The top news and prosecutions from the fire safety sector in 2021
Listed in this chapter you will find some of the most widely read stories and prosecutions to have been featured on IFSEC Global’s fire safety hub across 2021 and early 2022. Links to the full stories are provided on each section if you would like to know more.
The new code of practice for the fire risk appraisal of external walls and cladding of multi-occupancy residential buildings, designed to work alongside the Fire Safety Act, was published in late January by the British Standards Institute (BSI).
The code, PAS 9980:2022 Fire risk appraisal of external wall construction and cladding of existing blocks of flats – Code of practice, is for use by fire engineers and other competent building professionals when undertaking a fire risk appraisal of external walls. However, it is expected that the key outputs of the assessment will also be useful to those for whom it is carried out, such as building owners, landlords, fire risk assessors, managing agents and premises managers.
The standard sets out a methodology which can be scaled up or down depending on the complexity of individual buildings. It uses a five-step risk assessment process to assist in the identification of risk factors including the overall risk rating of a building, as well as mitigation steps that might improve the risk rating.
According to BSI, PAS 9980 applies where risk is known or suspected to arise, for example, due to the presence of combustible materials. The new code of practice also offers advice on the competency of professionals undertaking such appraisals and aims to increase the number of competent professionals by providing the knowledge on fire risk arising from various aspects of wall construction.
The fire at the 18-storey Torre del Moro in Milan in late August 2021 was a “disaster waiting to happen”, according to a preliminary report by a chartered building and fire engineer. Fortunately, there were no casualties.
Frances Maria Peacock’s report said that the fire could have been caused by an electrical short circuit in a flat on the 15th floor. The fire then spread to the balcony from where, due to the proximity of ACM cladding, the fire took hold in minutes. The fire also spread downwards and sideways, eventually destroying the entire sail and affecting the cladding on the structural columns, which extended up the full height of the building.
The fire at the 18-storey Torre del Moro in Milan in late August was a "disaster waiting to happen", according to Frances Maria Peacock.
The cladding on the ‘sails’ was of a similar type to that at Grenfell Tower, consisting of aluminium skin and polyethene (PE) core. The walls at the ends of the building, however, were covered with an insulated render system containing limited combustibility mineral wool insulation. The report claimed the fire could have been worse had the ends of the building been clad in combustible ACM cladding.
The report concluded that “the tower was still affected by several shape-related fire phenomena, including fire spread in an upwards, downward and horizontal direction as it followed the geometry of the cladding. Corner influenced fire spread, as well as a tendency for the flames to follow the line of the cladding at roof level, intensified and helped it to spread to other parts of the building.”
Following advice from fire safety experts commissioned by the Secretary of State, in July the Government set out that EWS1 (External Wall System) Forms should no longer be requested for buildings below 18m.
The report recommends that residents are reassured as to safety, and a more proportionate approach is urgently instituted, requiring action by all market participants.
The advice was commissioned by the Secretary of State, after witnessing what Dame Judith Hackitt described as extreme risk aversion, which left leaseholders across the country receiving costly bills for remediation that is not necessary.
It states that fire risks should be managed through measures such as alarm systems or sprinklers, and that the majority of medium and low-rise buildings with cladding should not require expensive remediation.
Over 100 firefighters tackled a blaze for nearly three hours at a block of flats covered in ACM cladding in East London on the morning of 7th May 2021.
The London Fire Brigade’s (LFB) preliminary report into the incident highlighted serious failures in the smoke ventilation system.
The report confirmed that the fire started in a consumer unit in an eighth floor flat. Due to the severity of the fire, more testing was needed to find out how exactly the consumer unit failed. The fire then travelled out of an open balcony window. At the same time, smoke poured into the corridor through a flat door that had accidently been kept open.
The investigation found that ACM cladding panels similar to those found on Grenfell were present, but did not contribute to the external spread of the fire. The spread of fire on the outside of the building from floors 8 to 11 was believed to have been facilitated by timber decking on the balconies.
There were 35 rescues, 22 involving fire escape hoods, with two people taken to hospital. The London Fire Brigade highlighted that its response to the fire demonstrated significant changes the Brigade has made since Grenfell:
Turn over for the most-read prosecution stories of 2021 in the fire sector, or find out more information from each of the above news stories in the links below...
New code of practice for external wall fire risk assessment published
Milan tower block blaze
Buildings under 18m no longer require EWS1 forms
Report into New Providence Wharf fire
Luxury Scottish hotel, Cameron House Resort, was fined £500k for breaches of fire safety legislation following a fatal fire in December 2017.
The hotel pleaded guilty to two charges under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 for failing to take the necessary fire safety measures to ensure the safety of employees and guests.
These included having no proper procedures, training and supervision for the disposal of ash and embers from the hotel’s open fires, failing to keep a cupboard free for combustibles, and failing to maintain and empty metal bins used for the storage of ash and embers.
In the early hours of 18th December 2017, Christopher O’Malley, a hotel night porter, disposed of ash in a plastic bag and put it in a cupboard containing kindling and newspapers. Although a fire alarm sounded at 06:39 AM, the fire took hold and flames quickly spread, due to voids in the walls and ceiling of the cupboard.
Two of the guests – Simon Midgley, 32, and Richard Dyson, 38 – died in the fire from smoke and fire gas inhalation.
Haesel McDonald was an employee of tanning salon operator Indigo Sun Reatail Ltd and sought reparation for injury in the form of tinnitus and hearing loss arising from four hours of exposure to the noise from the alarms in her workplace.
Sheriff John Mundy was told that Indigo Sun Retail Ltd was aware that the fire alarm on the premises was faulty, causing it to sound unnecessarily on numerous occasions. On the morning of 12th December 2015, Haesel was working a 9am to 1pm shift, when the fire alarm went off.
The court heard how she telephoned her manager, Steven Campbell, for assistance, who indicated that he would come to the salon but that she should continue working. She remained at the salon, saying she feared she would lose her job if she left.
The premises manager arrived at around 11am and attempted to muffle the sound alarm with tape, saying that the engineer had been called. Miss McDonald said she was not offered any form of ear protection and was told to keep working. In December 2016 she was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and provided with hearing aids on the NHS.
The defender was found liable for the pursuer’s hearing loss. Damages were assessed at £25,000 for solatium, £1,300 of interest thereof, and £214,997 for the future cost of private hearing aids replaced every three years.
Following a fire on the night of 23rd November 2019, Derby Crown Court sentenced a landlord to suspended prison time and a fine of £50,000 for fire safety breaches.
Responding to the fire which started in a flat on the top floor of the converted house, firefighters discovered some fire doors had no self-closers or smoke seals, the kitchen door did not close due to a lack of maintenance and the fire alarm was not working. There was no evidence of a fire risk assessment and fire extinguishers were out of date.
The owner and landlord of the flats appeared at Derby Crown Court on 5th July and was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment suspended for two years, fined a total of £50,000.00, ordered to pay court costs of £22,861 and an additional £156 as a victim surcharge for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
In 2018, firefighters were called to a fire at a flat above a shop on Queensway in Bayswater, West London. It took 70 firefighters and 10 fire engines to control the blaze that destroyed half of the four-storey building.
Two women were rescued from the building and treated for smoke inhalation at the scene.
Investigators found that the building owner had failed to carry out fire risk assessments for the building and didn’t have adequate fire detection measures, which meant that safe evacuation was not possible.
A £20,000 fine was handed to a landlord for fire safety breaches in a London flat which led to two women being treated for smoke inhalation.
Building owner, John Kyriakides, pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Fire Safety Order when he appeared at Southwark Crown Court. He was sentenced to two months in prison, suspended for 12 months, fined £20,000, and ordered to pay £11,500 prosecution costs.
Owner of Ebers Hotel in Nottingham, Chate Singh, was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for 18 months, following multiple fire safety breaches.
The hotel owner admitted to six offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and was sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court on Friday 10th December 2021.
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services said some of the breaches included failing to provide adequate fire safety training, failing to implement procedures such as safety drills, and failing to take general precautions to reduce the risk of fire.
The company was fined £18,000 and also ordered to pay costs of £12,000.
Find out the full story of each prosecution listed here via the links below!
Inquiry into Cameron House hotel fatal fire results in £500k fine
£240k awarded to employee who suffered hearing damage from faulty fire alarm
Landlord receives £50k fine for fire safety breaches
Fire safety breaches at London flat lead to £20k fine and prison sentence
Hotel owner sentenced to eight months imprisonment after breaching fire safety regulations
