September 11, 2024
Property firm fined over Ipswich flats
This content has been produced in association with our sister company, Barbour.
An Ipswich property management company and its director have been fined and ordered to pay costs totalling more than £100,000 for “flagrant” breaches of fire safety regulations at a block of town centre flats.
Sentencing Home from Home Property Management Ltd, and company director Edward Ottley, Judge David Pugh said that checks carried out following the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017 found that the 50 Ipaxis flats in Wolsey Street, Ipswich had the same cladding and that the fire risk presented by it was high.
However, he said an independent fire risk assessment expert had been misled by the company and was told the risk of fire from the cladding was low and he only found out later that his assessment was based on a false premise which was known to Ottley and Home from Home.
Ottley, of Tuddenham, and Home to Home, of Pownall Road, Ipswich, which managed the flats, were found guilty after a trial last month of eight offences of failing to comply with fire safety regulations following a prosecution brought by Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS).
Ottley was given a ten-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months and ordered to do 120 hours unpaid work.
Home from Home was fined £60,000 and the company and Ottley were each ordered to pay £24,750 costs for what the prosecution described as “flagrant” breaches.
During the trial the court heard that in July 2017 it was discovered the Ipaxis flats had aluminium composite material, similar to that found to be the cause of the dramatic fire spread at the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy the previous month.
It was established that Home from Home had commissioned a fire risk assessor but had given inaccurate information in connection with the level of risk.
When it became apparent, the risk assessor invalidated the fire risk assessment they had produced.
In 2019 officers from SFRS attended the premises and identified that the fire risk assessment had not been reviewed and updated as required by the legislation.
Other areas of non-compliance with the legislation were identified, relating to fire safety measures provided to protect the means of escape and allow the residents to exit safely in event of fire.
In August 2021, Home from Home appointed the services of a new fire risk assessor who corroborated the findings of SFRS in respect of the ongoing risk to residents.
The court heard that the new fire risk assessor had worked to make sure there was no longer a significant risk to life Home from Home were working towards the removal of the cladding with government funding support.
Ottley, of Tuddenham, who represented himself during the trial, said Home from home employed 19 people and at no stage had he fallen out with the flats’ management company or come across a disgruntled resident.
He said SFRS could have issued a prohibition notice which would have resulted in the flats being evacuated but it had not considered the situation dangerous enough to do this.
It could have also issued an alteration order with a time limit for work to be completed but hadn’t done that either.
A spokesperson for Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service said: “This sentence reflects the severity of the potential risk to residents from Home from Home’s actions had a fire occurred.
“The inadequate fire safety measures and management in this case could have resulted in serious injury or loss of life and we hope this will send a clear message to all managing agents of the importance of fire safety.”
Ipswich Star
July 2024
