Cleveland Fire Authority welcomes the outcome at Teesside Magistrates Court at which two businessmen were successfully prosecuted by Cleveland Fire Authority for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Mr Kambiz Kamyab and Mr Russell Karl Mills who jointly own the premises and are the responsible persons for 34-36 Borough Road, Middlesbrough were fined and ordered to pay costs to the value of £11,100.80. They both pleaded guilty to several offenses under Article 32(1)(a) a failure to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire, specifically.
Safeguard relevant persons
- Article 8(1)(b) – Failed to take the general fire precautions to ensure the safety of the premise for relevant persons who are not his employees. 1.1. Breaches in compartment walls and floors where services pass.
- Article 9 – A fire risk assessment has not been completed for the premises to identify the general fire precautions required to safeguard relevant persons.
- Article 13 – Inadequate fire detection and method of giving warning in case of fire. At the time of the resident raising a complaint with fire safety regulators the premises had no fire detection or warning system installed.
- Article 14 – Combustible and other items being stored on the means of escape including a plumbed in washing machine.
- Article 14 – Flat doors are not fire doors, a fire in one of the flats could spread the fire and fire gases more quickly than would normally be expected.
Fire safety arrangements
The flats above 34 to 36 Borough Road at the time of inspection were occupied by four residents
Concerns were raised to Fire Safety Officers by residents on the 21 April 2022 which resulted in an inspection of the premises.
The flats above 34 to 36 Borough Road at the time of inspection were occupied by four residents within three flats, a fourth flat was being utilised for storage. No fire incident occurred prior to the inspection; however, it is reasonable to assume due to the lack of fire safety arrangements as outlined above that if a fire had transpired then relevant persons would have been placed at risk of death or serious injury.
Fire safety measures
To emphasise the concerns with regards to the lack of fire safety measures within the premises officers sought and issued a prohibition notice for the flats which resulted in all four residents being rehoused. One experienced Fire Officer described the fire safety provision provided for the premises as being the worst he had ever seen.
One experienced Fire Officer described the fire safety provision provided for the premises as being the worst
Ian Hayton Chief Fire Officer at Cleveland Fire Brigade said: “We welcome the outcome of today’s court case, which reflects the seriousness of the offences committed under fire safety legislation. We always seek to work with business owners in the first instance to maintain fire safety standards within their premises. Where individuals responsible for building fire safety completely disregard their duty and place people at risk, Cleveland Fire Authority will not hesitate to prosecute if necessary.”
Fire safety legislation
“We would like to remind all businesses that they have a duty to comply with fire safety legislation and support is available from our dedicated team of Fire Engineers. In bringing this case to a prosecution, it demonstrates how seriously we take our responsibilities to protect the lives of people in our community.”
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to all non-domestic premises in England and Wales. A responsible person must carry out a fire safety risk assessment and implement and maintain a fire management plan. The Brigade works closely with businesses to ensure they comply with the regulations and staff is available to offer practical advice and assistance in this area.
