Fire Safety has to be taken seriously

With two major retailers recently suffering from the increasingly draconian approach being taken by regulatory authorities and the courts, it is clear that fire safety has been targeted for special attention. These cases have shown that the courts are happy to impose large fines (some would even argue excessive) to encourage companies to take fire safety seriously.

This is most clearly illustrated in the recent decision against a high street fashion retailer. The company suffered a fire at it’s Oxford Street branch, which, although triggering a large scale evacuation, suffered no casualties. 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 was also recently fined £200,000 for a number of fire safety offences at stores in Hampshire. These cases illustrate the level of fine that will 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. The fashion retailer tried to argue this when it appealed the level of the fine. Specifically, it was argued that £400,000 is excessive when compared to recently 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 fashion retailer case considered a large fine as being necessary to act as a deterrent to other companies, even though none of the breaches was a direct cause of the fire.

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.

These fines should be a wake-up call for management of businesses of all sizes. 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.