Engineer To Be Sentenced

[Guest123]

Taken from www.firemagazine.com



Crown Court sentence for fire alarm engineer

A former retained firefighter from Wales who failed to maintain a fire alarm in a care home will face sentence next week after being the first fire alarm engineer to be prosecuted as a responsible person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Trafford Magistrates Court heard Christopher Morris, 56, of Llandudno, North Wales, plead guilty to two charges of failing to maintain a fire alarm system at a care home in Trafford, Manchester, to a recognised standard and failing to inform the owners of the home of the deficiencies in the system.
Morris will be sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on December 23, after the bench decided it did not have sufficient powers to deal with the case and what they described as ‘culpable neglect’ by the defendant.
The case was brought to court by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority in what is believed to be the first of its kind under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The law allows the fire and rescue authority to prosecute a person who has responsibility for a particular area of premises or, as in this case, maintaining fire equipment that requires specialist knowledge or skills to carry out repairs.
Deputy County Fire Officer Jim Owen said it would send a strong message throughout the fire industry that fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales will not hesitate in taking firm action against anyone that falls short of their obligations under fire legislation.
Mr Owen said: “Whilst many owners have been prosecuted under the Fire Safety Order, this may be the first time a fire and rescue authority has prosecuted someone contracted by the owner of a property to maintain a fire alarm. Taking on such a contract extends the requirements of the order to the fire alarm engineer. Anyone we find who doesn’t carry out their work to recognised standards is a danger and we won’t hesitate to take action.”
The court heard how Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service attended a fire incident at a care home in Trafford in May 2009 in which an elderly woman died. During subsequent investigations into the fire safety arrangements at the premises, fire safety enforcement officers commissioned an examination of the fire alarm system by a specialist consultant who sits on the British Standard committee for fire alarm systems.
The examination report revealed that the system was estimated to have been installed during the late 1980s or early 1990s and that a number of issues were discovered within the panel that demonstrated poor practice remedial work had been carried out at some time during its lifetime. This included:

• A blown fuse over-ridden with a piece of wire
• An electronic component had been suspended between two terminal bocks instead of being attached to the circuit board
• An alarm silence/fault warning buzzer was missing from the circuit board
• The fault warning light on the front face of the panel had been almost covered by paint.

Christopher Morris, an electrician who had taken over the maintenance of the system in 2006, had issued several annual certificates of worthiness to the owner of the home, stating the system was 100 per cent.

During an interview under caution, Morris initially claimed that although the system was old it was compliant with the relevant British Standard. However, when he was challenged about the poor repair issues and shown the specialists photographs he admitted that he was not aware of them.
Morris will appear at Manchester Crown Court for sentencing on Thursday, December 23, 2010.

 

[accordfire]

Enough said.

To be fair, that's an extreme example of laziness, but it happens, and isn't the half of what we've seen out there.

It does highlight the need for skill and proper attention, especially in places where less able people rely on adequate fire safety measures - and are entitled to believe they are in place too.

I'll be honest, he's likely to get away with a hefty fine and community service - he should be locked up, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[accordfire]

I notice too, that they've done him for "culpable neglect" - that's the lower of two possible charges. He could also have had a case made against him for willful neglect which would almost certainly have carried a prison sentence with it.

They're obviously going for the sure bet, so as to be sure of conviction.

Had anyone suffered as a result of his actions, he would have been looking at a minimum charge of culpable or attempted manslaughter.

 

[accordfire]

Perhaps something about this can be posted in a General forum too - there's many guys out there in the forums who don't have access here who would benefit from knowing this.

Thanks!

 

[Guest123]

Food for thought I felt.

The more awarenes raised over shoddy unsafe practices in all aspects of the electrical industry the better for those of us that do our jobs correctly.

 

[robsparky1975]

Not a nice thing to see happen to someone especially a sparks(or so they say),if what they say was true then he can only blame himself,but was he qualified,im not so sure.

 

[martysparky]

Why was he not aware of what he was supposed to be looking after.. was he looking or just taking the money...


When we keep looking at something we don't notice things as they become part of the furniture but I don't see how this could happen in a situation like that.

I would hate to forget something an leave a system substandard but to ignore things is something else. Obviously no check list.

Is this an example of complacency???

 

[Des 56]

I noticed when he was described,he was a firefighter,when he was the villain,he was an electrician,thats true to form

I am not defending the guy,but what about the duty of care of the person in charge of the premises
Its ok getting certificates aligned with cheap quotes,but they too have a responsibility,or are they innocent ?

I say that, because it smells of the same type of situation as someone doing a pir

The government will not make competence compulsory, yet expect the duty holder to employ someone who is a bit short on the competencey and only act,in this case, against someone who was allowed to practice,concluding with this tragedy

Why is policing of our industry and the selection of competence left with the individual,yet the consequences are bourne by the people in the industry

What a mess this industry is in
It is saddening to say the least

 

[accordfire]

Damn. I posted further to this earlier, had a browser go slow, page loss, and just noticed the missive I wrote about this didn't show up.

I wanted to add some commentary on this, because it is important from so many perspectives.

One of the key points I wanted to raise, and why I feel this is better off in a general forum than tucked away in a "tight" group, has to do with the fact that above all, this is yet another example of the way we, in the UK, do NOTHING AT ALL about shocking disregard for fire safety until AFTER disaster has struck.

The vital point to all of this is, as I have said many, many times - it took (and I missed this initially) the loss of a person's life, for ANYTHING about this at all to be investigated properly.

To be perfectly honest, I'd love to go and slap Greater Manchester's fire chief around the head repeatedly for his own culpability in this matter.

Does that seem excessive? I don't think so - and he (and all other fire chiefs) know it as well as I do.

One of the great FAILINGS of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 lies in the fact that it took responsibility for fire safety in buildings out of the hands of experts, and put it into the hands of people who cannot EVER be expected to understand the full implications of fire safety.

It was the biggest exercise in buck passing since the Spanish Inquisition. Quite simply, faced with massive underfunding, rather than fight, the fire service chief of the UK rolled over, and let the biggest travesty since Kings Cross happen quietly. They did not stand up and fight for the funding to continue to ensure that Fire Safety Officers had the final say on whether measures were adequate or not.

We now have a situation whereby almost anyone can call themselves a Fire Risk Assessor, offer fire safety consultancy, and carry on in the certain knowledge that if they SOUND credible, nobody will ever challenge them unless something like this case here happens.

This test case is both a good and a bad thing.

It is a bad thing, principally, because it highlights the very fact that the RRO is all about finding scapegoats, apportioning blame, and removing responsibility from the very people who ought to have held onto it.

It is a bad thing, because it highlights the fact that we are now in a position which, for all the very many faults of previous legislation, could not have reasonably existed before.

Were fire services still responsible for assessment, there is no way on this earth that guy would ever have got away with years of certification with the system in such a state. This highlights just how much MORE vulnerable we are to the risk of fire in public and multiple access buildings than EVER before (well, since we stopped living in caves, anyway).

It is, however, also a good thing, if it is used as it ought to be, for the public good.

And by that, I mean that this guy needs to be punished appropriately for his failings, and for the situation that occurred as a result of his criminally negligent behaviour.

However, the case itself *must* be used to highlight both the strengths and the failings of current legislation - primarily the RRO, and the impending train wreck that is BS9999, and building regulations not excepting.

It is past time, given that no fire legislation has ever been enacted prior to a major disaster, or loss of life, that we took proper and sensible action, and made LAW, the right to fire safety in buildings.

Before you all start telling me that there is law for this, you're right, and wrong. Much of the work so far done is valuable, but it is NOT enough.

The Building Regulations committee missed a golden opportunity with Part B. Other committees, the government, and the fire service have ALL missed opportunities - the RRO does not go far enough, and is already long overdue an overhaul. BS9999 was intended to streamline some of this, and other legislation. It is not, however, law.

The only possible benefit that can come out of this tragedy is that the case is used to properly highlight the need for qualified fire risk assessment, and commitment on the part of responsible persons to ensure fire safety is treated as it should be - life critical - to the lowest denominator - in simple terms, to reasonably accommodate the least able person ever expected to make use of a protected space. That cannot be achieved without mandatory use of fire detection and protection.

In an age where more and more costs are being cut, and front line services such as the fire service are being ever more squeezed, there can be no acceptable reason why the installation of sprinklers in ALL new buildings (domestic included) was not proposed to be included in Part B's review. That simple move, for the cost of less than 0.5% of the build cost, would cut the obligation on fire service response by over 80%, enabling them to become properly efficient, and to take back a duty they should never have given away.

Rant off, but boy, does the UK need to wake up to the implications of this, and other similar cases around the country.

 

[accordfire]

Why was he not aware of what he was supposed to be looking after.. was he looking or just taking the money...


When we keep looking at something we don't notice things as they become part of the furniture but I don't see how this could happen in a situation like that.

I would hate to forget something an leave a system substandard but to ignore things is something else. Obviously no check list.

Is this an example of complacency???

I hate to say it, but it is a perfect example - IF THE FACTS ARE AS REPORTED - of allegedly qualified individuals thinking that fire alarms are simply a case of banging a few detectors up and all's well.

That, sadly, will be the mentality that led this individual to believe he could offer a contract, and that there was nothing to it beyond issuing a certificate each year.

The reality is, he probably didn't know any better, thought he was doing his customer a favour by shutting the noise up (if indeed it was him who removed the buzzer and not a previous company's "engineer"), and beyond the very basics, probably did not have any idea how to fix these faults, if he was even aware they were faults.

The real negligence lies in the fact that he should have been properly trained to deal with fire alarm systems, and properly aware of the risks of taking on such work - for himself and his customer.

Equally sadly, I think it is an example of ignorance, rather than simple complacency - though complacency also features, as the guy should have got off his coupon and done the training.

Fire alarm control panels are specifically designed to alert you to any fault on the system - that's a required part of the Standard (Part 4) - and the buzzer will NOT silence fully until the fault is fixed - nor will the AMBER coloured illumination extinguish until the fault is fixed. It is specifically designed not to be ignorable.

The fact that the buzzer was disconnected, and the light painted over was a willful act on *someone's* part to avoid repair to the system, either on the basis of cost, or on the basis of ignorance. No other explanation for it.

As for the replacement of fuses with wire - common though the practice used to be in the security industry to use a strand of 7/0.2 wire to replace a blown fuse on a temporary basis (one strand is broadly rated 5A), it should, IMO NEVER be done for ANY reason.

There's no excuse for any professional technician not to have replacement fuses about his tools and stock any time he is at work. Ever.

As for the component described as suspended between two terminals - that fire expert knows as well as anyone who's ever worked on a fire system that end of line capacitors and resistors are connected in such a way when the circuit is not in use - they are NEVER soldered to the PCB. That was an idiot point, if it was an EOL device (unless said device should have been in the end of line device on a circuit being used), and beyond sheathing the legs of the component, said expert would well know there is NO OTHER WAY of connecting said component.

It may be, of course that he was referring to a different component, in which case, it should be made more specific, primarily because hundred of technicians will now be panicking about EOL devices in control panels, wrongly.

Again, more than anything it is just another reason why morons like me wonder round telling morons like those, that fire safety is not a joke field, that beyond design, maintenance (proper maintenance) is essential, and why morons like me pray that one day this country wakes up sufficiently to enact appropriate legislation BEFORE another life is lost to fire.

 

[Des 56]

there can be no acceptable reason why the installation of sprinklers in ALL new buildings (domestic included) was not proposed to be included in Part B's review.

When the power for building regs are passed on to Wales
As far as I am aware the assembly will be making it compulsory to fit sprinklers in all new buildings in Wales as a matter of priority

This may interest you

Welsh Assembly votes for mandatory sprinklers in new homes | info4fire.com

 

[accordfire]

Yes, I read that. The £7bn figure is three year sold, however, and current cost is estimated to be over £10bn. What is interesting is that the 80% figure seems to float around in relation to many things.

In real terms, we're only tackling 2 in ten fires successfully, or with minimal damage.

How would it be, if only two out of ten Part P installs were successfully safe - would there be action? I think so.

More to the point, how would it be if only two out of ten of us paid taxes successfully - would they get the point then?

I'm NOT criticising the Fire Service, in general, by the way, because frontline firemen and women are pretty dedicated, hardworking, brave people on the whole - and do a lot more too than putting out the odd fire.

And the Welsh have it right too. I hope the rest of the country realises, and follows in this.

 

[UNG]

As for the component described as suspended between two terminals - that fire expert knows as well as anyone who's ever worked on a fire system that end of line capacitors and resistors are connected in such a way when the circuit is not in use - they are NEVER soldered to the PCB. That was an idiot point, if it was an EOL device (unless said device should have been in the end of line device on a circuit being used), and beyond sheathing the legs of the component, said expert would well know there is NO OTHER WAY of connecting said component.

I love the references to expert in this paragraph and I do wonder how some of these experts get their day in court. To me EX is a has been and a SPERT is a drip under pressure

The trouble with all the spouting and regulation changes made by government is that nobody wants to take the blame and it will always be somebody else's fault

The number of sites I have been to with dodgy or incomplete certification in the last few years where the site owner or operator is not aware of what a kosher cert looks like is what needs to be addressed. Again how many sites actually do weekly or monthly tests of the alarm system and properly log them or even a full evacuation periodically so the staff know what is expected of them in a real emergency

As the saying goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

 

[accordfire]

I love the references to expert in this paragraph and I do wonder how some of these experts get their day in court. To me EX is a has been and a SPERT is a drip under pressure

The trouble with all the spouting and regulation changes made by government is that nobody wants to take the blame and it will always be somebody else's fault

The number of sites I have been to with dodgy or incomplete certification in the last few years where the site owner or operator is not aware of what a kosher cert looks like is what needs to be addressed. Again how many sites actually do weekly or monthly tests of the alarm system and properly log them or even a full evacuation periodically so the staff know what is expected of them in a real emergency

As the saying goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

That's always the problem in self regulated industries - an expert is usually only such because he says he is, and because he may have a few pieces of paper showing he sat the exams.

The fire safety industry, like electrical work, has seen such a dumbing down over the years - at an inverse proportion to the new things we learn about fire, and the new ways we invent to expose ourselves to the risk of it! I reckon, without actually going through them all, that one in three Risk Assessments we get asked to carry out work against if flawed, and we see around one in two fire system certs which should not have been issued. It really is that bad.

It also amazes me that people think a simple internet printed check sheet is sufficient for a fire Risk Assessment. It isn't. Ours runs a minimum 30 pages!

Customer based routine testing - bugbear of the year - almost nobody does. Yet they are quick to grumble when we quote them for weekly testing!

 

[mogga]

so in short your saying that Fire alarms should only be maintained by people with proper qualifications and the client should have a responsablity to check these qualifications thus removing the "Electrician" who has maintenance contract from having the sideline of fire alarm maintenance
IMO this could bring rise to the 6week wonders in FireAlarm engineers like it has with other "Testing" and doing away with the requirement to be experienced just so long as you have a CnG number to quote on your CV

 

[accordfire]

so in short your saying that Fire alarms should only be maintained by people with proper qualifications and the client should have a responsablity to check these qualifications thus removing the "Electrician" who has maintenance contract from having the sideline of fire alarm maintenance
IMO this could bring rise to the 6week wonders in FireAlarm engineers like it has with other "Testing" and doing away with the requirement to be experienced just so long as you have a CnG number to quote on your CV

Well let's see if I'm getting what you're saying right - you're saying that anyone at all should be able to take responsibility of the maintenance of a critical life safety system? Is that it?

I think I've made if fairly clear that I have nothing against ANYONE with the relevant experience and knowledge maintaining fire alarm systems. My criteria is that is is done properly, within the guides set out in the current BS5839.

Further what I am saying (and you have this a little wrong) is that thanks to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order of 2005 the client currently DOES HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY for checking the qualifications of the persons maintaining ANY aspect of his fire safety.

The legislation covering Scotland is, just for the hell of it, a little different, given that it comes under the scope of Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland)Act 2005, as amended, and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006, as amended. It still leaves responsibility with the client as the RRO does, however.

So, providing the "Electrician" you mention has the relevant skills and experience, there's no reason why he can't maintain the fire alarm as a side line - just in the same way, presumably, you wouldn't mind any fire alarm technician with the relevant skills and knowledge to come in and rewire your house, as a side line - as I understand you're saying qualifications are irrelevant so long as it's a sideline business, yes?

Just as a final point, all we currently really have IS a six week wonder course (though you can do all the modules in around two) - because the powers seeing fit to enforce legal Acts evidently do not believe fire safety, in particular fire alarm work, needs an actual qualification.

Really, the problem is there are far too many six week wonders currently carrying out fire alarm maintenance "as a sideline" which is why cases like the one that started this discussion happen, at least in part. There was nothing at all stopping the guy doing what he did, or is alleged to have done, as realistically, the client - the one who initially had the responsibility for the proper operation of that system had no idea at all, we are to believe, of what constitutes proper maintenance of a fire alarm and what does not. We would assume, by reason, that is why he entrusted the task, and in turn the responsibility under the RRO, to the individual in the dock.

My argument, as it seems your REALLY is - is that its ALL about the experience and skill - but that needs a way to be checked and verified by less knowledgeable individuals, just like today's electrical industry does. And because it doesn't have that, and the law places responsibility for that in the hands of people who are in no way expert in matters of fire propagation, we have the very situation you mention above - whereby that someone SAYS they can maintain it, therefore they can.

The flip side of all this, of course, is how that guy in the dock feels today, knowing his negligence (if indeed it was his - that is not yet proven, only suspected) has cost the life of another human being. It does, however, finally highlight one important aspect of the law in both Scotland and in England and Wales - that responsibility under the law will remain with the guy calling himself expert (by way of signature on the certificate), and not just the supremely unqualified owner or responsible person.

Can I ask how you'd feel if it happened as a result of work you carried out - as a sideline? I know how I'd feel, and that's why I employ experts in each of the fields my business operates in, and why none of what we do is a side line.

I'm sorry - I'm not meaning to take your words and use them against you - more to indicate that the prevalence is for an attitude of "its only an electrical system" to override the actual matter of it being an electrical system with the specific purpose of being a last line of defence against the loss of life due to fire. That, for me, is not something that should ever be taken lightly, or treated as a side line.

I've quoted statistics elsewhere lately - but suffice it here to say that around 50% of systems we take over, having been maintained by others, have problems within them significant enough that no certificate should ever have been issued. We come across around one in three, 33% of risk assessments which simply, are not fit for purpose - and may as well have been completed in wax crayon - some outrageously so - and allegedly completed by experts, all of them.

Of course, we see the other extreme too - from over engineered systems to hyer----- risk assessments - because every building really does need a full arson proof, fire extinguishing letter box (yes, they really do make them) - those account for around one in fifty jobs we go to. I'd rather have those statistics the other way round, wouldn't you?

Ultimately - so long as you, and your customer, are confident you can maintain the system in line with current standards, keep it fully operational, and update it as required, such that it continues to perform to its design specification, there is no reason at all why anyone, much less me, would have any problem with it, whether you be an Electrician, brain surgeon, or street sweeper.

I just care about fire safety being done properly.

 

[martysparky]

Has the verdict been given yet?

 

[accordfire]

Has the verdict been given yet?

Yes, I posted it in the General forum -

Here - and he got off lightly too.

 

[martysparky]

Its a Warning non the less and with the way things are in this country it wouldn't be a shock if more of it comes about.

 

[accordfire]

Its a Warning non the less and with the way things are in this country it wouldn't be a shock if more of it comes about.

It was very much the test case a lot of us have been waiting for, and (finally) gives some sort of teeth to what we've been saying a while now.....

.....From the "trade" side - get your training, do the job right - and from the customer point of view, Fire Risk Assessment, maintenance and so on is not a joke.

Like the whole "you need an RCD" thing, I just wish it wasn't so uphill all the time, sometimes.