August 12, 2024
Residential care company fined over fire safety breaches
This content has been produced in association with our sister company, Barbour.
East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service is reminding owners of any premises of the importance of complying with fire safety regulations, and the potential consequences of not doing so, after a court case resulted in a total fine of £124,455 for the directors of a residential care company.
Mr Thuraisamy Ravichandran (director and company secretary) and Mrs Radha Ravichandran (director) of Care Pro (Southeast) Limited pleaded guilty to all 12 offences at Brighton Magistrates Court in April 2024, with sentencing was happening on a later date.
On 31 October 2022 East Sussex Fire and Rescue Fire Safety Inspecting officers visited Park Apartments, 14 Egerton Road, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex and identified the following four failures under Article 32(1)(a) Offences (under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005):
- Duty to take general fire precautions.
- Risk assessment.
- Fire-fighting and fire detection.
- Maintenance.
On 31 October 2022 East Sussex Fire and Rescue Fire Safety Inspecting officers visited Eden Lodge, 16 Egerton Road, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex and identified the following 2 Article 32(1)(a) Offences.
- Duty to take general fire precautions.
- Fire-fighting and fire detection.
On 2 November 2022 East Sussex Fire and Rescue Fire Safety Inspecting officers visited Park View, 25 Egerton Road, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex and identified the following three failures under Article 32(1)(a):
- Duty to take general fire precautions.
- Risk assessment.
- Fire-fighting and fire detection.
On 3 November 2022 East Sussex Fire and Rescue Fire Safety Inspecting officers visited Beau Lodge, 7 Jameson Road, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex and identified the following three Article 32(1)(a) failures:
- Duty to take general fire precautions.
- Risk assessment.
- Fire-fighting and fire detection.
In summary, District Judge Szagun, when considering the prosecution sentencing guidelines, upheld culpability to be high and the level of harm to be medium. In her judgement, the Judge explained that the number of vulnerable residents placed at risk due to the defective fire doors and lack of detection and alarms, raised the level of harm a higher level. The Judge added that the owners should have taken the time to understand published regulations and guidance when providing this type of service.
The defendants were fined £27,500, per offence, for four of the offences, with guilty charges upheld for the remaining offences but no separate penalty awarded. This resulted in a £110,000 fine, a £2,000 victim surcharge and £12,455 for times and costs.
FIA
July 2024
