Institute of Fire Safety Managers

I received notification today that I have been accepted as a Member of the Institute of Fire Safety Managers. I am pleased by this acceptance as Fire Safety reflects a significant and (hopefully) growing part of my business.

Michael Ellerby, MIFSM

Website

Beware of Section 40

Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 - Section 40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.

In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.

What does this mean? In real terms it means that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the defence to show that they are not guilty. Ouch! How are you set up to demonstrate that you have reduced the risks "to as low a level as is reasonably practicable"? Need Help? Contact us

Residential Landlord fined after tenants flee from fire

A residential landlord has been found guilty of fire safety breaches (under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005) following a fire where his tenants were forced to flee for their lives.

Following an appearance at Exeter Crown Court in March 2011, The Landlord was ordered to pay a total of £135,000 in fines and a further £23,000 in costs.

This fine follows a fire at the four-storey building that had been subdivided into flats. The fire started on the ground floor and spread throughout the property and forced some of the 13 tenants to make their escape by clambering over the roof.

After the fire Devon and Somerset fire investigators carried out a safety audit of the premises. The investigation found that the door giving entrance to the ground floor flat was inappropriately constructed to resist fire and this allowed a fire in that flat to spread into the escape route. The offence carried a fine of £75,000.

There were a further three offences (£20,000 each) for three doors that had no self closing device fitted. This also impacted on fire spread to the means of escape.

Devon and Somerset area manager Nick Manning, said:

“Landlords and owners of properties used as flats should take notice of the outcome of this case - it has sent a clear message with the level of the fine awarded."

Fine for residential Landlord - Fire Safety

Outcome
A London based landlord has been prosecuted and fined £10,000 for a planning offence and also a maximum £5000 for failing to comply with a prohibition order (Housing Act 2004). Costs of £3585 were also awarded.
The Problem
The layout of a second-floor flat was so bad that there was no safe means of escape in the event of a fire, according to the Council. This state of events prompted the council's environmental health officers (EHOs) to impose a prohibition order banning people from living at the flat. Despite being aware of the fire safety risks, the landlord placed a family with two young children in the property - in direct contravention of the prohibition order.
Speaking on behalf of the Council
The Council’s executive member for planning, economic development and housing, said:

"These were blatant contraventions, which placed the lives of vulnerable tenants at risk ... The fines issued are extremely high and reflect the seriousness of the offences and the disregard shown by (the Landlord) to the law and the safety of his tenants".