In October a residential landlord was sent to prison for failing to comply with new fire safety regulations. Mehmat Parlak was sentenced to four months imprisonment and his company, Watchacre properties limited, was fined £21,000 following conviction for serious breaches of the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005.

The prosecution followed a fatal fire at a Tottenham rental flat some 13 months previously.

Last month another landlord was fined £2,800 by Woolwich Magistrates after admitting 17 offences relating to a three storey house in Blackheath. The court heard that lapses, included failure to fit fire doors and failure to ensure fire alarms were working, had put more than a dozen tenants at risk.

Local councillor O’Mara, cabinet member for neighbourhood services, said landlords ‘have a legal and moral duty to ensure their tenants are not put at risk, and the law gives local councils powers to take landlords to court where we consider they are not fulfilling their duties’.

These cases come as no surprise to most fire safety professionals. Fire legislation has undergone dramatic changes over the past decade which have led to confusion about the requirements, the enforcement process and the safety standards applying to different types of premises.

Although compliance with the legislation has been improving within the residential sector, progress has been slow. The tragic incident from which the first prosecution cited above resulted should serve as a timely reminder of both the need for compliance and the potential consequences of doing nothing.

The most significant change made by the Regulatory Reform Order, which came into force on 1 October 2006, applies to multi-occupied residential properties (purpose built flats, conversions and the like). And it was for a breach of this regulation that the recent prosecution was brought.

Fire statistics for the United Kingdom, published by the department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) show that in 2006 there were 363 deaths from fire in dwellings, of which 111 were within multiple occupancy buildings. In addition there were a total of 11,200 non-fatal injuries recorded. Statistically, most fires involving casualties occur at night.

One only has to consider some of the hazards associated with this type of occupancy to understand why the potential for death, or serious injury is so high. Such hazards can include:

• presence of sources of ignition, such as cooking appliances, smoking materials, electrical equipment, heaters, and candles;
• high levels of readily available combustible materials, such as furniture, curtains, carpets;
• storage, or build up of waste materials within escape routes;
• potential lack of appropriate fire detection and warning arrangements;
• inadequate, or unsuitable escape facilities;
• vulnerable occupants.

To be able to understand what the law requires, it is necessary to know some key terms.

Fire risk assessment - A fire risk assessment is a systematic identification of all fire related hazards within a premises and is designed to analyse how those hazards may adversely affect the building and its occupants. It should identify the level of risk that those hazards may present, and also identify suitable control measures for any significant risks.

Responsible person – This is the person who has ‘control’ of the premises and it is he or she who is required to appoint one, (or more) ‘competent persons’ to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of all the risks within the areas over which they have control. The ‘responsible person’ for multi-occupied residential premises is normally the landlord (or appointed property manager) and the areas that he or she has control over will normally be limited to the common areas of the building. In some cases the freehold is owned by the leaseholders for the building through a jointly owned company. In such instances the ‘responsible person’ would be a director or directors of the company.

Competent person – To be deemed competent, this person must have an appropriate level of knowledge and experience of the legislation, fire safety standards to be applied and the principles of risk assessment. This person must be able to make appropriate judgements about fire risk and recommend suitable measures to eliminate or manage these risks. In most cases the competent person will be a fire safety professional. In some cases this expertise may be available 'in-house'.

Suitable and sufficient – In order for a fire risk assessment to be deemed ‘suitable and sufficient’, it must identify any/all fire threats to the safety of the building’s occupants. In practical terms this would include assessment of:

• ignition sources;
• combustibles;
• premises layout and construction;
• people at risk;
• fire detection and alarm systems;
• fire fighting provision;
• escape facilities;
• signage;
• lighting;
• fire emergency plan;
• instruction and information;
• testing and maintenance of fire safety systems; and
• potential for arson.

Once an assessment is complete, any 'significant findings' must be recorded in writing and any/all persons who may be affected by the assessment should be informed accordingly. In addition, an action plan should be formulated for implementation of any necessary remedial action. The action plan should specify exactly what is to be achieved, by whom and in what timescales. This plan should be kept up to date and should provide a full audit trail for management and enforcing authorities.

Ideally the record keeping arrangements will need to be appropriate to the size of the undertaking. For property managers with a significant number of properties within their portfolio, an electronic method of interrogating and managing the information would be the most viable option.

Assessments should be reviewed whenever they are considered to be ‘no longer valid'. In practical terms this means conducting a review following any significant change to the occupancy, or layout of the building, following any fire related incident, or near miss, or at periodic intervals as stated within the assessment (generally 12 months for normal risk buildings).

However, it could be considered potentially dangerous to apply a blanket review period regardless of the risk category of buildings. For example a high-risk building may warrant a six-monthly review period, whilst a particularly low risk building may only need its assessment reviewed every two years.

Landlords would be wise to consider the issue of competency in more detail. The ‘competent person’ should be able to demonstrate the necessary experience and qualifications in their particular field. For fire safety professionals, membership of organisations such as the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), or Institution of Fire Prevention Officers (IFPO) will provide a certain degree of reassurance, but this should not be considered in isolation. It is also important to recognise the importance of the practical application of ‘risk assessment’ and the need to apply a ‘cost versus benefit’ approach to remedial actions.

Rigid application of benchmark standards may provide some degree of comfort for assessors, but may prove extremely costly and unnecessary.

Experience in the residential sector must also be considered essential if a sensible and pragmatic approach to fire safety problems is to be achieved. There are many nuances and problems associated with residential buildings that cannot be addressed sensibly by applying a commercial building assessment mentality.

Consider also the importance of the way information will be managed. The recording of a risk assessment is only the first stage in securing compliance with the regulations and it is vital that a properly structured and prioritised plan be put in place for dealing with remedial actions. In dealing with residential clients with significant property portfolios, we have certainly found that the provision of a computer based facility for managing all fire safety requirements is the most effective way of ensuring that suitable and sufficient progress is made in relation to the action plan. This progress is essential in order to avoid the pitfall of failing to act to implement the findings within reasonable timescales.

After the Parlak case Brian Coleman, chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, warned ‘landlords and businesses must take their responsibilities under the regulatory reform order seriously’.

To meet the requirements of the regulations, landlords must take reasonable steps to manage adequately the fire related risks within their rental properties. Those who do not have access to in-house technical fire safety expertise may find application of the regulations onerous and would also not be deemed 'competent persons' in law'.

For further advice and/or assistance please contact The Author, or visit www.lawesmarsh.com.