It is true that fire safety has improved dramatically over the years in domestic dwellings.
This is less true for commercial based property however, including HMO properties.
As we all know, fire is easily started, and almost always devastating at some level.
We have a right to expect a professional and qualified response from our Fire Services, and by and large we do receive this - if at reduced strength much of the time due to incidents such as those mentioned.
I feel I should mention that although the RRO, Fire Scotland Act, and so on have all moved responsibility for fire safety firmly onto the "responsible person's" (i.e. ours) heads, pretty well every fire service WILL send someone out to advise, should you have any issue with a Fire Risk Assessment that has been carried out on your behalf.
However, it isn't fair to blame reductions in service solely on the fact that statistically around 36% of full time fire fighters have another "paid" occupation, which may impact their duties, as central government cost cutting over the years has also had a big part to play. Many times these days, the Fire Services as a whole are put in the position of having to respond in specific ways due to government interference.
To get back to the point of the thread briefly - this case was intended (and IMO, failed) to highlight the legal obligation on commercial premises to carry out proper and adequate Fire Safety measures. What it has clarified is something businesses like mine have been shouting about for a while now - that although you effectively pass the risk on when you contract an individual or business to provide fire safety services (Risk assessment, Fire alarm maintenance, Extinguishers, Emergency lighting, Signage, etc) you also still retain a degree of culpability where that service is blatantly not provided properly or at all.
The original owners of that home were prosecuted, I am led to believe (and in part for the evident failings on the fire alarm).
What it also highlights, and this is the part which is most relevant to most of us, is that inspection of these areas is on the rise (slowly) and more incidents are being investigated in the case of fire than ever before - critically, more prosecutions are taking place than ever before for failures to meet fire safety laws, and now that the test case has been completed, we can all expect to see many more "trades" people in the dock, because we are now officially an "easy target".
I know of a few Senior Fire Officers who have, if you like a s**t list of premises, and have only been waiting for a case like this, to be able to throw the book.
In short, the impact for trades involved in any way in fire safety is this:
The onus is firmly on you to ensure the DESIGN of any fire safety you undertake is compliant and Certificated.
The onus is firmly on you to ensure the INSTALLATION of any fire safety you undertake is compliant and certificated.
The onus is firmly on you to ensure that ONGOING MAINTENANCE of any fire safety is compliant and certificated.
For clarity, Fire Safety includes:
Fire Detection and Alarm Systems - INCLUDING those installed to BS5839-6 for HMO properties
Emergency Lighting Installations
Fire Extinguisher Installations
Safety Signage Installations
Electrical Installations
The Fire Risk Assessment Itself (where you undertake such)
Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Measures, such as Fire Doors, Escapes, Blankets, Sand buckets, and so on.
Wherever and whenever you undertake ANY work in relation to any area which has an impact on Fire Safety (Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, Fire (Scotland) Act, Fire Safety Regulations (Northern Ireland) and in Eire, The Fire Services Act, you are implicitly passed responsibility for the fire safety aspects of whatever you are signing off.
As I say, with the test case now confirmed, the flood gates ARE now open.
