Fire Safety

Fire chiefs yesterday told Leicester Magistrates' Court that although no one was seriously injured in the blaze at the hotel, it could easily have been different because of the deficiencies at the hotel.

The court heard how guests and staff had to find their own way out of the building during the fire, last August, because there was no evacuation procedure.

A couple working for the hotel and living in the basement with their child, did not hear the alarms and took 20 minutes to get out of the building.

The hotel director, who represented the business in court, and the hotel manager each pleaded guilty to ten charges of failing to meet, or maintain fire safety regulations and measures.

These included leaving fire doors wedged open, failing to maintain and check fire and smoke alarms properly, not having a suitable, regularly-reviewed fire risk assessment, failing to train staff members in fire safety and failing to provide guests with evacuation instructions.

A spokesman for Leicestershire Fire and Rescue service, said:

"No-one suffered serious injuries from the fire but we could have easily been dealing with a different situation.

There was a high risk of death or serious injury because of the deficiencies."

Fire crews took two hours to extinguish the blaze. It was caused by a candle and damaged several guest bedrooms.

The spokesman said although the manager was classed as the person responsible for ensuring fire prevention and safety at the hotel, he had not been trained and accepted he was not competent to manage fire safety.

She said: "There were staff in the basement who were unaware of the fire. There was no effective evacuation plan. Staff were not trained."

The spokesman said that staff members had told the manager they were concerned about fire and health and safety. After the blaze, a fire service inspection revealed the safety failings.

An enforcement notice was served on the hotel ordering them to improve standards relating to fire safety.

The spokesman said the only mitigation which could be taken into account was the co-operation when interviewed and the early guilty plea.

She added: "The company has now put itself in a position where it is complying with the law but the fact that more than £50,000 had to be spent to do this does not count in its favour. The arrangements should have been there in the first place."

The manager, who represented himself, agreed with the prosecution evidence, and said nothing further.

The lawyer representing the company, said: "Once an enforcement notice had been made the company complied with all the matters and took the responsibilities it should have had prior to the fire."

The director for the hotel was fined £29,700 and ordered to pay £8,000 costs and a £15 victims' surcharge – a total of £37,715.

The manager was fined £2,970, ordered to pay £380 costs and the £15 surcharge.