Not so long ago, it was the local fire service’s role to issue certificates to businesses that complied with fire safety practices.
Today, businesses are governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which places accountability on the ‘Responsible Person‘ for fire safety in buildings and for staff.
If you think this is a ‘cop-out’ and an opportunity for owners to opt out of their fire safety standards, think again, as businesses face hefty sentences if found in breach of the law.
A Leicester landlord has been sentenced to eight months in prison for failing to comply with fire safety regulations and putting his tenants’ lives at risk.
Despite being warned about the safety of his properties, Haresh Rambhai Patel ignored the local fire brigade’s advice and was prosecuted after two adjoining properties caught fire in May 2013, forcing firefighters to rescue three residents.
The properties were split into 11 separate flats and bedsits.
The list of fire safety breaches is quite shocking:
- There were no working smoke alarms or emergency lighting in the building.
- Fire doors were either missing or jammed open.
- The fire exits were blocked, and combustible items, such as furniture, obstructed the fire escape routes.
- A fire extinguisher in the hallway had not been inspected for 25 years.
Tenants at another property owned by Patel had also complained about a lack of fire safety measures.
Patel pleaded guilty to seven offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Judge Robert Brown told Patel: “You offered rented accommodation in your properties and were well aware of the obligations as a landlord to protect the health and safety of your tenants, or you should have been.
“These offences show you failed in virtually every aspect of fire safety in relation to 9-11 Evington Street.
“You’d been warned about fire safety by the council at these same properties and didn’t heed those warnings or take any measures to comply with fire safety regulations.”
The prosecution for Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service explained: “There was an abject failure on the part of the defendant to address the question of fire safety.
“There was no risk assessment, no evacuation strategy, and the alarm system wasn’t working.
“He carried out no checks. He did not have licences to run multiple-occupation houses, and because he had no licences, he wasn’t on the fire safety register and received no official fire safety visits.”
Patel was also ordered to pay £13,704 in prosecution costs.
He had previously been fined £38,000 in a separate prosecution for failing to have the necessary licences to rent out the properties.
A fire risk assessment is a legal requirement for most buildings, while staff fire safety training must be undertaken if a business employs five or more staff.
While the overwhelming majority of premises do this, if the assessment is thought to have been carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.