Landlord putting tenant’s lives at risk is forced to close building
A Cheshire landlord has been fined £6,000 and £2,500 in legal costs after being found guilty of breaching a number of fire safety regulations. Firefighters took the decision to ban anyone from inhabiting the property due to the seriousness of the situation.
The property was found to have locked fire escape routes, inadequate fire alarms and blocked fire exits.
Mr Meloni has now been permitted to open some of the flats now that he has successfully implemented fire safety measure and has produced an adequate fire risk assessment with the help and guidance of the fire service.
£20,000 fire safety fine for factory owner
The owner of a food production company in Edmonton has been found guilty of breaching fire safety regulations.
Ms Mong Liu was fined almost £20,000 after admitting violating several safety regulations including not providing sufficient smoke detectors, alarms and emergency lighting and failing to train staff in fire safety.
Enfield Magistrates Court found Ms Liu guilty of endangering the lives of her staff and visitors to the premises.
£125,000 fine for safety blunder hotel
A hotel in Wilmslow has been fined more than £125,000 after a routine visit by fire officers discovered a catalogue of serious fire safety breaches.
The Belfry was closed immediately over fears for the safety of staff and guests. It was found that the hotel had faulty fire alarms, substandard fire exits and staff had not been trained sufficiently to deal with fires.
The hotel claims that after buying the hotel in 2007 they had inherited a ‘legacy’ of problems but told the court that the safety issues were “not a question of corner-cutting”.
Within days of the April 2008 inspection the hotel had installed all of the fire safety equipment needed and was permitted to reopen. There have been no further incidents.
The hotel was fined £25,000 for each of the offences, and £52,000 in costs. Judge Elgin said “With a certain cavalier disregard, it appears the company carried on trading and taking guests when quite clearly these guests were put at substantial risk.”