Property Manager and Landlord fined £670,000

Property Management Firm fined £60,000 for fire safety breaches at a “newly-built luxury” student accommodation block.

Though there had not been a fire at the block, the serious breaches and risk of fire meant that fines were issued totalling a staggering £670,000. Trinity Developments, the Building Owners, were ordered to pay £160,000 whilst the contractor appointed to carry out the works, were fined £450,000.

If there had been a fire at the block, not only would the fines have likely been a lot higher there is a high chance that custodial sentences would have been handed out. In particular, liability would also fall on the individual Property Manager and not just the company they work for.

Not to mention, if a fire had occurred at this block, withthe amount of breaches that were found, the lives of the 27 students would havebeen severely at risk which would not only have additional uninsurable lossesbut also devastating moral consequences for those involved (not to mention thevictims and their families).

Fire Safety issues were raised at Trinity Hall Student Blockon September 25^th 2016 by a concerned father who was dropping hisdaughter off to live there, but refused to let her stay.

Following this complaint, the Fire Marshall was sent intothe building on the 26^th September 2016 and deemed the fire accessfor the apartment insufficient and stated that it needed to be resolved priorto any tenants sleeping there. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service thereforetemporarily closed the block and students were temporarily rehoused.

When inspecting the building, the Fire Marshall found thatthe upper floor was still under construction with exposed timbers that couldpose a potentially serious fire risk. They also found:

• No signage indicating where fire escapes were
• The staircase to one of the two fire escapeslocked
• Self-closing devices missing from doors
• Fire Alarms not connected properly and couldonly be operated manually
• Flammable materials being stored in rooms on theground floor

The Building Owners and the Managing Agents admitted thesame four breaches, which are as follows:

• Failing to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.
• Failing to take precautions to make sure the premises were safe from risk of fire.
• Failing to provide appropriate fire detection and alarm system.
• Failing to provide an adequate number of fire escape routes and exits.
  
  

Judge Mairs at Leeds Crown Court commented that “the riskswere so obvious that a member of the public spotted them – so they should havebeen obvious to the companies involved.” He also described the situation ashaving the “potential for catastrophe” and he is not wrong.

When commenting on the situation the Property Managers said that“We moved the first intake [of students] into Trinity Hall on the 23^rdSeptember; at this point we were assured by both the Landlord and Developerthat all was signed off and good to go.”

Even with these comments, there is still a legal and moralobligation for the building owners to manage safety and this was clear from thejudge’s ruling.

Property Managers should therefore note that the BuildingOwners, Contractors and Property Managers were all found guilty here and the liabilitycould not be passed completely onto any individual party.  This serves as a good reminder for PropertyManagers to manage safety through qualified and competent safety professionalsand never assume other organisations will do this on their behalf.