A recent case of mine involved a successful prosecution under Article 27 of the Fire Safety Order. https://www.ddfire.gov.uk/news/durham-student-accommodation-firm-fined-ps22k-fire-safety-failures
Article 27 deals with the provision of information to Fire Officers when requested, in order that the person responsible and other aspects of the Fire Service Order can be determined for enforcement purposes.
Until the Building Safety Act came into force in October 2023, the sentencing limit for an offence under Article 27 was a fine of £1,000. However, the Building Safety Act Section 156 amended the Fire Safety Order to allow for an unlimited fine in respect of an offence under Article 27.
It should be remembered that unlike most other offences under the Fire Safety Order, an Article 27 breach is a “summary only” offence. This means that it can only be dealt with at the Magistrates’ Court. This can create difficulties when charged with other offences under the Order, which might be dealt with at the Crown Court. If an Article 27 offence is on the same summons as offences under say Article 8 or 9 or 13 of the Fire Safety Order, then the case would have to be split with the indictable offences going to the Crown Court, and the Article 27 case remaining at the Magistrates’ Court for sentence.
In this particular case brought by County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, an inspection of student accommodation at the Three Tuns Developments Ltd in Durham, led to numerous causes for concern for Fire Officers. A Notice of Deficiencies had been issued in October 2023, but following a fire incident in November 2023 an Enforcement Notice was issued.
The Fire Service requested confirmation from the company, Three Tuns Developments Ltd, as to who the responsible persons for the premises were. Contracts of employment were also requested.
The company director, Simon Williams, replied that he and another director were the employers of the people working in the premises. He also stated that “the current staff are on the pay roll of our in-house building company, (S Williams Construction Ltd)”, but that none of the staff had contracts of employment.
Article 3 provides that where the premises are a workplace the responsible person is usually the employer (RP). Therefore, the information provided suggested that S Williams Construction Ltd was the ‘person’ responsible for fire safety in the premises.
However, enquiries revealed that the company S Williams Construction Ltd, was based in Liverpool, had been dissolved and had no relationship to Simon Williams.
This led to a further letter being sent by the Fire Service to Mr Williams, who then confirmed that, the responsible person was in fact “Simon Williams Construction Ltd”.
This was described by the Defence as a typographical error, but the email contained the incorrect name of the company in 3 different places.
Eventually, Three Tuns Developments Ltd (now called Elvet residences Limited) accepted responsibility as the responsible person and they pleaded guilty to 4 offences under the Fire Safety Order, including the breach of Article 27, the breach of Article 30 (Enforcement Notice) and breach of Articles 8 and 11. leading to a global fine of £8,000 and costs of just over £12,000 with a victim surcharge of £2,000.
County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service also charged an offence for breaching the Enforcement Notice under Article 30 of the Fire Safety Order.
I am often asked if prosecutions for breaches of Enforcement Notices have been brought under the Fire Safety Order. Again, in this case, Three Tuns Developments Ltd, (now Elvet Residences Ltd), pleaded guilty to the breach of the Enforcement Notice, which, the Magistrates indicated was aggravated by the fact that the company had taken no notice of the Notice of Deficiencies. In fact, a month following the Notice of Deficiencies, a fire alarm was sounded at the premises and only half of the students knew to evacuate the premises. When one of the students telephoned the representative of the company indicating that there may be a fire, she was told not to phone the Fire Service.
Elvet Residences Ltd was sentenced globally for 4 offences,
It should be noted that any prosecution under Article 27 of the Fire Safety Order must be brought within 6 months of the offence being committed. Therefore, if there is a failure to provide information, or incorrect information is provided, a summons must be served upon the Court within 6 months of the date upon which the information should have been provided.
This means that any request for information under Article 27 should be given a compliance date, as the failure to provide the information within the time frame would potentially lead to an offence being committed on that date.
