Consultant Risk Assessor Receives Prison Sentence for ‘Woefully Inadequate’ Fire Risk Assessment
An experienced former firefighter and professional fire risk assessor, was told yesterday by a Crown Court judge that a custodial sentence was inevitable following a fire risk assessment of a nursing home, which was not suitable and sufficient.
Graham Foote, 70, of Beverley, Yorkshire, was handed a sentence of four months in prison suspended for 12 months for providing a ‘woefully inadequate’ fire risk assessment in his capacity as a private consultant. He must also pay £1,600 in costs.
The care home company who had commissioned the risk assessor had also pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Minster Care Management was sentenced over four counts of failing to comply with the Fire Safety Order 2005 legislation over problems at Croftwood Care Home in Halton Lodge. The company was fined £40,000 plus £15,000 in costs over fire safety breaches at a Runcorn facility that prosecutors claimed left elderly clients at risk of death or serious injury in the event of a blaze.
The sentences could have significant ramifications for those involved in the business of providing Fire Risk Assessments.
Warren Spencer, Prosecuting for Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, told the court that the risk assessment provided was a generic template type document that did not relate directly to the premises for which it was written. There were no areas within the template to cover staff training, evacuation strategies, fire safety equipment or compartmentation, and it did not fully assess the building and occupancy, taking into account any special requirements that elderly, vulnerable persons may need.
Mr Spencer said that the Crown accepted that the care company had instructed a person whom they believed to be a fire safety expert, but that it was the Crown’s case that it should have been apparent to the defendant company and its directors the document he produced was wholly insufficient and unsuitable for high risk premises such as a nursing home.
Mr Spencer explained that the Crown did not have the benefit of the terms of the retainer which existed between Minster Care Management Ltd and Mr Foote, but that a fire risk assessment was not just a document, but a process which required constant and ongoing attention.
Mr Spencer said the home’s residents were a ‘high risk’ group because of their old age and in some cases infirmity or dementia, including one client who was bed-bound and on end-of-life care. The problems included failing to make a proper fire safety assessment, with the care home relying on one that might have been adequate for a ‘small shop’.
Legal counsel representing the company and the co-defendant each blamed the other party, with Foote claiming that he only been tasked with drawing up a basic template for a risk assessment and the company arguing that the ex-firefighter was supposed to carry out a full assessment and had been recommended as an expert.
Neither could produce a contract to prove their respective claim.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsible Person & Risk-Assessor Jailed
Introduction
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.
Details of the Incident
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.
Implications of the Case
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.
Further Information
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspended sentence for guilty fire risk assessor
Shutterstock
A fire risk assessor who provided an inadequate assessment for a residential block in Southampton has been fined and given a suspended prison sentence, following a prosecution brought by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service.
At a hearing at Southampton Crown Court last month, Charles Morgan – a director of UK Fire Consulting Ltd – pleaded guilty to providing a fire risk assessment that was not suitable or sufficient for Cranleigh House, a fully-occupied block of flats.
Morgan was fined £2,750, ordered to pay costs of £19,952 and a given a three-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months. UK Fire Consulting Ltd was fined £20,000 and also ordered to pay costs of £19,952 for the same offence.
Prosecuting on behalf of the fire authority, Klentiana Mahmataj said that Morgan had not lifted ceiling tiles or even opened riser cupboard doors to check for fire safety risks at the three-storey building.
During a visit to Cranleigh House, a Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service fire safety inspector also discovered electrical wiring penetrating the compartment walls. Compartmentation is critical in a residential property with a ‘stay put’ policy and at Cranleigh House there was no apparent fire stopping added to holes in the walls, meaning that smoke or fire could travel into the communal escape routes to other parts of the building.
'The job of a fire risk assessor is a highly responsible one. Lives are in their hands and their judgement is crucial. It is not a job to be taken lightly'
His Honour, Judge Burrell QC said: 'The job of a fire risk assessor is a highly responsible one. Lives are in their hands and their judgement is crucial. It is not a job to be taken lightly. It is important to hold risk assessors to account and these are serious breaches. I find it odd that there exists no regulatory framework in regard to fire risk assessors.'
Denfords Property Management, the managing agent for the premises, had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to failing to comply with an enforcement notice to provide a suitable fire risk assessment. It was fined £10,000 with £6,000 costs. The individual manager specifically responsible for the premises was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,800 costs.
The Fire Safety Order places the onus on the responsible person to comply with the legislation. However, in this case, Denfords Property Management had put its trust in UKFC Ltd to complete the fire risk assessment to a satisfactory standard.
Speaking after the case, deputy chief fire officer Steve Apter said: 'Fire risk assessments underpin the whole process of building fire safety. Mr Morgan failed to inspect and identify fire safety deficiencies within the building and failed to note a compromised alarm and evacuation strategy for the residents.
'This shortfall meant that those responsible for implementing fire safety measures were unable to fulfil their legal obligations and placed occupants at risk of death or serious injury had a fire occurred.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire risk assessor gets 8 month prison sentence for failing to provide a suitable and sufficient risk assessment which placed occupants at serious risk
An external fire risk assessor and a hotel manager have both been jailed for eight months for putting lives in danger at two hotels in Mansfield.
The manager of The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, in Mansfield, pleaded guilty to 15 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, while the fire risk assessor from Mansfield Fire Protection Services pleaded guilty to two offences under the legislation. He was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.
The judge at Nottingham Crown Court 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.
Failing to provide a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment John O’Rourke (43), who runs Mansfield Fire Protection Services, was jailed for eight months and ordered to pay £5,862 after admitting two breaches of fire safety requirements.
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. 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 fire risk assessments failed to identify a number of significant deficiencies, said the prosecution, which would have placed the occupants at serious risk in the event of a fire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Risk assessor is sentenced to jail after huge failings
TWO fires which devastated charity shops in Pontypool and Newbridge followed the failings of a risk assessor, a court has heard.
Brian Fakir, aged 59, pleaded guilty to 13 charges relating to failures in carrying out risk assessments at St David’s Hospice Care shops across South Wales at Cardiff Crown Court yesterday.
A fire at the charity’s shop in High Street, Newbridge, in February 2015, was so serious that it had to be demolished, along with a neighbouring property.
It followed another major blaze at a St David’s charity shop in Hanbury Road, Pontypool, prompting an investigation by South Wales Fire and Rescue which found serious deficiencies in Fakir’s assessments.
Three other shops belonging to St David’s in Gwent, at Blackwood, Caldicot, and Bargoed, were subsequently issued with enforcement notices as separate failings placed staff and customers at risk of death or serious injury.
Fakir, of Phyllis Street, Barry, was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years and ordered to undertake 180 hours of unpaid community work.
The case is the first of its kind in Wales – no other Welsh Fire Rescue Service has taken a risk assessor to court over failure to carry out suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments.
Speaking after the verdict, Steve Rossiter, head of business fire safety for South Wales Fire and Rescue Service (SWFRS) said: “The court has sent a strong message to would-be fire risk assessors, that there is a clear expectation that as an assessor, you must be competent at carrying out a fire risk assessment.
“This means having a good understanding of fire safety requirements, both technically and practically.”
Adrian Hadley, the deputy chief executive of St David’s Hospice Care, said: “We were very disappointed with the standard of the fire risk assessments that we had commissioned and were delivered by the defendant.
“We have since had to invest a significant amount of money on remedial works to ensure that all of our properties comply with fire safety legislation, this has included carrying out new fire risk assessments.”