Fire Safety Fine for Landlords

There is a lot of interest in fire safety from the enforcing bodies, as can be seen below:

Two private residential landlords have been found guilty of breaching fire safety regulations and fined £23,000.  Each were each found guilty of five breaches of the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 2006 at a house in French Horn Lane, Hatfield, after pleading not guilty to the offences at Watford magistrates court.

The defendants were each fined £11,500, ordered to pay £2,225 each towards the council's costs.

They were found guilty of failing to:

• ensure that all means of escape from fire were free from obstruction
• ensure that all means of escape were maintained in good order
• ensure that any fire fighting equipment and fire alarms were maintained in good working order
• take measures to protect the occupiers from injury
• ensure that all the common parts of the house were maintained in good and clean decorative repair.

The Chief Executive of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council said:

“These severe breaches of fire safety regulations could have resulted in fatalities. It is something that this council, as the responsible authority for private sector housing, takes very seriously and we are working hard to ensure that high standards are maintained to ensure the safety of our residents.”


Want to avoid making the news in this way? 
Let us help you! We are very experienced in helping Landlords and Managing Agents look after fire safety in their buildings. We can carry out the fire risk assessment and advise on (often) simple steps to improve fire safety.

Visit our website

Kant in Health and Safety

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges them to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. The papers contain lots of evidence of the cost to the employer of "being caught out".
What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.

From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.

The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.

Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.

To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Asbestos prosecution for High Street Retailer

Marks and Spencer plc, along with 3 of its contractors, have been fined for putting people (including members of the public, staff and construction workers) at risk of exposure from asbestos-containing materials during the refurbishment of two of its stores in Reading and Bournemouth.

M&S were fined £1 million and ordered to pay costs of £600,000. In addition, three contractors were fined £200,000 £100,000 and £50,000 and were also ordered to pay costs.

During the 3-month trial which ended in July 2011, the Crown Court heard that construction workers at the two stores removed asbestos-containing materials that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere. The court heard that the client, Marks and Spencer plc, did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day. The HSE also alleged that Marks and Spencer plc failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores, and the court heard that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during major refurbishment.  One contractor failed to reduce to a minimum the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

The principal contractor at the Reading store, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site. The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store failed to plan, manage and monitor removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

The HSE's Southern Head of Operations for Construction, Richard Boland said:
"This outcome should act as a wake up call that any refurbishment programmes involving asbestos-containing materials must be properly resourced, both in terms of time and money - no matter what.
"Large retailers and other organisations who carry out major refurbishment works must give contractors enough time and space within the store to carry out the works safely. Where this is not done, and construction workers and the public are put at risk, HSE will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action."

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal CD235

From April next year, the HSE will charge companies if they visit them and that visit results in some form of enforcement action. This is not something that the HSE will have discretion about, it will be mandatory.

Gordon MacDonald (the HSE's programme director), said:

"The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse. These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don't. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees."

How much might I be charged by the HSE?

Cost recovery would be at an averaged hourly fee for intervention rate, currently estimated at £133, for nearly all HSE staff. The actual costs that will recovered by the HSE will be dependent on the complexity of the investigation that is required to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry, but some guideline figures have been offered:

• Inspection with no action taken - No costs will be recovered
• Inspection which results in a letter - Approximately £750
• Inspection which results in Enforcement Notice - Approximately £1500
• Investigations carried out by the HSE - Ranging from approximately £750 through to several thousands of pounds to, in extreme cases, tens of thousands of pounds.

Want to avoid the HSE Charges?

Ensure that you are (and remain) compliant with the relevant Health and Safety legislation and this will help you to avoid attracting the attention of the HSE:

• Keep your risk assessments reviewed and up to date.
• Ensure that you have adequate control over your contractors.
• Take prompt action to prevent situations developing that may attract the interest of the HSE.
• Ensure that you keep suitable records.
• Keep that employee training is kept up to date.Keep your policies and procedures up to date.

Want to see more detailed information?

Have a look at the HSE's Consultative Document on this subject - Click here

The underlying policy of recovering costs for the HSE’s intervention through the introduction of fees where there is a material breach of the law has already been agreed by the Government. This is, therefore, not in question in this consultation. The consultation document seeks views on the systems being proposed by HSE for how it would implement this policy.

Update (21 October 2011)
The Chemical Business Association (CBA) has branded the Health & Safety Executive’s (HSE) plans to extend cost recovery as the equivalent of seeking a blank cheque from industry to compensate for cuts in its departmental budget. This would see plant owner/operators charged for any ’material breach’ found by its Inspectors and for any ’formal intervention’ required


Mike Ellerby
LRB Consulting Ltd
01509 550023
Web address

Changes in Labels for Hazardous Substances

In different countries all over the world there are different laws governing the identification or classification of the hazardous properties of chemicals and different ways in how information about these hazards is made available to users (through labels, and safety data sheets for workers). Not surprisingly, this leads to confusion as the same chemical can have different hazard descriptions in different countries.

Enter the "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals" (GHS).  The aim of GHS is, on a worldwide basis, the same:
• criteria for classifying chemicals according to their health, environmental and physical hazards; and
• hazard communication requirements for labelling and safety data sheets

The GHS is not a formal treaty, but is a non-legally binding international agreement. This means that countries must create local or national legislation to implement the GHS.

What does this mean to you?
If you use hazardous substances, then you have probably noticed that some of those you have bought recently have some different symbols on their labels. The purpose of these new symbols is to enable those who are using the product to determine if there are any health or safety risks with the substance in a (worldwide) uniform manner.

New Symbols?
Very simply, the new symbols are a new version of the traditional orange and black warnings that have been around for many years. They are new because they are starting to be “phased in”.

 

New Legislation?
The changes are being introduced as a result of the EC Regulation No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP). This new Regulation currently exists alongside the UK legislation: the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP4). It should be noted, however, that by 2015 the UK legislation will have been replaced by the EC Regulation No 1272/2008.

More Information to follow - or visit our website http://lrbconsulting.co.uk/

Some advice for Landlords of Houses of Multiple Occupation

If you're a Landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), you may have some serious fire safety responsibilities, as shown by a recent prosecution (see below). This article is intended to provide some simple advice on what to do.

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.

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 case below.

Details of a recent prosecution

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 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."


If you need help with your fire safety risk assessment, please contact us.

Help me to increase my client base!

Like many people, I'm looking for ways to increase the number of (Health & Safety) clients that I have.

How to do this?

• Direct mail?
• email campaign? DOING, MailChimp
• (Even more) Networking? LIMITED POTENTIAL FOR THIS
• On selling to existing clients?
• COSHH (Bio)
• MHO to Charn F
• Targeting bigger clients? TRYING TO DO SO
• BL
• Shef U
• Various London FM Co's
• Web-site makeover - DONE
• PR campaign?
• Seminars? - DOING
• Teasing out suitable client contacts from existing sources? - NEED TO DEVELOP FURTHER

Ideas welcome