Kidderminster business owner sentenced for “serious” fire safety offences

On 8 October, Javaid (sole trader of Milan Pizza located at 15 Comberton Hill, Kidderminster DY10 1QG) appeared before the presiding Judge at Worcester Crown Court and pleaded guilty to two offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The first offence related to repeated breaches of a Prohibition Notice issued by the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service on 6 December 2024. The Prohibition Notice excluded the use of the upper floors of the premises due to the significant risk posed to life by the conditions present on-site.

The second offence related to an intentional obstruction of fire safety inspectors who were seeking to carry out their duties.

During sentencing, the Judge described the conditions within the premises as “extremely dangerous” and stated that, had a fire occurred, the risk posed to life would have been “very great indeed”.

Fire alarm system

Worcester Crown Court heard that the premises presented a “serious and sustained” risk to life. The fire alarm system had been deliberately tampered with and was not functioning correctly, with sounders removed and smoke detectors covered over, thereby significantly reducing the likelihood of occupants receiving any warning in the event of a fire.

Fire safety inspectors from the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service also identified the absence of protected escape routes, locked final exits, inadequate firefighting equipment and numerous breaches in the building’s fire compartmentation creating conditions that would have allowed fire and smoke to spread rapidly throughout the premises.

The combined effect of these deficiencies meant that occupants would have had little or no opportunity to escape safely in the event of a fire outbreak. In sentencing, the Judge described the property as a “death trap”.

On sentencing, the presiding Judge noted that Javaid knowingly breached the Prohibition Notice, ignored repeated warnings, deliberately prevented fire safety officers from carrying out their statutory duties and placed occupants at grave risk in order to save money.

The Judge further stated that, had a fire occurred resulting in loss of life, the consequences could have been significantly more serious and that Javaid could have faced more serious charges (including manslaughter or murder).

Sentencing detail

For the offences that had been committed, Worcester Crown Court imposed the following sentence:

*12 months’ imprisonment for each offence, totalling two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years

*100 hours of unpaid work to be completed within 12 months

*fines totalling £15,000 (£7,500 for each offence)

*Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority prosecution costs of £11,458.70

*victim surcharge of £2,000

The total financial penalty issued amounted to £28,458.70.

Worcester Crown Court also made it clear that Javaid must work with the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service to ensure compliance with fire safety requirements. The Judge warned that any further breaches could result in Javaid being returned to court and that he could face immediate imprisonment.

Not minor deficiencies

Group Commander Deborah Davies, head of the Protection Department at the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service, commented: “This case clearly demonstrates the serious consequences of failing to comply with fire safety legislation and deliberately obstructing Fire and Rescue Service fire safety inspectors in the course of their duties.”

Davies continued: “The conditions found within the premises presented a high risk to life. The fire alarm system had been tampered with, escape routes were compromised and fundamental fire safety measures were either absent or otherwise defective. These were not minor deficiencies. They created conditions in which a fire could have had catastrophic consequences.”

Further, Davies noted: “We will always seek to work with business owners to achieve compliance and keep people safe. However, where individuals deliberately ignore legal requirements, place others at risk or seek to obstruct our officers from carrying out their duties, we will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action.”

In conclusion, Davies warned: “This prosecution should serve as a clear reminder that fire safety responsibilities are legal obligations, not optional requirements. Our priority will always be the protection of life and we remain committed to holding those who put others at risk to account.”

*Further information is available online at www.hwfire.org.uk