Fire Safety advice for Landlords in Houses of Multiple Occupation

If you're a Landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation (HIMO), you may have some serious fire safety responsibilities, as shown by the prosecution laid out at the end of this article. This article is provides some simple advice on what to do to be fire safety complaint and to keep out of court.

What should you do?
 
Step 1
First of all, gain a good understanding of the fire safety needs of the premises by conducting a Fire Safety Risk Assessment, or by having one carried out for you. We can help you with this if you are not sure what to do (see later). Ensure that the Fire Risk Assessment for your premises also contains a simple and suitable Fire Safety Improvement Plan.

Step 2
Read the report and carry out the recommendations. Sometimes there are alternatives to the actions presented, but "doing nothing" is not a sensible option. Prioritise the recommendations and make improvements in a sensible manner.

• Fire compartmentation is essential, but can be expensive.
• Fire doors (with smoke seals) are effective at stopping the spread of fire and smoke.
• Keeping escape routes clear of obstructions does not cost much.
• Fire signage is relatively simple and cheap to put right.
• Maintenance of existing systems is simple and effective.
• Determining the actions that should be taken in the event of a fire requires consideration of the premises, the residents, and rescue service policies.
• Providing residents with a fire safety action plan can be an effective way to avoid confusion.

Step 3
Keep the property and the fire safety precautions in a good and serviceable condition. Ensure that the fire detection and fire alarm system and fire fighting equipment and emergency lighting are serviced and maintained.

Step 4
Keep the premises under review. Visit premises at regular intervals and ensure that standards are not deteriorating. Liaise with residents and involve them, particularly if they have a say in how money (such as service charge) is spent.

Step 5
Don't end up in court, like the cases below. Contact us through our website.

Details of two recent prosecutions of Landlords

A landlord has received a suspended sentence following various failures. Following a fire in March 2009 it has been reported that the landlord who owned a house of multiple occupation (or HMO) has received a 6-month suspended prison sentence and been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs. Following the blaze, fire safety investigators found several breaches of Fire Safety Legislation (the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) at the building. These breaches included not having suitable fire doors installed and not conducting a sufficient fire safety risk assessment.

Steve Turek (the assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation at the London Fire Brigade) commented:

"This verdict sends out a clear message that if landlords ignore fire safety then they will face serious penalties. [The Landlord] was given plenty of time to improve fire safety inside the property but failed to comply. The London Fire Brigade works hard to make companies and individuals understand their responsibilities under fire safety law and only uses prosecution as a last resort."

In the second case, a Lytham landlord who owned seven properties that were sub-divided into flats in St Annes pleaded guilty to 13 fire safety offences across the seven properties. He has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence and a six-month night-time curfew.

Following a fire at one of his properties (in December 2010), fire safety officers found evidence of several serious breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). Offences included: inadequate fire risk assessments; defective fire alarms; fire alarm systems that were switched off; lack of inspection, test and maintenance of fire safety equipment (such as fire extinguishers; fire alarm systems and emergency lighting); accumulation of obstructions and combustible materials on escape routes as well as inadequate fire separation (compartmentisation).

Enforcement notices were issued for all seven premises and these were followed up and extended on two occasions. It is understood that none of these were adequately complied with by the completion date.  In two cases prohibition notices were also issued to prevent use of the buildings, but the conditions set out in these notices were also breached.

In August 2012, the Landlord (who no longer owns any of the premises) pleaded guilty to 13 offences under the RRO:

• two counts of failure to comply with an enforcement notice
• seven counts of failure to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
• two counts of failure to comply with a prohibition notice
• one count of failure to provide a suitable system of maintenance
• one count of failure to ensure routes to emergency exits were kept clear.

He was sentenced in October at Preston Crown Court for the 13 counts to a prison sentence of six months, suspended for 18 months, and is subject to a six-month curfew between 7pm and 7am. He was ordered to contribute £200 towards costs.

Contact us if you need help with your fire safety risk assessment.

My Heath and Safety week ahead

Monday - Wednesday
I am delivering a 3-day training course up in Sheffield on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I'll need to use the breaks to make several phone calls to keep the wheels of my Company oiled (fortunately, they turn without too much input from me - Janice and Jamie have really risen to the task this year). I do really enjoy delivering training, but it does take all the time in the day to deliver. I have a consultant (Hagrid) who delivers most of our training courses, but this one needs my touch (or so I believe in a fit of vanity).


Monday (after the event)
So, Monday's training went well: there was a reasonable amount of discussion and plenty of sensible questions. We even derived most of the principles of Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Tomorrow will be a focus on Risk Assessment (practice and principles). I make a few calls at lunchtime and managed to sort out some pieces of work for later in the week - one of these will involve meeting a client on their site very early (about 06:30 hrs) on Thursday as this is the only time we can both meet to carry out his Fire Risk Assessment.


Tuesday (after the event)
Tuesday was an interesting romp through the processes of Risk Assessment - aiming to draw out people's views on how they can do this and how they can help each other. We discussed various tools for making the process easier simplifying some aspects. Reducing the paperwork is very popular! I managed to make a few calls while the group exercises were in progress, but there was little time that was not face-to-face today. When I got home, there was still time to work for an hour or so on the allotment before rain stopped play.


Wednesday (after the event)
Today was the last day of the three day training course. I'm pleased with the way that it went, but I do have some ideas to be introduced during the next similar course (to be run soon). During the course of the day I received a few interesting phone calls. One (which I called back at lunchtime) was an enquiry for some site assistance with a safety project (from a local business). Of special interest from this enquiry was the opportunity to tender for a significant training contract. This came from discussions of further assistance that we could offer by way of supporting this contract. Lucky timing? Fair enough, but you have to capitalise on the chances that come your way and follow up on chance remarks and comments. The other enquiry was simpler: this related to an existing client who is now involved in a second business and has recognised that they are in need of my services. This was an easy sell, but is based on the performance with the first company. Again, an example of making your own luck. Once again, I made it onto the allotment (for about an hour) before heading home to matters and chores of a domestic nature.


Thursday looks set to start with an early morning visit to a local company to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment, following a recent enforcement visit from the local Fire and Rescue service. I then have a short meeting planned with the accountant to review the finished accounts for the previous year. After that, I should be driving over to Nottingham to carry out the first part of a site audit visit. Further details should be coming in on that job on Monday and Tuesday.

Thursday (after the event)

It was indeed an early start with my new local client. The site was generally in very good order and their fire safety arrangements were pretty good. My role, in this case, is mainly to formalise their existing arrangements rather than to make recommendations for improvements. The job in Nottingham was delayed until next Friday. Instead, I spent the afternoon working on making some appointments for a series of jobs that have flooded in. These are a mixture of Safety Audits and Fire Risk Assessments around the country. I also had to work on a significant proposal to provide Training Services into a large local organisation (Loughborough based).

Friday involves a meeting with one of my consultants to work on a new aspect of product delivery (more on that in future blog articles). This may well be followed by another trip over to Nottingham to finish off the site audit work.

Friday (after the event)

The meeting with the consultant went well and we have worked out how to deliver a new service to our clients. The afternoon was spent sorting out some safety issues for other clients (developing risk assessment and method statements, sending a few suitable phrases to assist with tender submissions, etc.).

The above few lines do not look too long, but they do not allow for much time for the other aspects of running my Company. I need to sort out who within my organisation is going to do a 4-6 week placement in a Company in Docklands as Interim Health and Safety Officer. I need to schedule some works for southern Scotland in early June and I need to write two new Safety Training courses.


Meanwhile: Richard continues to work away in London on the Facilities Management projects that are going on down there; John and Brian continue to keep conducting Fire Risk Assessments; and Hagrid has training commitments and Food Safety consultancy to deliver. Ian is working in Glasgow/Edinburgh and Earl has more of the Facilities Management work to do in the West Midlands.


A busy week! 

How do I create more time?

What do I sell? I sell time. 


No, I'm not a time lord, I'm the next best thing: A Health and Safety Consultant.


People buy my skills, my experience and my expertise. They also buy time. In some cases, I can help them by doing most of the work for them. Because of my skills and experience, it takes me less time to create a new Health and Safety Policy for a client than it would do for the client to write their own - months less time in some case. It takes me less time to do their fire risk assessment, their COSHH assessment, complete a Health and Safety questionnaire, etc.


If you are bogged down by health and safety concerns while you are trying to run your business, then you may benefit from my help? If you don't know when you'll find time to do your risk assessments, finish the safety section of the tender documents, etc, then NOW might be a good time to talk to me.  Don't worry about it. Instead: get me to do it for you.


What can I do for you to release time for you to make money by running your business?


Contact me and find out.


Time is the fire in which we burn - (poem by Delmore Schwartz).

Ignorance of asbestos continues to be a problem

A contractor has been found guilty of potentially exposing workers and shoppers to asbestos on a busy high-street construction site because he flouted the rules on working with this hazardous material.

The contractor was fined for several breaches of asbestos and construction design legislation on the Bromley High Street site. In this case the contractor was a private individual. An HSE inspector who investigated the case, commented that the project had not been properly planned. The project involved the demolition of a building that comprised a restaurant on the ground floor with flats above it. Three workers, whose qualifications could not be proved, were overseen by the contractor.

During the demolition, the workers, who did not recognise that the insulating boards in the restaurant’s ceiling contained asbestos and they used sledgehammers and hand-operated tools to break them up, so they were “more than likely” to have been exposed to asbestos fibres (according to the Inspector).

The investigating HSE Inspector said: 

“Sadly, this kind of incident is all too familiar. The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with around 1000 tradesmen dying each year from asbestos-related diseases ... Anyone working with these sorts of materials must commission an asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed contractor.”

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching the following Regulations, for which he was fined a total of £19,300 and ordered to pay full HSE costs of £7654:

• reg.8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, by undertaking work with asbestos without a licence – fine £8000; 


• reg.5 of the same Regulations, by not conducting an asbestos survey – fine £6000; 


• reg.4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, by not appointing a competent site manager – fine £2650; and 


• reg.22(1) of the same Regulations by not managing construction work to ensure safety – fine £2650.

In mitigation, the contractor commented that he had made a mistake of ignorance and had not acted for profit motives. He had not deliberately broken the law on asbestos, but had not been aware of it. He had done what he had been asked to do to improve matters since the incident.

The site was cleared after the investigation and has since stood empty behind a first-floor façade. Inspector Seabrook explained that the site is located next to a Sainsbury’s store, which would have potentially exposed shoppers to asbestos while the demolition had been taking place. 

Need help with Health and Safety? Contact us through our website!

Birmingham-based university fined following exposure to asbestos fibres

A Birmingham-based university has been fined, along with a security systems firm, after two workers were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres while fitting CCTV cameras.

The worker and a 17-year-old trainee were installing the cameras in the reception area at the university's Recreation Centre on 21 July 2009 when they drilled into material containing asbestos fibres.  Both the university and the contractor carrying out the work were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the university failed to follow its own procedures on managing, planning and preparing for the installation and the arrangements were unclear and not widely known within the university.

The university pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(9)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

The investigating inspector from the HSE said:

"While the amount of asbestos involved in this incident was small, two people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill from lung disease in the future.

"The university failed to ensure employees and others working across the site were aware of the presence of asbestos fibres.

"Surveys on the location and conditions of asbestos and materials containing asbestos had been carried out across the university but there was no procedure for communicating the details to contractors.

"The contractor, who had been working for the university for many years, had never been given any information about asbestos - and had never asked for it. They also failed to assess whether asbestos was present, what type of asbestos was involved and what condition it was in, before undertaking work."

If you need help with the management of health and safety in your workplace, please visit our website.

Changes to asbestos legislation, 2012

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

These new regulations came into force on 05 April 2012. In practice the changes arising from the new Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 are fairly limited. They mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. This can be considered as notifiable, non-licensed work.  All other requirements remain unchanged.

The Changes:

• From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed asbestos work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority.
• From the same date, brief written records must be kept of non-licensed asbestos work that has to be notified e.g. copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance.
• By April 2015, all workers (and self employed) doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. 
• Note that medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work.

For further information about the services that we can provide, place visit our website.

The HSE has produced a chart to assist in determining which of the (now three possible) catergories work with asbestos falls into:

• Licensed Asbestos Works
• Notifiable, Non-licensed work Asbestos Works
• Notifiable Asbestos Works

Sourced from HSE Website