again helps the Responsible Person to show that they are fulfilling their legal obligations.

The maintenance report must include details for the provision of permanent replacements for condemned or missing extinguishers, or for those that have not been maintained.  It should also provide advice if coverage in the building needs improving as the service technician is seen as the best person to suggest this.

The Certificate of Inspection should now include the following:

• Name, full address and telephone number of the service company
• Date of inspection
• Service technicians ID
• List of all extinguishers serviced and those that do not conform
• Signature of Responsible Person
• Statement advising that the service has been carried out in accordance with BS5306-3.

The Standard also provided guidance on extinguishers manufactured prior to 2002.  If they do not have a CE marking they should be condemned as they do not comply with UK law.  However if they have been refurbished this does not apply.  Extinguishers made to standards older than EN3 are acceptable as long as they remain serviceable and are marked with a fire rating.

Training requirements have also been updated in the new versions and the initial training remains the same, although it does acknowledge that the providers have changed and that certificates held by bodies that no longer provide training are still accepted.  It is also now accepted that continual professional development provides adequate knowledge and experience to be an alternative to the traditional refresher training course.

For questions please visit Workplace-Fire-Safety.co.uk

These changes can be read in full in the latest version of the Standard and should you not yet have your copy, please visit the FIA website where there is a section to order any British Standard you require.  Go to www.fla.uk.com and click on Purchase BSi Standards.

Source: Focus Magazine – Issue 12 / 2009

Reading, Berkshire

A landlord was fined £2,500 and order to pay £3,500 in costs following a prosecution for failing to take adequate fire safety precautions.  He admitted two charges of placing persons at serious risk of death or serious injury from fire and for failing to provide an appropriate fire alarm system.

Brixton, London

A company director was ordered to pay £5,500 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to 11 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).  A fire safety inspection in July 2007 found that there were no emergency procedures, excessive storage in escape routes and no appropriate fire safety training for staff and an enforcement notice was issued.  A follow-up inspection in December discovered that the enforcement notice had still not been complied with.

Southall, Middlesex

A property management company has been ordered to pay over £25,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation.  The prosecution followed a fire on 14 November 2007 at a house which had been converted into flats.  The fire started under the stairs due to an overload of the electrical systems.  Inspecting officers visiting the premises the next day found several fire safety failings including no means of detecting fire in the building and fire doors that were not properly maintained.

Waterloo, London

Shell International Ltd was fined £300,000 and order to pay £45,000 costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of the RRO.  The London Fire Brigade prosecuted Shell following two small fires in the space of three weeks in January 2007 at the Shell Centre on York Road.  An inspection was then carried out which found escape routes and fire exits blocked, defective fire doors and excessive fire loading.  The fire loading had increased because of refurbishments taking place in the upper floors.  The deficiencies were so severe that a prohibition notice was served, restricting the use of Shell Tower and basement levels.   Under the notice only people working to remedy the fire safety deficiencies were allowed to enter those parts of the building, whilst staff and members of the public were prevented access until the areas were considered safe enough to occupy.  It was also discovered that Shell’s own fire risk assessment had not been reviewed or updated since March 2003.  The 2003 fire risk assessment had identified some of the same failings that were observed during the inspection in 2007 and during the following years the general fire precautions in the Tower had deteriorated.  Assistant Commissioner Steve Turek said, “Shell failed to respond properly to their risk assessment for three and a half years and had it not been for the fires which led to the inspection, it could have been considerably longer.  Had Shell acted upon the findings of the 2003 risk assessment at the time, they would have avoided putting their staff at risk.”

Cliftonville, Kent

Kent Fire & Rescue Service successfully prosecuted a landlord for failing to ensure adequate safety measures were in place at a house of multiple occupancy.  He offered a plead of guilty to contravening Article 31 of the RRO and was ordered to pay a total of £1550.  John Pereira, Kent Fire & Rescue’s Head of Technical Safety said, “…..this sends a message to housing landlords across the country that they must take fire safety seriously or we will prosecute them.”

Nottingham

A landlord/hotel proprietor received a nine month’s suspended sentence, 180 hours of community service and £2,000 for breaches of fire safety legislation.  Following a complaint, officers from Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service visited the premises and served a prohibition notice.  This was due to a lack of a fire alarm and other basic fire safety, which presented a serious risk to guests.  He was further instructed not to use the upper floors as sleeping accommodation until remedial work had been done.  The was subsequently prosecuted when he ignored this notice exposing guests to serious risk.  In his sentencing remarks, His Honour Judge Stokes observed that this was the first breach of a prohibition notice to become before Nottingham Crown Court under the Fire Safety Order 2005.  He said that ignoring the notice had put a number of lives at risk and it was only because of personal mitigation and an early guilty plea that stopped the landlord being immediately sent to prison.  He continued by saying that this offence had to be marked with a prison sentence so that it would send the word out to future defendants, but that the prison sentence would not necessarily be suspended.

Erith, London

A church organisation was ordered to pay £30,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to three contraventions of the Fire Safety Order at Woolwich Crown Court.  This follows the issue of a prohibition notice which restricted the number of people on the ground floor of the premises to 600.  However when the premises were later inspected by the fire brigade, around 1,200 were found in the main hall during a service.  One fire exit was blocked by a steel bar and another adjoining was changed and locked.  There was also the risk of an explosive and fast spreading fire by the ‘haphazard’ storage of 18 gas bottles coupled with the use of naked flame heaters in the hall.  Steve Turek, Assistant Commissioner commented, “These offences presented a real risk of injury to the congregation who are our main concern.  Church Groups and other which organise large gatherings need to make sure their premises are fit for purpose and that they take their responsibility very seriously to ensure the safety of visitors.”

Accrington, Lancashire

The landlord of a commercial property pleaded guilty to seven breaches of fire safety legislation and was fined £670 per offence (a total of £4,690) and ordered to pay costs of more than £2000 by Hyndburn Magistrates.

The seven charges included:

• Failing to provide a single risk assessment
• Failing to maintain the fire alarm system
• Failing to provide emergency lighting
• Failing to provide suitable fire fighting equipment
• Storing combustible materials at a means of escape
• Failing to provide fire separation
• Failing to keep exits clear and available

Lancashire’s Chief Fire Officer, Peter Holland commented, “I trust that this case will emphasise to other landlords in Lancashire the importance of enforcing food fire safety standards.  There should be no doubt that the law requires this action, and the public can be assured that we will vigorously pursue our enforcement responsibilities where failings are identified.”

Widnes, Cheshire

The first prosecution brought by Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service was against a recycling company and a fine of £20,000 plus costs of £10,000 were awarded by Runcorn Magistrates Court.  The prosecution followed a complaint which referred to fire safety issues and a visit to the premises revealed a large number of serious fire safety contraventions.  These included an external staircase being obstructed with gas cylinders; fire exit doors obstructed or which could not be opened; exit routes that had no lighting or signs were obstructed; combustible materials being stored against the boundary fence of a tanker storage area and fire extinguishers that had either been discharged or were empty.

Mansfield, Nottinghamshire

A businessman was sentenced to six months in prison suspended for two years and ordered 100 hours of community service following breaches of fire safety legislation at his premises.  He was also fined a total of £24,000 and had to pay £9,000 costs.  Officers had inspected the three storey building and made recommendations which needed completion before the building could be used as an indoor car boot market.  Following a complaint the fire officers visited again and found that the premises were being used but the works had not been completed.  A statutory notice was then served to prevent the premises being used until the work was finalised.  He was eventually prosecuted when it became apparent that he had ignored the original advice and continued to trade without ensuring his premises were safe.  Mark Huckerby, Head of Fire Protection at Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service said “….my officers had previously spend some time ensuring that the occupier was aware of his responsibilities and duties to ensure peoples safety and it is disappointing that he chose to place people at risk from fire.”

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

The owner of an Indian restaurant pleased guilty to the charge of contravening a prohibition notice when it was discovered that he was allowing people to sleep above his restaurant despite being issued a notice to stop this practice.  As there was only an escape route into an enclosed courtyard he was putting them at risk.  The court ordered him to pay in excess of £7,000 which included a fine, costs and a contribution towards the services bringing the case.

Brandon, Ipswich

An hotelier was charged with four breaches of the Fire Safety Order.  These included bedrooms without means of escape, inadequate emergency lighting / artificial lighting, incorrect testing of the fire alarm system and a prohibition notice being issued to stop the second floor being used.  However, he continued to ignore recommendations and fire safety officers believed that the risk would ultimately lead to fire deaths in the hotel.  He was fined a total of £145,000 for the offences and ordered to pay £49,488 to Suffolk Fire & Rescue and £8,039 for legal costs he had claimed and was not entitled to.

Ipswich, Suffolk

A company in Ipswich was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs in excess of £7,000 following a guilty plea to nine offences under the Fire Safety Order.  These included an unsuitable risk assessment; inappropriate storage of cylinders and fire doors wedged open; emergency routes blocked or obstructed; exits not sufficiently illuminated; failure to maintain structural fire precautions, alarm systems, emergency lighting and fire fighting equipment; failure to appoint one or more competent persons to assist in preventative and protective measures and inadequate fire safety training provided to employees.

Source: Focus Magazine – Issue 12 / 2009