In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, a prosecution has
been successfully brought by Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service
under the
Fire Safety Order against both a
Responsible Person and one of his fire-safety suppliers, in this case
his risk-assessor and extinguisher maintenance engineer.This case
highlights several critical points:
- responsibility may well not pass from the
Responsible Person
to third-party fire-safety service providers - appointing, using and
paying such suppliers is clearly not, of itself, sufficient to provide a defence to, nor
to prevent the fining and imprisonment of, the
Responsible Person;
- there is a clear need for the
Responsible Person to ensure the
appropriateness, skill and qualifications of all persons undertaking
Fire Safety Order
responsibilities (such as risk assessment and maintenance services)
including themselves, their representatives and third-party
fire-safety providers such as risk-assessors and maintenance
providers;
- that prosecutions, fines and imprisonments of
Responsible Persons need not follow
serious incidents - they can arise following routine visits by the
Fire Authority;
- that such third party fire-safety suppliers need to undertake
great care in ensuring their abilities and competence in those
fire-safety areas in which they operate;
In this case, the
Responsible Person and his fire-safety services
supplier both pleaded guilty to offences under the
Fire Safety Order, and were fined
and imprisoned for eight months.
David Liu, a hotelier, ran, and was the
Responsible Person
at, two hotels: the Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Market Place,
Mansfield.
Mr. Liu had appointed John O’Rourke, who runs Mansfield Fire
Protection Services, to provide fire risk assessments at both hotels.
Mr. Liu had paid £150 for the one in respect of the Market Inn. Mr.
O’Rourke also undertook the maintenance of fire extinguishers in at
least one of the hotels.
As part of their normal inspection processes, Nottinghamshire Fire
and Rescue Service visited both hotels and found there to be a lack of a
suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment at each premises, amongst
other serious deficiencies. indeed, the risks were found to be of such
seriousness that the Fire Authority immediately issued a prohibition
notice and restricted the use of the premises.
In the prosecution that followed, David Liu pleaded guilty to 15
offences including, in respect of each property:
- a failure to have a suitable and sufficient fire risk
assessment;
- a failure to ensure the premises were equipped with appropriate
fire detection and alarm systems;
- a failure to ensure emergency routes and exits were provided
with emergency lighting;
- a failure to ensure the premises were equipped with appropriate
firefighting equipment;;
- a failure to ensure that equipment and devices provided were
subject to a suitable system of maintenance
The charge and subsequent admission of guilt concerning his failure
to have a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments followed in
spite of his having appointed and paid Mr. O’Rourke to provide that risk
assessment. Indeed, in this case, the undertaking of the risk
assessments demonstrated to the Judge that Mr. Liu knew perfectly well
of the need for such an exercise. That he failed to do so properly in
spite of this awareness was therefore viewed all the more dimly.
Mr. O’Rourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services, as a person other
than the
Responsible Person
who had some control of the premises, also pleaded guilty to failing to
provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment in respect of
each premises.
In his sentencing remarks the Judge commented that “The court takes a
most serious view of offences of this nature” and that “the Court of
Appeal, in other decisions, have referred to the fact that it is not
incumbent upon the courts to await a serious fire”.
He went on to talk of the accused having “put money before the
livelihood of other people” and the need to set an example. Both men
were sentenced to eight months imprisonment, discounted from 12 months
by their early plea of guilt. The Judge also ordered that both had to
pay costs: £15,000 for Mr. Liu and £5,860 for Mr. O’Rourke.
We
previously reported that “It is of course ultimately the duty of the
Responsible Person,
typically the employer, to fulfil the obligations under the [Fire Safety Order] and it
is ultimately the Responsible
Person who may be answerable and punishable for any breaches,
notwithstanding that others may also be at fault.
The case therefore further illustrates the importance of the
Responsible Person taking
steps to ensure the competence of all of their fire safety suppliers. In
this respect, third party accreditation clearly plays a very significant
part indeed”.
This case reinforces these points. Further it provides a clear
example of where the Responsible
Person’s appointing and paying a third-party to undertake
fire-safety services fails to provide a defence and fails to prevent
their fining and imprisonment.
All Responsible
Persons should be very well aware that, say, a £150 risk assessment
may well mean nothing (or indeed even compound their responsibility) if
not done appropriately by appropriately skilled, qualified and/or
experienced people.
Furthermore, in sentencing, the Judge has referred to the
Court of
Appeals ruling that prosecutions, fines and imprisonments need not
follow serious incidents.
Whilst this case relates mainly to
fire safety risk
assessments, similar points clearly apply in respect of ,
staff
training and the provision and maintenance of
fire detection and alarm
systems, fire
extinguishers,
Emergency Lighting, and Safety
Signage.
For further information, please refer to
Nottinghamshire Fire &
Rescue Service’s press releases:
“Guilty pleas to fire safety breaches” and
“Fire safety convictions”.
It is understood that, at the time of writing, whilst both parties pleaded guilty to the
offences, the matter is subject to appeal.
|
