Fire Safety Breaches Prosecutions
I. Overview: Fire Safety Breaches in UK Law
A. What Are Fire Safety Breaches?
Fire safety breaches refer to failures by individuals, employers, landlords, or organisations to comply with legal obligations intended to prevent fire, reduce fire risks, and protect people in the event of fire. These obligations primarily concern non-domestic premises, but can also extend to residential buildings with communal areas, such as blocks of flats.
B. Key Legislation
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
Applies in England and Wales
Places a duty on the ‘Responsible Person’ (usually employer, landlord, or building owner) to take fire precautions and conduct risk assessments.
Fire Safety Act 2021
Clarifies that the Fire Safety Order applies to the structure, external walls, and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
Building Safety Act 2022
Introduces new regulatory regimes, especially for high-rise residential buildings, and enhances enforcement powers.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
May apply where fire risks are linked to general workplace safety.
C. Types of Fire Safety Breaches
Failure to conduct a fire risk assessment
Obstructed or locked fire exits
Absence or failure of fire detection and alarm systems
Inadequate fire safety signage
Use of combustible materials
Inadequate staff training or evacuation procedures
II. Case Law: Detailed Fire Safety Breach Prosecutions
1. R v. Southwark Crown Court ex p. The London Fire Brigade (2010)
Facts:
A fire broke out in a block of flats managed by a housing association.
There was no fire risk assessment, and communal fire doors were wedged open.
Legal Issues:
Breach of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Failure to take general fire precautions and conduct a risk assessment.
Outcome:
The landlord was fined £40,000, and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.
The court emphasised that risk, not outcome, is sufficient for prosecution.
Importance:
Established that harm does not need to occur for liability — the risk alone is enough.
2. R v. New Look Retailers Ltd (2009)
Facts:
A fire broke out in a central London New Look store.
Investigation found blocked fire exits, and inadequate evacuation procedures.
Legal Issues:
Breach of fire safety duties under the Fire Safety Order.
Failure to train staff or maintain proper escape routes.
Outcome:
New Look was fined £400,000 (then a record fine for fire safety breaches).
Costs of £136,000 were also awarded.
Importance:
Court emphasised that large commercial entities are expected to uphold high safety standards.
3. R v. Co-operative Group Ltd (2012)
Facts:
During a routine inspection of a food store, fire officers found that the fire alarm system had not been working for over a week.
Also, staff had not been trained on evacuation procedures.
Legal Issues:
Breaches under Articles 13 and 21 of the Fire Safety Order:
(Article 13: Fire-fighting and detection systems)
(Article 21: Employee training)
Outcome:
The Co-op was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 in costs.
Importance:
Sentencing reflected the potential risk to staff and customers even though no fire had occurred.
4. R v. Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Ltd and Mr. Ali (2012)
Facts:
Fire authorities found multiple fire safety failures in a 30-room hotel in London.
These included non-functioning fire alarms, missing fire doors, and no fire risk assessment.
Mr. Ali was the director of the company.
Legal Issues:
Breach of several provisions of the Fire Safety Order 2005.
Corporate and individual liability.
Outcome:
The company was fined £50,000.
Mr. Ali was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment (suspended) and ordered to pay £100,000 in costs.
Importance:
Demonstrated that directors and individuals can be personally liable and even imprisoned.
5. R v. Poundstretcher Ltd (2017)
Facts:
During multiple inspections of various Poundstretcher stores, inspectors found blocked fire exits, cluttered escape routes, and improper storage of flammable goods.
Legal Issues:
Multiple breaches of the Fire Safety Order across several premises.
Outcome:
Fined £1 million in total — one of the highest fines for fire safety breaches.
Sentencing acknowledged the systemic failure across branches.
Importance:
Reinforced that large corporations are expected to apply compliance consistently across all locations.
6. R v. Regal Pawnbrokers (2015)
Facts:
A fire risk assessment had not been reviewed for over 3 years.
Fire exits were locked during working hours and staff were unaware of emergency procedures.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Articles 9 (risk assessment), 14 (escape routes), and 21 (training).
Outcome:
Fined £70,000, with costs of £20,000.
Judge stated the firm showed a "casual disregard for safety".
Importance:
Highlights how failure to review assessments can lead to prosecution.
7. R v. UK Express Couriers Ltd (2020)
Facts:
After a fire in a warehouse, fire inspectors found inadequate emergency lighting, poor signage, and unsafe storage of flammables.
No evidence of fire drills.
Legal Issues:
Fire Safety Order violations, including Articles 14 and 15.
Outcome:
Fined £150,000, with costs of £35,000.
Company had no prior offences but was found negligent in ensuring safety.
Importance:
Emphasised that safety preparedness, not just response systems, is critical.
III. Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issues | Penalty | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Southwark Crown Court | 2010 | No fire risk assessment; fire doors open | £40k fine + £15k costs | Risk alone is sufficient for prosecution |
| R v. New Look Retailers | 2009 | Blocked exits, poor evacuation | £400k fine + £136k costs | Corporate responsibility stressed |
| R v. Co-operative Group | 2012 | Alarm failures; untrained staff | £210k fine + £10k costs | Failures without harm still punishable |
| R v. Chumleigh Lodge Hotel & Ali | 2012 | No alarms; no fire doors; no assessment | £50k fine + jail (suspended) | Individual and company held liable |
| R v. Poundstretcher Ltd | 2017 | Multiple breaches across stores | £1 million fine | Systemic corporate failure |
| R v. Regal Pawnbrokers | 2015 | Locked exits; outdated assessment | £70k fine + £20k costs | Neglect in reviewing safety obligations |
| R v. UK Express Couriers Ltd | 2020 | Unsafe storage; poor signage and lighting | £150k fine + £35k costs | Prevention and preparedness are legal duties |
IV. Conclusion
Fire safety is not optional — it’s a legal duty, especially for employers, landlords, and those managing public or commercial spaces. The courts have consistently shown that potential harm, not just actual injury, is enough to justify significant fines, enforcement action, and even imprisonment.
Key takeaways:
Regular risk assessments are critical.
Fire exits, alarms, and signage must be maintained.
Staff training is not a formality; it’s a legal requirement.
Failure to act can lead to criminal prosecutions under the Fire Safety Order.
RELATED Blog
0 comments