Avoid the fire, avoid the fine

With a New Year looming it’s time to take a look back at 2010; in particular we have noticed that Fire Safety really does need to be taken far more seriously that it currently is. In 2010 two major retailers suffered from the increasingly draconian approach being taken by the regulatory authorities and the courts, they have made it clear that fire safety is being targeted for special attention. There have been a number of cases where the courts have imposed large fines (some would even argue excessive) to encourage companies to take fire safety seriously.

This is most clearly illustrated in the decision against New Look, the high street fashion retailer. The company suffered a fire at it’s Oxford Street branch, although there were no casualties, it did trigger a large scale evacuation. In the subsequent investigation, the company was found to have committed a number of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, including inadequate fire risk assessments, a lack of trained fire marshals, and obstruction of escape routes. Despite none of these breaches actually causing the fire, the company was fined £400,000.

Another large retailer, the Co-Operative, was also fined £200,000 for a number of fire safety offences at some of its stores in Hampshire. Both of these cases illustrate the level of fine that can be imposed, irrespective of whether any casualties actually result from the breach.

When compared to offences under other health and safety legislation, these fines might appear disproportionate, with some recent fines for fatalities in the workplace resulting in fines of no more than £10,000 after a fall from height. New Look tried to argue this when it appealed the level of the fine. Specifically, it was argued that £400,000 is excessive when compared to published sentencing guidelines, which suggest a fine of at least £100,000 for fatality cases. However, this argument was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal making it clear that £100,000 should not be considered a cap in non-fatal cases.

So why were such large fines imposed? There were primarily two factors that the court took into account. Firstly, the severity of the risk; fires have the potential to cause casualties among employees and members of the public on a huge scale – much larger than may be caused by breaches of other health and safety laws. It was clear that the court in the New Look case considered a large fine as being necessary to act as a deterrent to other companies, something which hopefully won’t go amiss.

The second factor is the financial means of the company and the need to make an impact on management and shareholders. Clearly, a fine in the thousands of pounds would have had little impact on businesses the size of both mentioned above. The larger fined served as a wake-up call for both businesses, and to others as well.

To avoid such attention businesses should review their fire safety policies, particularly those areas of concern highlighted by the courts. Firstly, risk assessments should be up to date. These should seek to ensure, among other things, that adequate emergency procedures and escape routes exists and that a regime for testing the alarms is documented and implemented.

Secondly, businesses should ensure they have a suitable numbers of properly trained fire-safety advisors. The fashion retailer had one such advisor for its 600 stores, and this was deemed to be insufficient. Finally, local managers should ensure that staff are appropriately trained to avoid exacerbating fire risks. This should cover the risks arising from blocking escape routes and propping open fire doors.

We could help you with all of the above, our experienced consultants regularly hold fire safety training courses, for both employees and fire marshals, and can tailor courses specifically for fire marshals.