A pub landlord was given a custodial sentence for breaking a prohibition notice given by the fire service and for a litany of other fire safety offences. Anthony O’Leary received suspended sentences for four offences in a case that London Fire Brigade says highlights the problem of unsuitable buildings being used as housing.
The offences took place in 2010 when police asked London Fire Brigade to carry out an inspection of the disused Tavern in the Town pub in North London. Inspectors found there was no fire detection system and inadequate means of escape, so they issued a prohibition notice preventing the pub being used for sleeping accommodation.
Later that year inspectors returned to find tenants living in the former pub, in breach of the prohibition notice. Building manager Joseph McConville and the building’s landlord O’Leary denied knowledge of people using the building as accommodation or of the notice prohibiting it.
McConville was last year given a conditional discharge for a single offence of breaching a prohibition notice, while O’Leary was given a custodial sentence. He received a six-month sentence, suspended for two years for each of the following offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005:
He was also sentenced to nine months for breaching the prohibition notice, also suspended for two years.
Warning to building owners
This judgment is being seen as a warning to building owners who are allowing tenants to use their properties without proper fire safety procedures.
In overcrowded cities where rent is high there is an increasing problem of illegal housing, including so-called “beds in sheds”, which have become prevalent in the suburbs of London. The Fire Service says that riskier ways of cooking, heating, and lighting are more common in illegal housing such as this.
LFB Assistant Commissioner for fire safety regulation Steve Turek said that the use of unsuitable buildings for accommodation was “a concern.” He added:
“This verdict sends out a clear message that if building owners ignore their responsibilities under fire safety law we will not hesitate to prosecute and they will face serious penalties.”
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Let this serve as an example to everyone and anyone who ignores prohibition notices issued by the Fire Brigade. There is a reason why there are requirements before an area should be opened up for people to live in. There is always the risk of fire and other security hazards that should be addressed before people are allowed to move in.
I hope that this sends out a strong message indeed.
Thanks Hazel. Part of me wonders if this article is preaching to the converted though. The message never seems to get through to the people who need to hear it.
This is very true because some local councils are allowing companies like camelot and adhoc to have so called guardian occupying similar vacant properties without any proper fire and health security measures. I know people won’t learn any lesson . let wait and see
I agree with you Rob, Who amongst us would be in a position to rent such a property? Once again it is those so desperate they will accept anything rather than sleep in a box in some back alley – Paul McCartney is afraid of being poor – Me I have always been afraid of being homeless. Sleeping rough – you cannot wash yourself or your clothes, cook or eat properly and probably present as a homeless person – who would wish to employ you? Employment give a step onto aladder that you may be able to climb once more… Read more »
…or at least it would be more difficult. Great suggestion, Mike.
Ah yes, I’ve had first-hand experience of the Guardian schemes. For anyone who’s not initiated, they are where people live in disused buildings for relatively cheap rent in order to put off squatters. Security through occupation, basically. The building owner gets a relatively cheap way to protect their property while tenants get a cheap place to live. The fire/health and safety measures from my experience are generally adaquete but from what I’ve seen but there is a slight hands-off approach from many of the letting agents. I’ve also seen quite a few of these don’t have central heating so the… Read more »
You are right Rob
Most have basic security checks with fire safety not a paramount thing at all. I have advice one of these companies to adhere to basic safety regulations regarding fire and security in order to prevent unnecessary ligitations in the future.
Yeah, wouldn’t be surprised if we see a court case for one of the companies at some point in the next few years.
Yes Rob, for sure ,it won’t be long we will witness that.