Fire Safety News
Top Stories
Hotel prosecuted for fire safety breaches
24 June 2010
Organisations must take a fresh look at
their fire safety obligations after last week’s decision by the
Court of Appeal to uphold the record £400,000 fine against retailer
New Look.
According to Law firm Shoosmiths,
the judgement suggests that in allowing fire safety risks to
persist, organisations create “a risk of almost unrivalled
proportions to individuals” and that this should be reflected in the
level of fines.
The high level of the fine came as a
surprise to many in health and safety legal circles, given that
there were no deaths or injuries arising from the fire last year at
New Look’s Oxford Street premises.
The ‘starting point of New Look’s fine
was actually £600,000, but was discounted at the original hearing to
£400,000 in view of factors such as there being no casualties and
New Look pleading guilty. The Court of Appeal’s endorsement of that
level of represents a departure from the norm in health and safety
cases, where fines of £500,000 and over are reserved for cases of
major public disaster.
Partner and regulatory specialist at
Shoosmiths, Ron Reid, said the fine related to New Look’s failure to
control risk.
“The hefty fine removes any doubt that
retailers, and other organisations responsible for fire safety,
cannot be complacent when it comes to complying with the
regulations. This penalty was imposed because of a failure to
control risk rather than as a result of injury.
“Those controlling premises subject to
the regulations must review current policies to ensure compliance,
and consider the structure and layout of their premises and what
goes on in them.
“Whatever the opinion about the level of
fine, there’s no question that managers ignoring or failing to
address fire safety risk obligations now do so at their peril.”
Court of Appeal upholds £400,000
fine for New Look
17 June 2010
Retailer New Look’s appeal against its record £400,000
fine for fire safety breaches at its Oxford Street store was
dismissed yesterday, with the Court of Appeal saying the fine was
not excessive in view of the company’s “lamentable” performance of
fire safety duties.
In a significant
judgement for responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform
(Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court decided that the level of the
fine was not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the
offences, the size and nature of the company, and the risk to the
public which New Look ran. The court also held that the fine was not
out of kilter with those for offences under general health and
safety legislation where there was a risk of death or serious
injury.
The conviction of New Look last November followed a fire at its
Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, which resulted in a chaotic
evacuation of some 400 people, the closure part of Oxford Street for
two days, and the eventual demolition of the building. The company
was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to two main counts
under the Fire Safety Order – failing to carry out a suitable and
sufficient risk assessment, and failing to ensure that employees
were given adequate fire safety training. Other alleged detailed
breaches were taken into account under these two counts.
The Court of Appeal concluded that while it accepted that the fire
itself was not caused by the retailer’s breaches of duty, (the cause
of the fire has never been established) the offences were serious
enough to create a magnitude of risk in which death and serious
injury in the fire was avoided by luck.
The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting
point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This
was rightly reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or
injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the
investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company
demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire
safety shortcomings across its stores.
Special risks from fire
While maintaining that the principles of setting
the level of fines under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were
similar to those for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005,
the court said the trial judge was right to recognise “that the
nature of the risk that employees and others were to be protected
was the risk from death or serious injury in a fire. Fire can be
indiscriminate in its effect and, in the case of an organisation
which in the centre of a large city undertakes responsibility for
large numbers of visitors to its premises, breach will usually be a
very serious matter.”
The Court of Appeal concluded: “We share the judge’s view that the
appellant’s performance of its fire safety duties in a large
department store in the centre of London was lamentable. The fines
were, we recognise, severe, but they were not on our judgement
manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.”
In a statement issued after the judgement, the retailer said:
"New Look is committed to putting the health and safety of customers
and employees first. Although the appeal against the fine was
unsuccessful, we note that the original 35 alleged breaches of the
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) were reduced to 2
offences and at no time has it been alleged that the company was
either responsible for the fire, or that its breaches of the RRFSO
caused the fire."
March 2010
Timber frame industry responds on fire risk management
The fire performance of modern methods of
construction and timber frame buildings came under the
spotlight at an insurance industry event last week.
The
Risc Authority’s seminar was held in the wake of recent
large fires on timber frame construction sites. While
acknowledging that timber frame buildings had a role to play
as an environmentally sustainable and quick construction
method, several speakers called for greater attention to be
paid to its fire safety drawbacks – especially during
construction.
Niall Rowan of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection
highlighted the combination of incomplete construction of
what it a finely divided fuel source with the potential for
arson as contributing to fast-spreading fires. He went on to
give graphic illustrations of non-existent or inadequate
fire stopping in all types of construction.
Geoff Harris and Andy Brookes of Greater Manchester Fire and
Rescue Service demonstrated the difficulties for
firefighters in detecting the progress of a fire spreading
through the voids of a large timber frame apartment
building. Other issues for firefighters include identifying
how a building is constructed, radiated heat and the risk to
crews from unstable structures.
The chairman of the UK Timber Frame Association (UKTFA),
Geoff Arnold, responded with details of Site Safe, a new
mandatory scheme for its members to reduce the incidence and
severity of construction sire fires. It involved a
three-stage process: pre-construction planning; on-site
management; and post timber frame construction. He described
it as “a seismic change for the industry” as there has never
before been a requirement for this level of commitment to
fire safety.
He also said that UKTFA would consider the potential risks
in completed timber frame buildings highlighted by previous
speakers. “We were not aware of fire risks in completed
buildings until [they were] raised today, but we need to
take that on board.”
Hotel company convicted of fire safety offences
A company that owned a London hotel has been
ordered to pay more than £21,000 in fines and costs after
pleading guilty to six offences under the Regulatory Reform
(Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Malfax Investments Limited, which owned the Averard Hotel on
Lancaster Gate in Bayswater, was sentenced this week at
Westminster Magistrates Court.
The hotel was inspected by fire safety officers in April
2009, when they found a number of failings including
inadequate fire detection and alarm system, problems with
the external means of escape and inadequate and defective
fire doors. As a result of these deficiencies, the officers
issued an enforcement notice detailing the issues and when
they needed to be resolved.
The company disclosed a fire risk assessment that was
prepared in January 2008. Although it detailed a number of
failings and advised steps they needed to take to address
them, said London Fire Brigade, the company failed to act on
the findings and implement any of the actions required.
The hotel closed shortly after the enforcement noticed was
issued.
“The general public should feel safe from fire when they are
staying at a hotel and the responsible person must make sure
their premises comply with the regulations,” said London
Fire Brigade’s assistant commissioner for fire safety
regulation, Steve Turek.“All premises owners and operators
must undertake a fire safety risk assessment. Although this
was completed in this case, it is no use if the responsible
person does not act on its findings.”
January 2010
Record fine under fire safety legislation for fashion house New Look
|
Fashion Retailer New Look has been fined a record £530,000 for fire safety breaches following a blaze at its central London store in Oxford Street two years ago. The fine is the largest to date under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, and represents another prosecution victory for London Fire Brigade. The retailer’s fire safety standards were condemned by the judge who found the store guilty of two fire safety breaches which constituted ‘a risk of death and serious injury’ to the store’s staff and the public. Thirty fire engines and 150 firefighters were needed to tackle the blaze on 26 April 2007. Crews remained at the scene for the next three days. The blaze caused major disruption to surrounding businesses and impacted on traffic and the public, including the temporary closure of nearby buildings. The fire completely destroyed the building and was subsequently demolished. The first call to the brigade was from a member of the public, instead of the store’s staff. The delay in notifying the emergency services meant that the fire had already developed by the time firefighters arrived at the scene. According to witnesses, staff initially ignored smoke pouring out of a window and a fire alarm sounded but was reset several times during the fire. The court heard that eventually staff panicked and evacuated customers but did not seem to have a plan of how to action the procedure. Following the fire, London Fire Brigade carried out fire safety inspections at the premises and found numerous serious fire safety breaches, including an inadequate fire risk assessment, which showed no record of appropriate fire procedures to adopt when the fire alarm activated. The training of staff was also found to be insufficient, which led to a delayed evacuation and staff being unable to follow a safe emergency evacuation procedure, to raise an alarm, or respond to a fire or alarm signal. In addition, shoppers were led by staff to take an inappropriate exit route and were forced to duck ‘shards of glass falling from above’. During the hearing the store was criticized for having storage blocking escape routes and other deficiencies, including basement fire exits being unavailable to staff and the public due to the incompatibility of a swipe card system and the fire alarm. New Look was fined £400,000 (£250,000 for failing to supply a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment for the premises and £150,000 for failing to adequately train staff) and ordered to pay £136,052 in costs. Commenting on the outcome, chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Brian Coleman said: ‘Good business management includes taking responsibility for fire safety, knowing the law and acting on it. This conviction shows that large companies are not exempt from prosecution and that London Fire Brigade will take action when businesses do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a substantial fine.
|
December 2009
Landlord fined for fire safety law breaches
A landlord has been ordered to pay over £20,000
in fines and costs after pleading guilty to breaches of fire
safety legislation.
City of Westminster magistrates' court fined the landlord
£10,150 for seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire
Safety) Order 2005. The prosecution followed inspections of
the property at 23 Streatham Common North Side in London on
17 April 2007 and 3 October 2007.
London Fire Brigade said the breaches included no fire safety procedures in place or a way of informing tenants about fire safety arrangements, storage blocking an escape route and smoke alarms which had been removed or had low batteries inside them. There was also no fire risk assessment for the premises.
An enforcement notice was served on the premises highlighting the work that needed to be carried out. Fire safety inspectors revisited the property on 3 October 2007 and found that that the notice had not been complied with.
Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation, Steve Turek, said: "Housing providers like the ‘Responsible Person' in this case have to carry out a fire risk assessment and even more importantly act upon its findings in a timely manner. Landlords have to know their responsibilities to protect and inform their residents if a fire breaks out. The result of not taking appropriate action can have very serious consequences."
November 2009
Brigade considers prosecuting hotel owners following tragic blaze
Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service is considering whether to prosecute
the owners of the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay, O&C Holdsworth,
according to a BBC report. The service is investigating the company
under fire safety legislation, following a tragic blaze at the
premises.
The high-profile incident on 18 August 2007 (see
Fire Risk Management,
September 2007, p.3) was dubbed Britain's worst hotel fire for 40
years and resulted in the deaths of three people, all from
Staffordshire: school teacher Peter Hughes, 43; his mother Monica,
86; and Joan Harper, 80.
Cornwall Fire and Rescue said it could not make any comment on
matters surrounding a prosecution for legal reasons because ‘the
matter is on-going’. In response, O&C Holdsworth said that,
following legal advice, the company cannot make a statement while
any legal action was being considered.
More than 90 people escaped from the 54-bedroom hotel after the fire
broke out. At the height of the incident, 120 firefighters were in
attendance, supported by 14 major fire appliances, two aerial
appliances, a command and control unit and an operational support
vehicle. The hotel was completely destroyed in the blaze.
Property firm prosecuted
Solitaire Property Management Limited has been fined a total of
£1,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,000 after pleading guilty to
two fire safety offences. The company is responsible for maintaining
and managing a block of flats, including both the internal and
external communal areas of a premises known as Sundowner Block in
Southampton.
According to the prosecuting team, Solitaire breached Article 27 of
the Fire Safety Order by failing to respond to requests for
information from the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service relating to
the housing block. Hampshire’s assistant chief fire officer, Steve
Hamm, commenting on the prosecution, explained: ‘We require
information about premises to carry out enforcement action and
improve the safety of the people of Hampshire. Failure to answer our
letters constitutes an offence under the Fire Safety Order, and
Solitaire Property Management has been found guilty of this
offence’.
The successful prosecution was taken forward by Hampshire County
Council solicitors for the two breaches.
Solitaire Property Management received a fine of £750 per offence and were ordered to pay £1,000 to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority and £1,000 to Hampshire County Council.
June 2009
Suspended prison sentence for hotel fire safety failures
|
THE LANDLORD of a Nottingham public house has received a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, together with 180 hours’ unpaid community service and an order to pay £2,200 costs, following serious contraventions of fire safety requirements. Following a complaint, Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service visited the premises at The Earl Howe public house in Nottingham, the ground floor of which landlord Peter Malane was using as a bar, with the upper floor used as bed and breakfast sleeping accommodation. The premises lacked any fire alarm or other basic fire safety precautions. The prosecution followed Mr Malane’s breach of a prohibition notice instructing him not to use the upper storeys as sleeping accommodation until remedial work had been carried out. His continued use of this accommodation for paid guests had exposed them to further serious risk. His Honour Judge Stokes observed that this was the first breach of a prohibition notice to come before Nottingham Crown Court under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Commenting that action would be taken against any hotel owner found in breach of fire safety regulations to protect guests against risk of fire, Mark Huckerby, head of fire protection at Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, said: ‘Hotel-type accommodation presents a potentially serious risk, as there are people sleeping on the premises who are also unfamiliar with the layouts. It is vitally important that hotel and sleeping accommodation is managed properly... I hope that the outcome of this case will serve as a warning.’ The seven charges are summarised as follows: · contravening a prohibited area of the premises by using it as sleeping accommodation · failing to make a risk assessment to identify the general fire precautions necessary to comply with the Order · failing to ensure that premises were equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms (the firefighting equipment was out of test) · failing to ensure that routes to emergency exits and the exits themselves were kept clear at all times · failing to ensure that emergency routes and exits were indicated by adequate signs to the escape route across a flat roof and down an external staircase into the rear yard · failing to ensure that emergency routes and exits requiring illumination were provided by adequate emergency lighting · failing to ensure that in the event of danger it was possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible by providing self-closing doors to any of the rooms being used as bedrooms on the first and second floor, or the kitchen on the first floor |
Shell fined record sum for fire safety breaches
|
Shell International Limited has been fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 in costs after pleading guilty to three breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales – the largest fine imposed under the legislation to date. London Fire Brigade prosecuted Shell following two small fires in the space of three weeks at its office complex in central London. In the first incident, on 19 December 2006, around 40 people evacuated the building and some 20 firefighters attended. In the second, on 5 January 2007, cutting equipment set fire to insulation material. A resulting inspection carried out by the brigade in January 2007 identified extensive breaches, including blocked escape routes and fire exits, defective fire doors and excessive fire loading. The fire loading had been dramatically increased because of refurbishments taking place on upper floors. The brigade served a prohibition notice on the company, restricting public and staff access to the Shell Tower and basement levels of the complex. The notice was lifted three days later after the company remedied the fire safety failings. It was also found that Shell’s fire risk assessment for the site had not been reviewed or updated since March 2003. According to the brigade, the condition of the general fire precautions within the Shell Tower had deteriorated for more than three years, with the matters identified by the 2003 fire risk assessment getting worse. In mitigation, Shell apologised for the shortcomings and said it had taken immediate action to put things right. An independent review of fire safety plans and the condition of the building had also been carried out, it said. |
August 2008
Firms pay out after breaches of the Fire Safety Order
Two companies in London, a major sports retailer and a local hairdresser, have been successfully prosecuted after pleading guilty to breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
In the first case, JJB Sports Plc. was fined £17,400 for six breaches of the Order at it's store at Friern Bridge retail park in North London. The company was also ordered to pay costs of £6,150.
The failings, which included fire escapes which were locked or partially blocked by stock and an empty portable extinguisher, came to light during a Fire Service visit in December 2007. In mitigation, the company said that the failings were not representative of JJB but of mismanagement within the particular branch, and that subsequent fire training had enhanced safety at the store.
In the second prosecution, the owner of a hairdressers in East London was fined £4,000 for nine breaches of the Order. A fire service investigation of the Cutting Room and Beauty Basement in March 2007 identified a number of faults, including no emergency lighting in the basement, no fire alarm and no smoke detection system.
A notice was issued giving the owner four months to rectify the problems but, when the inspectors returned in July, they found that no work had been carried out.
Defendant, Mustafa Ismail maintained that all of the outstanding contraventions had now been remedied.
Care home fire death in Kent
An investigation is being carried out into a fire which claimed the life of an 81-year-old man in Westgate-on Sea, Kent.
He was a resident in the Hockeridge Care Home in Canterbury Road where 25 people were led to safety after the blaze started in a first floor room at 11pm on July 6th 2008.
Around 30 firefighters, including eight wearing breathing apparatus, were sent to the three-storey building and managed to extinguish the blaze shortly after midnight. Firefighters fought the flames with a main jet, two hose reel jets and a hydrant.
At the height of the blaze five fire engines and specialist support vehicles were in place. Police and ambulance crews were also called and paramedics treated one casualty for the effects of smoke inhalation.
Police say there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident but add that a general inquiry is continuing.
A post mortem examination is being carried out and an inquest will be held.
July 2008
A company has
been ordered to pay £17,000 in fines and costs after a fire in West
London in which four residents became trapped.
PTF Properties
Ltd pleaded guilty to for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire
Safety) Order 2005. The failures came to light following a
blaze in a first-floor flat situated above a cafe in Hammersmith in
April 2007. Eight fire engines and around 40 fire-fighters
tackled the blaze.
Because the
fire doors and fire detection system had not been properly
maintained in the property, smoke and fire quickly spread and
blocked the single means of escape. Two of the residents were
helped to safety across a first-floor flat roof by neighbours.
Another had to drop from the second floor to a first-floor terrace.
The fourth resident was rescued by fire-fighters via a ladder.
In a recent
hearing at West London Magistrates Court PTF Properties Ltd was
fined £11,000 for failing to maintain a fire alarm, failing to
maintain a fire door and failing to provide a safe means of escape.
The company was also ordered to pay £6,000 in costs.
New national
guidance on fire safety standards in certain existing residential
accommodation expected.
Guidance to
fire authorities under the Fire Safety Order has been issued in the
“HM Government Fire Safety Risk Assessment Sleeping Accommodation
Guide”, published by the Department for communities and local
government in May 2006. Guidance for housing authorities under
the Housing act 2004 is contained in the “HHSRS Operating Guidance”.
In order to underpin the fire safety protocol many authorities
around the country have produced local or regional guides and some
excellent work is being done in this respect. However, it has
been widely recognized that a single set of national, risk-based
guidance is needed to bring together this regional work and inform
housing authorities, fire authorities and landlords in their
application of standards. Such guidance will help simplify the
dual enforcement approach and bring some consistency across the
country. LACORS produced draft guidance published January 21, 2008
for consultation which is expected to be adopted and be published in
its final form on or after July 23, 2009.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 becomes law
From the 6th April 2008 the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 became law. Previously to convict an organisation of manslaughter following a work related death it had to be proved that a senior member of staff was also guilty of manslaughter.
Following the introduction of the new act organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter if death is caused by a gross breach of their duty of care that is substantially due to senior management failure.
The responsible person within an organisation or individuals responsible for fire and health and safety will be the first port of call for any investigation involving a fatality or serious injury, it is therefore crucial that you conform to current legislation and standards.
Following the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 the responsible person (Owner, employer or manager) is now responsible for fire safety within their premises. Many organisations have still not yet implemented actions to comply with the Order leaving them liable should any accident or emergency occur.
Click on the hyperlink below to view the Act
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
January 2008
Nightclub Fined
A night club has been fined £41,000 after pleading guilty to 12 fire safety offences. Redbridge Magistrate’s Court heard that there were numerous fire safety failures at the Penthouse and Room at the Top night club in High Road, Ilford—run by Nightway Ltd.
The breaches included wedged open fire doors, no clear escape routes
and an exit obstructed by rubbish.
The case arose after officers from the London Fire Brigade’s
Redbridge crews were called to a fire alarm at the premises and
subsequently carried out an inspection identifying the
contraventions.
November 2007
Hotelier found guilty of putting staff and guests at risk
The proprietor of a hotel in East Sussex was ordered to pay more than £11,000 in fines and costs for a series of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Claudio Priori was found guilty of the fire safety failings at Chequers Inn Hotel in a trial at Lewes Magistrates Court in November.
The failings came to light after fire crews were called to the hotel in March when the fire alarm sounded. Crews attending found no fire but could not locate any staff at the hotel to assist. the subsequent investigation uncovered a number of breaches, including failing to complete a fire risk assessment, failing to maintain that the fire safety measures at the hotel, and failing to provide adequate fire safety training to employees.
Mr Priori pleaded not guilty to eight offences, but at the subsequent trial in November, was found guilty on all counts. he was fined £1000 for each of seven offences and £500 for the eighth. He was also ordered to pay costs of £3794 to East Sussex Fire Authority.
summing up the case, the magistrates said that they were concerned that Mr Priori appeared to be still unaware of the risk of death or serious injury that staff and guests at the hotel were exposed to. They said that they hoped Mr Priori would now reflect on this.
Updated school fire safety guidance issued
The long-awaited update to Building Bulletin 7, BB100, the school fire safety guidance, has been issued by the Department for Children Schools and Families.
The new look guidance, designed for fire safety in schools, will help school designers and fire safety officers take the right steps to ensure new school buildings in England and Wales office staff and pupils at the highest level of protection.
Launching the guide, Schools Minister, Jim Knight, said there is now a presumption that new schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme will include sprinklers in the vast majority of cases.
According to DCSF, the national cost of school fires in England and Wales in 2000-2004 was £58 million but the cost of installing sprinkler systems in new schools can be as low as 1.5% to 2% of the total cost, with major savings in future years from lower insurance premiums.
Warehouse tragedy prompts calls for urgent review of Building Regulations
The loss of four fire fighters in a warehouse fire in Warwickshire has triggered calls review of the Building Regulations in England and Wales, and the reassessment of the role of fire suppression systems, particularly in single storage storage buildings.
The local government Association and the UK sprinkler in the industry have backed calls for a review, arguing that the current requirement in Approved Document B for all new build warehouses over 20,000 m² in size to be fitted with sprinklers - should be revised so that sprinklers are fitted in smaller sized warehouses over 2000 m².
In addition, Fire Protection Association managing director Jonathan O'Neill has written to Buildings Minister Yvette Cooper to request that she immediately reconvenes the ADB working group, to ensure a thorough debate can take place.
October 2007
Retail chain fined £250,000
Co-op fined £250,000 for fire
safety breaches
The Co-op has been fined £250,000 on a range of fire safety failings at six stores in Sussex. The problems came to light after a fire at the St Leonards outlet in July 2007. east Sussex fire and rescue service inspected the branch and subsequently decided to carry out a full audit of all 41 corpse doors in Sussex. The audit revealed a range of fire safety breaches at the six stores including, no fire alarm system in two of the branches, locked fire escape doors at two branches and a poorly maintained fire escape at another.
The Co-operative Society pleaded guilty to 13 offences under fire safety legislation. In mitigation, the company said that health and safety is a priority and that it takes its fire safety responsibilities seriously. It has since reviewed standards and invested to ensure the stores meet the required fire safety specifications.
The company was fined £20,000 for each of 11 serious breaches, and £15,000 each or two other failings. It was also ordered to pay East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service £11,167 in costs.
September 2007
Residential enforcement
RLA calls to change legislation
The residential landlords Association is pressing the government to change legislation so local housing authorities, rather than fire authorities, become the single fire safety regulator for residential accommodation in England and Wales.
At present, the local authority, guided by the Housing Act health and safety rating system, has general responsibility for the building, while the fire authority, applying the fire safety order has jurisdiction over the communal areas. The RLA argues that this system of having to regulators coupled with the different responsibilities the fire safety in separate parts of residential properties is causing confusion. It says that the local housing authorities should be made the sole enforcer.
Penhallow Hotel Fire
Plea for patience following tragic hotel blaze
Police have confirmed that a 43 year-old man had died in the Newquay Hotel blaze on the 18th of August. Police believe he fell from a second-floor window and that two other elderly occupants are also thought to have perished. Four other people were being treated in hospital with serious injuries.
Senior Divisional Officer Jan Sturges of Cornwall Fire Brigade said that the police and fire investigation into the blaze would help explain the causes of the incident and the lessons that should be learned. He asked that everyone should be patient until the process is completed.
August 2007
PAS 79:2007
Risk Assessment Guidance Updated
The British Standards Institution has issued an updated version of PAS79 Fire Risk Assessment. Guidance and a recommended methodology to take account of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. the revised version supersedes the 2005 edition of PAS 79 and introduces the following changes:-
- all references to legislation have been updated to take account of the Fire Safety Order;
- the technical content has been subject to minor amendments in the light of experience in the use of the PAS;
- the guidance now recommends more detailed examination and recording of certain fire precautions and fire safety arrangements;
- reference is made to the requirements of fire safety legislation covering dangerous substances.
BPW Fire Safety has adopted the new provisions and methodology contained within PAS 79:2007 for the completion of Fire Risk Assessments.