The changes include:
The control measures necessary include:
Those in charge of non-domestic premises are required to demonstrate compliance with the new legislation and must satisfy Fire Officers that suitable arrangements have been made to combat fire safety risks. Although the requirement of a fire certificate has now gone, the Local Fire Authority will continue to enforce fire safety legislation and will review building layouts and drawings as a part of building control approval.
London And Home Counties Fire Protection provide the expertise required in order to ensure that our clients comply with the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order. We act as the Responsible Persons to enable compliance with the legislative requirements
Our Services include
What are the consequences of not having a adequate Fire Risk Assessment?
If a fire occurs the enforcing authority could prosecute the
responsible person, this could result in a
large fine or in extreme cases imprisonment. Employees and other people using the building could sue your organisation for failing to protect their safety. Your insurance company may challenge your claim for failing to have an adequate fire risk assessment.
Fire risk assessor and hotel manager jailed for fire safety offences
An consultant fire risk assessor and a hotel manager have both been jailed for eight months for breach of fire safety legislation.
David Liu, the manager of The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Mansfield, had previously pleaded guilty to 15 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, while John ORourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services pleaded guilty to two offences under the legislation.
Sentencing the two defendants on 8th July 2011 at Nottingham Crown Court, 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.
During a routine inspection by Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service officers who visited both hotels serious breaches of fire safety came to light. 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.
The building are such a 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 ORourke 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.
The offences common to both hotels to which Mr Liu, as the responsible person, pleaded guilty were:
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.
Mr Liu was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000.