April 2015 - Fire Risk Assessments Worcester

Hotelier Fined £200,000 Violating Fire Safety Rules. It would be difficult, I hope , to find a hotelier who has a more blatent disreguard for his guest safety than Mr Salim Patel who was the former owner of a Bayswater hotel who has been hit with London’s biggest ever fine for an individual for violating fire safety rules.

Also for anyone wanting to learn about Fire Risk Assessments this case would be worth studying as nearly examples of nearly every infingement possible will be found. Stragely the Daily Mail in their article about the case did not mention the lack or need for an fire risk assessment. I feel certain that they did not have one.

The extraordinary thing about this case is that Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice which he then ignored.
London Fire Brigade said guests’ lives were put in jeopardy due to the shoddy conditions which were discovered inside The Radnor Hotel during an inspection in 2011.
It brought charges against then-owner Salim Patel, who was fined £200,000 this week after a successful prosecution.
London Fire Brigade said fire doors inside the building were tied open with electrical cords or string
+5
In other areas of the hotel, fire doors were removed or missing
+5
London Fire Brigade said fire doors were missing (right) or tied open with electrical cords or string (left)
In addition to the six-figure fine, Mr Patel was ordered to pay nearly £30,000 in court costs after pleading guilty to seven offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
He was also handed a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, the London Fire Brigade said.

Fire safety officers were stunned when they toured the six-floor, 18-room hotel, on Inverness Terrace, to carry out a routine inspection.
They discovered numerous fire safety breaches, including inadequate fire detection systems, blocked emergency exits and inadequate emergency lighting.
Fire doors were missing or tied open with extension cords or string, there was evidence the basement store room was used for sleeping, and the owner had not conducted a fire risk assessment.
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
+5
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice, which required him to address the safety concerns to make the hotel safer for guests, but follow-up visits found that no action had been taken, the London Fire Brigade said.
The hotel continued to operate without a working fire detection system, so court proceedings were launched against the hotelier.
When Mr Patel was sentenced Judge Kennedy said the public expected ‘absolute attention’ to fire safety when occupying sleeping accommodation.
The judge told court that Mr Patel did not provide that protection and, as a business owner, he was where the ‘buck stopped’, the London Fire Brigade said in a statement.
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine
+5
Fire safety officers were stunned when they discovered the conditions during a routine inspection
+5
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine this week after a successful prosecution
Neil Orbell, head of fire safety regulation, said he hopes the penalty serves as a deterrent for other hoteliers.
He said: ‘Our fire safety officers carry out around 16,000 inspections every year to help ensure the capital’s buildings are safe from fire.
‘This is the biggest fine we have ever secured against an individual for breaking fire safety laws and it should send a message to all business owners that if they are shirking their fire safety responsibilities and putting the public at risk we won’t hesitate to prosecute. ‘The size of the fine should also serve as a stark reminder that the court’s take fire safety just as seriously as we do.’
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said Mr Patel no longer runs the hotel and it is under new ownership.
Guests complained about the conditions in a series of scathing reviews on TripAdvisor, where The Radnor Hotel had a rating of two stars before it closed.
Of 92 reviews, 59 were filed under ‘terrible’.
Helen, from Australia, wrote in August 2012: ‘We were a little alarmed at the fire emergency plan which was printed straight off the internet and put up without being filled in. We drew comfort from the fact the place has not burned down yet.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2993090/Former-London-hotel-owner-hit-record-200-000-fine-fire-safety-violations.html#ixzz3WizZrsJy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Top 10 Reasons Commercial Kitchen Fires:

This research comes from the NFPA of the USA, none the less the findings are as valid for us here as they are over there. The reference to a ‘UL300 compliant system’ does not mean much to us but it relates to thse systems which have been upgraded since it was established that vegitable oil fat burns at a much higher temperature than animal fat oil and the old ‘dry powder’ method of extinguishing no longer works and a ‘wet chemical’ solution must be used. it also demonstrates why when we are doing fire risk assessments on commercial kitchens in hotels and restaurants we need to see the records for the filter cleaning.

Causes of Restaurant Fires Chart

Restaurants pose high fire risks with their open flames, hot equipment, electrical connections, cooking oils, cleaning chemicals and paper products. These hazards are a recipe for disaster. Nearly 8,000 eating and drinking establishments report a fire each year, according to 2006-2010 data tabulated by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These fires caused an annual average of $246 million in direct property damage.

A fire can devastate your business, leading to lost revenues and even permanent closure. Here is a list of the top 10 fire safety issues from the Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau and why they’re so important:

1]The system is not UL300 Listed. A common cause for this is the presence of a dry chemical extinguishing system. With the widespread transition from animal fat to vegetable oil use in deep fat fryers, dry chemical systems are no longer able to control the higher temperature, longer burning fires produced by vegetable oils. A UL300 Listed system is specifically designed to handle these intense fires, contain them longer, and prevent splashing of hot oil during the fire.
2]Nozzle covers missing. When the nozzles of an extinguishing system are not kept covered, airborne grease can clog the hole. This may impede or prevent operation of the extinguishing system.
3]Nozzles not aimed properly. If a nozzle is not properly aimed to deposit the extinguishing chemicals on the source of the fire, it will be less effective.
4]Combustible construction within 18 inches of hood not protected with mineral wool pad (or equivalent). Combustible materials within 18 inches of the kitchen hood may aid in the spread of fire. Incombustible materials provide a barrier that creates a break in the fire’s path.
5]Filter panels installed wrong. Filter panels are specifically designed to collect grease. If they aren’t properly installed, the amount of grease they are able to collect may be reduced causing more accumulation on the hood.
6]Hood or suppression system does not cover all appliances. If a fire occurs in or on an appliance that is not covered by the hood or suppression system, it cannot be adequately controlled by the system.
7]Inadequate cleaning cycle. Hood and vent systems that are not kept clean can accumulate grease and pose a serious threat of fire. Adequate cleaning schedules vary greatly from one kitchen to the next. A full service restaurant using multiple fryers or woks may need to be cleaned monthly, while a low-volume kitchen like that in a daycare or senior center only requires cleaning annually.
8]Lights not covered with explosion-proof covers. Explosion-proof lights are generally required in applications involving high heat or high risk of fire or explosion.
9]Fire suppression system tags out of date. When a kitchen suppression system is serviced, a tag should be left by the servicing company indicating the service date. An out-of-date tag indicates that the system is not being serviced regularly.
10]No, or inadequate, separation between open flame appliances and fryers. Without adequate separation, oil can splash or splatter into open flames, causing a fire risk. Suitable separation can be achieved by either providing 16 inches between the appliances or a 16 inch vertical, non-combustible (metal) divider.
Despite the increased risks of fires in restaurant kitchens, simply knowing some of the greatest hazards within a kitchen setting can help prevent a fire from occurring or spreading.

To ensure that sure your restaurant is covered against fires and other hazards, contact us for a complete evaluation of your restaurant coverage.