Also for anyone wanting to learn about Fire Risk Assessments this case would be worth studying as nearly examples of nearly every infingement possible will be found. Stragely the Daily Mail in their article about the case did not mention the lack or need for an fire risk assessment. I feel certain that they did not have one.

The extraordinary thing about this case is that Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice which he then ignored.
London Fire Brigade said guests’ lives were put in jeopardy due to the shoddy conditions which were discovered inside The Radnor Hotel during an inspection in 2011.
It brought charges against then-owner Salim Patel, who was fined £200,000 this week after a successful prosecution.
London Fire Brigade said fire doors inside the building were tied open with electrical cords or string
+5
In other areas of the hotel, fire doors were removed or missing
+5
London Fire Brigade said fire doors were missing (right) or tied open with electrical cords or string (left)
In addition to the six-figure fine, Mr Patel was ordered to pay nearly £30,000 in court costs after pleading guilty to seven offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
He was also handed a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, the London Fire Brigade said.

Fire safety officers were stunned when they toured the six-floor, 18-room hotel, on Inverness Terrace, to carry out a routine inspection.
They discovered numerous fire safety breaches, including inadequate fire detection systems, blocked emergency exits and inadequate emergency lighting.
Fire doors were missing or tied open with extension cords or string, there was evidence the basement store room was used for sleeping, and the owner had not conducted a fire risk assessment.
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
+5
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice, which required him to address the safety concerns to make the hotel safer for guests, but follow-up visits found that no action had been taken, the London Fire Brigade said.
The hotel continued to operate without a working fire detection system, so court proceedings were launched against the hotelier.
When Mr Patel was sentenced Judge Kennedy said the public expected ‘absolute attention’ to fire safety when occupying sleeping accommodation.
The judge told court that Mr Patel did not provide that protection and, as a business owner, he was where the ‘buck stopped’, the London Fire Brigade said in a statement.
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine
+5
Fire safety officers were stunned when they discovered the conditions during a routine inspection
+5
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine this week after a successful prosecution
Neil Orbell, head of fire safety regulation, said he hopes the penalty serves as a deterrent for other hoteliers.
He said: ‘Our fire safety officers carry out around 16,000 inspections every year to help ensure the capital’s buildings are safe from fire.
‘This is the biggest fine we have ever secured against an individual for breaking fire safety laws and it should send a message to all business owners that if they are shirking their fire safety responsibilities and putting the public at risk we won’t hesitate to prosecute. ‘The size of the fine should also serve as a stark reminder that the court’s take fire safety just as seriously as we do.’
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said Mr Patel no longer runs the hotel and it is under new ownership.
Guests complained about the conditions in a series of scathing reviews on TripAdvisor, where The Radnor Hotel had a rating of two stars before it closed.
Of 92 reviews, 59 were filed under ‘terrible’.
Helen, from Australia, wrote in August 2012: ‘We were a little alarmed at the fire emergency plan which was printed straight off the internet and put up without being filled in. We drew comfort from the fact the place has not burned down yet.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2993090/Former-London-hotel-owner-hit-record-200-000-fine-fire-safety-violations.html#ixzz3WizZrsJy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The post Hotelier Fined £200,000 for Violating Fire Safety Rules. appeared first on Fire Risk Assessments Birmingham.

The attached article shows just how important it is to get your Fire Risk Assessment done by a competent person. Indeed the 2005 RRO makes it the duty of the responsible person to commission a competent person. Given just how much was missed in this assessment you would have thought that the client would have realised that this was a document which could not be relied upon. Firecall only employs highly qualified fire risk assessors. These are a range of the qualifications you could expect our assessors to have: EngTech GIFireE MIFSM ACMIN NAFRAR. So the answer to the question is: ask to see the assessors qualifications.

This is the story: A private fire risk assessor has been found guilty of failing to provide an adequate risk assessment to a large Newton Abbot restaurant.

Mr Craig Richard Stonelake was prosecuted by Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service under Sections 9 and 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Appearing at Torquay Magistrates today (25 March), Mr Stonelake had pleaded guilty was ordered to pay a total in fines and costs of £7,383.

The risk assessment Mr Stonelake had been employed to carry out was found to be unsuitable, not taking into account the sleeping risk, the inadequate means of escape, lack of suitable fire doors, inadequate fire alarm system, and inadequate firefighting equipment.

Mr Stonelake also serviced the firefighting equipment at the premises when not qualified or trained to do so and failed to service the equipment to any appropriate standard. Failing in his duty to undertake this work to an appropriate standard placed people using the premises at the risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire occurring.

Station Manager Glen Wells said: “Anyone offering professional services to a premises, a business or a person has a responsibility and a duty of care to that business or person.

“This responsibility is at its highest and most fundamental when that work has the potential to affect the health and safety of people or employees at that premises. In the case of fire risk assessments and the servicing of emergency equipment, failures may unnecessarily expose people to the risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire occurring.

“Where that person, with a duty of care, has failed and should reasonably have known that they did not have the requisite training, qualifications or experience for that work compounds that failure. Sadly it would appear that this particular case is not an isolated one.

“It would appear that there is a minority of people purporting to be bona fide fire risk assessors offering their services, for payment, to businesses that are unclear about the requirements of the FSO. To fail in this service provision has the potential for devastating consequences.

“It needs to be made very clear to anybody that is considering working or works in the provision of fire risk assessments and or the servicing of fire safety equipment such as fire extinguishers the seriousness of this undertaking and the need complete the work to a satisfactory standard.”

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service will be providing an event whereby guidance will be provided to fire risk assessors or to people considering starting in that line of work.

The day will include covering the expectations placed upon fire risk assessors and the auditing of those assessments. The event is planned for Friday 5 June 2015. Anybody wanting to register interest or a place should email firesafety@dsfire.gov.uk and leave their details.

The post How to Choose a competent Fire Risk Assessor appeared first on Fire Risk Assessments Birmingham.

The case was a landmark hearing for the UK fire and rescue service, believed to be the first time that a jury – rather than magistrates or an individual judge – has convicted a defendant under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited and its sole director Michael Wilson, had pleaded not guilty to 12 offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The defendants were sentenced at Blackfriars Crown Court on Monday (6 February).

The offences date back to 18 May 2008 when London Fire Brigade was called to a fire at the hotel on Nether Street, Finchley. The blaze had spread quickly from a first floor guest bedroom, up a staircase to the floor above and along a corridor. Three people escaped from the fire, two by using the stairs and a third by climbing out of a second floor window.

Following the fire, London Fire Brigade fire safety inspectors visited the hotel and raised a number of serious fire safety concerns. These included defective fire doors, blocked escape routes and no smoke alarms in some of the hotel’s bedrooms. Mr Wilson was also unable to produce a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and was found not to have provided staff with adequate fire safety training.

Chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Cllr Brian Coleman AM FRSA said: “Business owners have a clear responsibility under fire safety law to ensure that both the public and their employees are as safe as possible from the risk of fire. This verdict sends out a clear message that if these responsibilities are ignored we will not hesitate in prosecuting and people will face serious penalties.”

Notes to editors:

• Mr Wilson was summonsed to appear before magistrates for contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The case was first heard at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on 22February 2010, when Mr Wilson pleaded not guilty to all matters. The case was later committed to Blackfriars Crown Court for trial , which took place between 28 November and 6 December 2011

• The fine was apportioned between the corporate defendant, Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited (£30,000) and the individual defendant, Michael Wilson (£180,000)

• The defendants were further ordered to pay prosecution costs of £50,000; and compensation of £2,000 (to a guest who had to escape the fire through a second floor window).

• Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, employers or those who have control over a premises (known as the ‘responsible person’) are required by law to carry out a fire risk assessment and act on its findings. The risk assessment should also identify actions which need to be taken in order to protect the building from fire. It must be kept under constant review and amended if any changes are made to the premises.

• London Fire Brigade carries out around 16,000 fire inspections of premises each year and although the majority of buildings are managed well in regard to fire, there are still too many buildings that do not have an adequate fire risk assessment and as a result have fire exits blocked, inadequate fire alarms or poor training for staff. The Brigade can and does prosecute companies or individuals if there are breaches to fire legislation and though court action is a last resort, recent cases show that the courts will issue fines or even consider prison sentences for serious cases.

The post Inadequate Fire Risk Assessment – Chumleigh Lodge Hotel appeared first on Fire Risk Assessments Birmingham.