Avatar photo

Freelance journalist

Author Bio ▼

Ron Alalouff is a journalist specialising in the fire and security markets, and a former editor of websites and magazines in the same fields.
September 1, 2022

Sign up to free email newsletters

Download

The Video Surveillance Report 2022

Premises under guardianship scheme in Brighton closed down without prohibition order after fire safety failings

A row has broken out about a former care home under a temporary guardianship scheme, whose occupants were evicted without fire service enforcement action after the premises was found to pose a significant threat to life. Ron Alalouff reports.

Brighton & Hove City Council terminated the guardianship arrangement with Oaksure Property Protection at Knoll House in Hove last month, with 21 resident guardians having to leave their home. Both parties contest the facts and legal issues surrounding the eviction.

The council – working with East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service – says there were numerous fire safety failings at the property which, in the event of a fire, would pose a significant risk to life. The alleged failings included poor fire safety management, insufficient information and training of the waking watch (they were unaware of the evacuation procedures and could not identify the assembly point), insufficient information and training provided to the head guardians with responsibility for fire safety, incorrect information about room occupation, which could cause delays to firefighters in the event of an emergency, and out-of-date fire extinguishers.

A potential closure of the premises was previously avoided in July after discussions about the fire safety failings with Oaksure. But, following a subsequent inspection by East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service on 19 August, the council terminated the contract with immediate effect and evicted the resident guardians.

“Given the significant risk to life caused by the fire safety issues, we make no apology for insisting that the occupants moved out and they understood why this was necessary,” said a council spokesperson.

“We had given Oaksure repeated opportunities to resolve the fire risk so that their live-in guardians were safe. But the situation had become so serious that we had no option but to prioritise safety over income.

“We very much regret that Oaksure’s failure to address these issues led to this situation.”

Opposing view

But Oaksure has a very different account of what happened. The company said it previously received a termination notice to vacate within 20 working days, which was subsequently annulled by the council’s Acting Chief Executive, who gave Oaksure an extension of the contract.

Daniel Hudson, Oaksure’s Chairman, told IFSEC Global: “We carried out all of the amends requested by Brighton & Hove City Council and the fire brigade except new fire training of guardians and evacuation drills, which were in [progress]. The property had been deemed safe by the fire risk assessor contracted to write the FRA and that there were no urgent advisories outstanding. This was confirmed by the risk assessor who was on-site with the council.

“We have never received a prohibition notice from the fire brigade, which would be the only legal grounds for an eviction of domestic residents with less than 28 days’ notice. A prohibition order can be issued if it is considered that continued occupation would be a serious threat to life. Our risk assessor would never have signed off the FRA if there had been a serious threat to life, and we have full confidence that the fire brigade would have issued a prohibition order if they deemed there to be a serious threat.

“[The council] do not have any contractual relationship with our guardians – their contracts are signed with us. Therefore if [they] wanted to remove our guardians without our consent, they needed to get a court order to establish possession. They then would have needed to get licenced bailiffs to enforce the court order for possession, who are the only people who can do so legally. They never had a court order and they used security guards to forcibly remove our guardians.”

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service has confirmed that it did not issue a prohibition notice and says that the council led on the case.

Not council tenants

The council says the occupants were guardians contracted by Oaksure, not council tenants, and did not pay rent to the council. “The company was given adequate time and multiple warnings to ensure the accommodation was safe and did not present a fire risk. When Oaksure failed to take appropriate measures, we had to take decisive action in the knowledge a fire could present a genuine threat to life. Fire safety risks which could lead to loss of life or serious injury are something which the city council cannot tolerate.”

Oaksure has offered all guardians free hotel accommodation for 28 days while it finds alternative permanent accommodation, while council staff are providing them with advice and assistance about new housing.

The council said it will be reviewing its use of guardianship schemes in the future.

 

Fire Safety in 2021 eBook – Is the industry ready to embrace systemic change?

Download the Fire Safety in 2021 eBook, as IFSEC Global and FIREX International keep you up to date with the biggest stories of the year, including new legislation, a round-up of the biggest news stories, and articles on third-party certification and the role of digital information software in meeting golden thread principles.

The eBook also features an exclusive foreword from the Fire Industry Association's Ian Moore, and a look at how the sector embraces systemic change in attitudes to risk and safety.

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ash
Ash
September 2, 2022 9:11 am

Shame you didn’t find out who did the FRA and get a quote from them.