First fire risk assessor jailed for breaches of the FSO.
David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Mansfield, had previously pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to 15 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, while John O’Rourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services pleaded guilty to two offences under the legislation. The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct fire risk assessments, and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.
Officers from Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service visited both hotels as part of a routine inspection. They found that both premises were being used to provide sleeping accommodation on the upper floors and that fire precautions, which should have been provided to safeguard the occupants in the event of a fire, were inadequate.
Due to the serious risk to life, they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises for sleeping accommodation until suitable improvements had been made.Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he had prepared fire risk assessments for both premises. However, the prosecution stated, that the fire risk assessments failed to identify a number of significant deficiencies which would have placed the occupants at serious risk in the event of a fire.
The offences (common to both hotels) which Mr Liu, as the responsible person, pleaded guilty to were:
· A lack of a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
· A failure to ensure effective means of escape with doors leading onto corridors not being fire resisting or having self-closers fitted
· A failure to ensure that emergency routes and exits were provided with emergency lighting
· A failure to ensure the premises were equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment, detectors and alarms in that there was no fire detection within the bedrooms
· A failure to ensure that equipment and devices provided were subject to a suitable system of maintenance in that the fire alarm system, emergency lighting system and firefighting equipment were not tested.
In addition at the Dial Hotel, officers found both staircases from upper levels terminating in the same ground floor area with no alternative escape routes or separation, a locked fire exit door, and exit routes obstructed by combustible materials.The other offence at the Market Inn related to a missing fire door and a window not being fire resisting. As well as jailing Mr. Liu he was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000.
John O’Rourke, as a person other than the responsible person who had some control of the premises, pleaded guilty to two counts (one for each hotel) of failing to provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. He was also ordered to pay costs of £5,860.
Please note: The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the views of the Means of Escape publications, they are the views of external parties.
David Sugden, Chairman of the Passive Fire Protection Federation comments;
Since the Fire Safety Order became Law in 2006 I estimate there have been over 2000 cases of the “Responsible Person” being prosecuted for failing to have a “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment but so far as I can tell this is the first prosecution of a Risk Assessor. Such a prosecution was inevitable at some stage and may constitute a legal precedent. The fact that a jail sentence was imposed shows the seriousness with which the courts view this failure.
A leading ACFO said in a seminar last autumn that “riding around on the back of a big red lorry for 30 years does not necessarily equip a person to undertake risk assessments”. When the FSO came out the Department made a strong point of the apparent simplicity of the process with a 5 point plan. This may have encouraged persons with a limited knowledge to offer their services. Subsequently events such as fires at Lakanal House and the Penhallow Hotel, and the inquiry into the Rose Park Disaster have shown that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and any persons offering this service must now seriously consider their qualifications to do so.
In this environment last year the DCLG established the Risk Assessment Competency Council Chaired by CFO Iain Cox to consider the standard by which such persons’ ability may be judged. It is intended that the criteria being established will be used by UKAS accredited Third Party Certification bodies in their own approval process and it is vital that Responsible Persons have this route by which to select a “competent person” to assist them. By choosing a Third Party Certificated person or company the Responsible Person should not only get the job done properly but may also be able to demonstrate “Due Diligence” in the matter.
Employers and owners of property should be aware that, through Parliamentary action society has deemed that they, and they alone, are responsible for fire safety in their premises. In this case a failure to adequately exercise that responsibility has led to jail sentences.
David P Sugden
Chairman, PFPF - http://pfpf.org/
Solutions Fire Safety comments;
So here we have our first ever-jailing sentence for the insufficient fire risk assessment that was carried out for these two hotels. Not only does this highlight the importance of a ‘suitable and sufficient’ fire risk assessment to be carried out in your workplace but also, and even more importantly, focuses on the competence of the fire risk assessors out there. Many will say that it is about time the courts and Fire & Rescue Services took their issues of ‘cowboy’ assessors seriously and whilst London Fire Brigade claim that 1 in 5 assessments are inadequate, this just seems to be the tip of the iceberg.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 has been around for long enough now. Owners, managers and anyone responsible for a building will (or should) know by now that a fire risk assessment is essential. The problem is, is that many people who are classed as the 'Responsible Person' and therefore are the ones to carry out the risk assessment, actually have no idea of where to begin, what they should be looking for and how to rectify the problems that they find. This is why so many organisations look to 'professional risk assessors' to help them out.
All fire risk assessors should be competent. If this is the Responsible Person then they need suitable knowledge, experience and training. People who class themselves as fire risk assessors in their employment should already by extremely knowledgeable with plenty of training & experience behind them. Just like we trust out doctor to have the correct education or even our bus driver to have a driving license it is no different with fire risk assessors, they hold our lives in their hands.
Too many offences went unnoticed in this case. A fire risk assessor that fails to notice so many faults is just not justifiable. The manager might even have been able to do a better job himself with the correct training. It is vital that the Responsible Person checks the competency of the fire risk assessor beforehand. You could ask to see a previous fire risk assessment of theirs so you feel confident about placing your instructions in their hands. A fire risk assessment report is much more than tick boxes. A competent person would be able to use blank pieces of paper to carry out the assessment (this is not recommended), because they know what they are doing. Competence is everything in this case and lets face it, the fire risk assessor found guilty was just not that!
For further information on this case or for enquiries regarding your fire risk assessment or Responsible Person Training please contact us on the details below.
http://www.solutionsfire.co.uk
© Copyright 2011 Means Of Escape Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2011 Think Agency - Website Designers Kent