New Look - New Problems?

It has been a little while since my last blog posting, but I thought the recent New Look fine is worth a mention, particularly for those with fire safety responsibilities.

To give the background to the story, a fire broke out at the retailer's Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, and around 400 people had to be evacuated. No one was hurt. 35 engines and 150 fire-fighters were needed to tackle the blaze and crews remained at the scene for the three days, disrupting trade at more than 50 Oxford Street shops.

It was found during the subsequent investigation that there was an inadequate fire risk assessment, a lack of trained fire marshals to assist with evacuation, and that escape routes were not clearly identified and obstructed by combustible materials. However, none of these contributed to the fire itself. The cause of the fire remains unknown.

The company were found guilty of breaching the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 at Southwark Crown Court, being fined £400,000 with £136,052 costs. The company thereafter launched an appeal; however this was rejected in June 2010 by the Court of Appeals.

New Look's prosecution came from two breaches of the Order:

failure to identify via appropriate assessment of the specific risks posed to individuals, the precautions necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations;

failure to ensure that employees were provided with adequate safety training.

The court acknowledged that the £400,000 fine was severe, but did not consider it to be disproportionate in the circumstances. The judge said: "The absence of death and injury is plainly an important matter in this case, but I consider there are circumstances in which a court may not need to wait for the onset of human tragedy to send out a clear message that safety of customers and staff, or indeed anyone who may be affected, must be regarded as of paramount importance."

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

The message appears to be that allowing a fire safety risk creates a significant risk to individuals and that this will be reflected in any penalties. In passing sentence, the Court's three principal considerations were:

the seriousness of the breach;

the capacity of the organisation to meet the fine;

the need for the fine to make an impact on shareholders and senior managers.

New Look was also criticised for having just one fire safety advisor for a group comprising of more than 600 shops together with the fact the risks could have been removed at relatively little cost or inconvenience.

The hefty fine removes any doubt that organisations responsible for fire safety cannot be complacent when it comes to complying with the Fire Safety Order. This was a penalty imposed because of a failure to control risk rather than as a result of any personal injury.

So what does this mean for "responsible persons" under the Fire Safety Order?

you should review your policies and fire risk assessments to ensure compliance;

consideration should be given to the structure and layout of premises, and what goes on in them;

you must not overlook the location of buildings or their immediate setting, because there may be a higher level of obligation in a highly populated location or due to the features of neighbouring structures;

outside areas and vacant premises must also be considered;

training must be thorough and up-to-date;

there should be a sufficient number of trained fire marshals with cover throughout the working day;

and now more than ever it highlights the need for suitable competent advice in relation to fire safety management.

If you would like to discuss this article or share with me some good practice please do get in touch.

Matthew Joyes is Head of Risk Management Services at Associated Training and Consultancy, a leading provider of health, safety, environmental and quality management solutions.

All of the entries in this blog provide general advice and should not be interpreted or used as specific health and safety guidance to your organisation – you must always consider your own circumstances and take appropriate action. If in doubt, contact us for professional and specific advice.

Original Article:

http://www.associatedtraining.co.uk/blogs/health_and_safety/new_look_new_worries.php