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.
Monday 30 June 2008
Thursday 19 June 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday 17 June 2008
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.
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.
Monday 9 June 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
