Cheap Sofas are Death Traps

Deathtrap sofas are still on sale in south Essex
23rd December 2008
TRAVELLERS from Crays Hill are still selling potentially deadly furniture from Poland.
Men from Dale Farm are selling the deathtraps across south Essex, London and Cambridgeshire.
Essex Trading Standards spent months investigating the camp following a previous Echo expose into the dodgy trade, but closed the case, saying there was no evidence of sofas on the site.
Yet undercover reporters bought the dangerous furniture from an Irish traveller in a pub car park in broad daylight. The man bragged of selling up to 12 suites a day and supplying estate agents.
Posing as landlords, our reporters bought a black PVC suite containing foam which failed strict UK furniture fire safety regulations when tested by experts, under controlled conditions.
They cut out a piece of the foam and set fire to it to see if it met safety standards.
Dale Brockbank, of West Yorkshire Joint Services test house, where the experiment was conducted, said: “This foam was horrendous and led to escalating combustion which had to be extinguished because it was unsafe to continue.
“It was so badly made, they used off cuts of foam to save on cost.”
The sub-standard PVC suites originate from Poland where labels are attached, which falsely claim they meet UK safety standards.
However, they turn into toxic fireballs on contact with a flame, leaving unsuspecting families little time to escape choking fumes.
During a separate fire test done by the Echo, a two-seater sofa caught fire within 30 seconds of being exposed to a flame and was a fireball within four minutes.
In March 2006 our previous investigation found shop Furniture Store in Southernhay, Basildon, was selling similar suites for £269 a piece.
At the same time regular Polish HGV loads of the furniture were delivered to the traveller site.
We published pictures of suites stored at the camp and being hawked at a boot sale.
Furniture Store was ordered to pay £10,000 including costs and fines at Basildon Magistrates’ Court.
However, trading standards said no furniture was ever found at Dale Farm and stopped investigating.
Yet aerial photographs taken by an Echo photographer, since the trading standards probe show what appear to be suites concealed by tarpaulin on a number of caravan pitches at Dale Farm.

Want to go to jail? Then ignore the RRO

First landlord in London imprisoned for fire safety breaches
21 October 2008
A landlord has been sent to prison in the first custodial sentence to be given in London under the new fire safety regulations.
Mr Mehmat Parlak was sentenced to four months imprisonment and his company, Watchacre properties limited, were fined £21,000 following conviction for serious breaches of the regulatory reform order (RRO).
The prosecution followed a fatal fire at a flat on Ruskin Road, Tottenham on 16 September 2007. After being removed from the building by firefighters, a man was taken to hospital but died later from his injuries.
Councillor Brian Coleman AM FRSA, Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority which runs the London Fire Brigade said “This fire resulted in a man dying and highlights why landlords and businesses must take their responsibilities under the regulatory reform order seriously. The London Fire Brigade works hard to bring irresponsible companies and individuals to court, which can as this case has shown result in a custodial sentence.”
Sentencing of the company and their Director Mr Parlak, of Wellington Road, Enfield took place at Wood Green Crown Court on 20 October after they pleaded guilty to eight breaches of fire safety.
The eight summonses were as follows:
Summons 1 – Article 9 – Failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons were exposed.
Summons 2 – Article 11 (1) – Failure to make and give effect to appropriate fire safety arrangements.
Summons 3 – Article 13 (1)(1) – Failure to provide appropriate fire fighting equipment.
Summons 4 – Article 13 (1)(a) – Failure to provide appropriate fire detection measures, namely adequate smoke alarms in the common parts of the premises.
Summons 5 – Article 14 (1) – Failure to ensure that routes to emergency exits from the premises and the exits were clear (in relation to the gas fired boiler).
Summons 6 – Article 14 (2)(a) – Failure to ensure that persons were able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible, in that the escape route was not properly protected (because the intermescent strip and cold smoke seal were missing from the top edge of the second floor habitable room and there were combustible materials stored in the exit route including a washing machine, television, clothing and furniture).
Summons 7 – Article 14 (2)(g) – Failure to ensure that there was adequate signage at the premises to indicate the emergency exit and route.
Summons 8 – Article 15 (1) - Failure to establish and give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent fire. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into effect on Sunday, 1 October 2006. The legislation makes businesses responsible for carrying out a self assessment of the fire risks in their premises, appoint a competent person and make staff aware of what they have to do in the event of a fire.

Have you got loads of money to waste? If so ignore the RRO

Cheshire firm fined £20,000 for fire safety offences
Dec 9 2008 Chester Chronicle
BUSINESSES across Cheshire have been urged to ensure they are complying with fire safety legislation following a case in which a company was fined £20,000 after pleading guilty to five offences.
The firm were convicted at Runcorn Magistrates Court of serious offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005, and as well as the fine, they were ordered to pay costs of £10,000.
It was the first prosecution to be brought by Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service under the legislation and they are hoping it will remind other companies of the seriousness of failing to comply.
“We take our responsibilities under the fire safety regulations extremely seriously and always work hard with local businesses to try to find the right solutions,” said Deputy Chief Fire Officer Mark Cashin.
“Prosecution is very much a last resort but in serious cases we will use our powers to enforce the regulations and prosecute offenders. Today’s case is the first one to be brought by ourselves under the new Fire Safety Order and we hope that it serves as a message to companies across Cheshire, Halton and Warrington of the importance of fire safety in the workplace.
“Our aim is to work closely with local companies to ensure the safety of both their staff and their customers and we would urge people to contact their local fire protection staff for advice and guidance.”
Issues found by fire safety inspectors during a visit to the Widnes premises included:
An external staircase seriously obstructed with gas cylinders nearby
Fire exit doors which could not be opened or were heavily obstructed
Exit routes which were heavily obstructed and had no lighting or signs
Combustible material stored against a boundary fence of an adjacent tanker storage area
Fire extinguishers had either been discharged or were empty.

Alarms - Extinguishers they must be working!

Blackpool hotel "posed threat" to guests


A COMPANY whose 35-bed Blackpool hotel posed a severe risk to guests and staff in the event of a fire has been ordered to pay more than £8,000 in penalties by a court.
Magistrates heard that the owner of The New Central Hotel, Reads Avenue, which was capable of housing up to 90 guests, repeatedly failed to bring the premises up to the standard required by the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service. The fire alarm was not working in parts of the hotel, fire doors were missing or damaged and some of the electrics were dangerous. Owner, Retson Limited, of Reads Avenue, Blackpool, admitted eight offences under fire safety rules. The company was fined £6,600 with £1,928 costs and ordered to pay the £15 victims' surcharge by Blackpool magistrates. Presiding magistrate, Michael Bryan, said: "We consider this to be extremely serious as it involves protection of the public." Warren Spencer, prosecuting for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, said on October 16 last year the four-storey hotel, which had a basement, was inspected. A number of fire safety breaches were noted and the service issued an enforcement notice demanding the company carry out work to bring the premises up to standard. The company was allowed two extensions of the notice to complete the work. On April 4 this year fire officers visited the hotel again. They found parts of the fire alarm not working and fire doors missing, damaged or wedged open. An electric lightbulb was hanging down on wiring near flammable materials. Piping was unprotected and there was a hole in the roof on the second floor which would have allowed the spread of flames and smoke had there been a fire. The prosecutor said: "It was the service's view at the time of this inspection that fire safety had been neglected and disregarded. The safety of guests and staff had been compromised." Trevor Colebourne, defending, said company secretary Shuaib Peracha had bought the property only on August 16 last year. It was the company's first venture into hotels and the property was in disrepair. Some of the work needed was done immediately and guests were only allowed in areas where a fire alarm was operational. It cost the company £19,000 to rectify the faults and the hotel now complied in all respects with the fire service's requirements.
Blackpool fire safety team leader, Sean Hennessy, said after the case: "The fire authority seeks to ensure Blackpool is a safe place to stay at. Retson Limited refused to take advice. "This should be a warning to hotel owners and managers of sleeping accommodation that enforcement notices must be complied with. The consequences of not complying may result in an appearance in court."

A Pub To Die For? Why Your Customers Need a Fire Risk Assessment.

Landlord fined by court after breaching fire safety rules
30/ 6/2008
A pub landlord has been fined after a court found he had seriously breached fire safety.
Paul Dailey, who is the manager of the George and Dragon pub in Swallowfield, which is owned by Punch Pubs, was convicted at Reading Magistrates’ Court earlier this month.
He pleaded guilty to 10 charges of failing to meet legal standards for fire safety and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £3,984 costs.
The serious breaches of fire safety precautions included no fire risk assessment having been carried out, no fire protection provided for fire escape routes, no fire alarm system, obstructed fire escape routes, no staff fire drill training and emergency lighting systems did not work.
The court was told the breaches constituted a serious and life-threatening risk both to staff and the public visiting the pub.
The pub was prosecuted under the Regularity Reform (Fire Safety) Order, which was introduced in October 2006.
During the hearing on Thursday, June 19, the court found the seriousness of the case was down to a failure on Mr Dailey’s part to comply with fire regulations and a failure to address substandard fire safety provisions.
David Walden, fire safety technical support officer at Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS), said: “We are very pleased that the courts have acknowledged the serious nature of this case.
“Although fire and rescue services are no longer required to issue fire safety certificates, we carry out a rigorous inspection programme of commercial premises to ensure they are meeting the standards required by the order.
“RBFRS strongly advises that anybody who employs staff or has responsibility and control of commercial premises must ensure that the responsibilities placed upon them by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order are properly discharged.”
Mr Dailey was unavailable for comment.

Is it Stupidity or just a Total Disregard for Human Life?

As he didn't need the money, I'm going with stupidity on this one! With all that dosh why not buy a decent gaffe to start with?

18 June 2008 09:09
A Brandon hotelier who put the lives of guests at risk by flouting fire safety regulations was yesterday ordered to pay fines and costs totalling more than £200,000.
John Nevins, of the Brandon House Hotel, failed to meet fire safety rules over a two-year period while he made changes to the High Street building in Brandon, Ipswich Crown Court heard.
The hotel owner, of Hilborough Hall, Hilborough, admitted two offences of failing to notify the fire authority of structural alterations at the hotel and two offences of contravening the terms of a fire safety certificate.
Nevins, 59, who the court heard has assets of £10m, was fined a total of £145,000 and ordered to pay £58,000 costs. Hugh Rowland, prosecuting, said the defendant became the owner of the 22-bedroom Brandon House Hotel in early 2003 and failed to notify the fire authority of plans to convert a function room into bedrooms. During a fire inspection in January 2004, it was discovered that one of the new bedrooms had no fire escape and could only be reached by going through another room.
The court heard that Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service returned to the hotel in May 2006 to find that changes had been made to the second floor landing that put guests and staff at serious risk of death or injury in the event of a fire.
Officers were so concerned that they served a prohibition notice banning the use of the whole of the second floor until changes had been made. There was no emergency lighting on the staircases, the door to one room was not a suitable fire door and there was poor construction of the walls and limited fire detection, the court heard.Michael Clare, in mitigation, said that his client had since signed a document agreeing to co-operate with future inspections and he intended to make sure everything was up to scratch for an inspection in July. He added that Nevins now employed a general manager with experience in health and safety and hygiene.“My client came to the hotel trade late in life and got himself into difficulties but since 2006 he has done his best to put things right,” he said.
Sentencing Nevins, Judge John Holt described his failure to meet fire safety regulations as “woeful”. “The potential for risk of serious injury to guests while they slept in your hotel was considerable,” he said.

I Didn't Fit a Fire Alarm Because it Wouldn't Be Heard!

You Couldn't Make It Up!

Tanning salon boss fined after flouting fire safety rules
A TANNING salon boss must pay a fine and costs totalling £2,530 after admitting nine fire safety breaches.
Reedley magistrates heard Lynda Fielding (48), of Hawthorne Close, Calderstones Park, Whalley, failed to put necessary fire safety measures in place at Suntastic in Church Street, Padiham.The breaches were discovered in December after a fire, which started in a fuse box, ripped through the building forcing 10 people to be evacuated. Nobody was hurt but checks by fire investigators revealed regulations had been overlooked.Fielding admitted nine breaches including failing to carry out a fire risk assessment, failing to provide fire detectors and alarms, failing to provide emergency exits with adequate emergency lighting and failing to provide fire-fighting equipment.Mr Warren Spencer (prosecuting) said one of the main concerns was the fact most customers were using a self-enclosed Can Tan sunbed which also plays music."This means a fire alarm in these premises was even more necessary.This premises was high risk for the reason there was a lot of electrical equipment and a lot of enclosed spaces. The need for a fire alarm was paramount to warn people using those rooms to get them out of the building quickly."Three fire extinguishers in the shop were described in court as "condemnable."Fielding, not represented in court by a solicitor, said when she took over the business in 2005 a health and safety check was carried out."The reason there wasn't an alarm was because of the music. I didn't believe it could be heard and even if staff were trained to use a fire extinguisher they wouldn't use it and I wouldn't ask them to. The girl on reception had a list of everybody's names."The court heard safety measures were now in place at Suntastic.Magistrates fined Fielding £100 for each breach and ordered her to pay costs of £1,615 to Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, who brought the case, plus a £15 victim surcharge.Speaking outside court, technical fire safety officer at Burnley Fire Station Mr Eddie Steel said he hoped other businesses would learn from the case.

Fire Death! £1 Compensation - Is this Justice?

Whilst former directors sun themselves in Spain their responsibility for killing a former employee and injuring three others is a disgusting £2.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is warning aerosol companies to ensure safe working conditions after an explosion at a factory in Liverpool. One man was killed and another three were injured following a major fire on the premises of North West Aerosols in the Aintree area. Liverpool crown court fined the firm £2 for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The fine was minimal because the company has gone into voluntary liquidation since the incident.

The HSE inspector, said the company failed to adopt the necessary safety measures needed to ensure best practice."HSE investigations concluded the company had not adopted good industry practice for the change-over of propellants and had not provided self-sealing quick-release coupling or flame-retardant clothing." Businesses were also reminded they should make sure all staff are properly trained as well. The executive said there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the company directors!

Just who is responsible then? What about corporate manslaughter? - oh well pass the sangria.

Fire Safety Law for Business and Business Owners

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into effect in October 2006 and replaced over 70 pieces of fire safety law.
The Order applies to all non-domestic premises in England and Wales, including the common parts of blocks of flats or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The law applies to you if you are:
responsible for business premises
an employer or self-employed with business premises
responsible for a part of a dwelling where that part is solely used for business purposes
a charity or voluntary organisation
a contractor with a degree of control over any premises
Under the Order, the responsible person must carry out a fire safety risk assessment and implement and maintain a fire management plan. The rules state that if you have less than 5 employees then the risk assessment can 'be in your head'. Can you imagine the conversation you will have if when the Fire Risk Assessment Officer calls round? So why not do a paper version anyway and be on the safe side.

A good example of such a form can be found on the Communities and Local Government website (see link over on left).

For starters here is a copy below.


A.2 Example form for recording significant findings
Risk Assessment – Record of significant findings
Risk assessment for
Building:

Location:
Assessment undertaken by
Date:
Completed by:
Signature:
Sheet number Floor/area:
Use:
Step 1 – Identify fire hazards
Sources of ignition

Sources of fuel

Sources of oxygen

Step 2 – People at risk


Step 3 – Evaluate, remove, reduce and protect from risk
(3.1) Evaluate the risk of the fire occurring

(3.2) Evaluate the risk to people from a fire starting in the premises

(3.3) Remove and reduce the hazards that may cause a fire

(3.4) Remove and reduce the risks to people from a fire




Assessment review
Assessment/review date

Completed by

Signature

Review outcome (where substantial changes have occurred a new record sheet should be used)
Notes:
(1) The risk assessment record of significant findings should refer to other plans, records or other documents as necessary.
(2) The information in this record should assist you to develop an emergency plan; co-ordinate measures with other ‘responsible persons’ in the building; and to inform and train staff and inform other relevant persons.