Fire safety breaches leave Brighton landlord with £11k bill

The landlord of a building in Brighton has been handed a bill totalling almost £11,000 after he admitted a series of fire safety breaches.

Markandayar Gowrikaran, 61, who owns 20a St James’s Street, Brighton, was fined and ordered to pay a surcharge and legal costs after he pleaded guilty to three offences at Brighton Magistrates’ Court.

Gowrikaran, 61, of Millwell Crescent, Chigwell, Essex, had five tenants in a shared house – or HMO (house in multiple occupation) – on the first, second and third floors. The HMO was above a post office and shop.

David Claxton, prosecuting, said: “Fire officers first attended the property on (Tuesday) 14 February 2023, following concerns raised by the local authority in relation to the storage of fireworks.

“A number of fire safety concerns were identified which included the presence of combustible items on a flat roof and stored in the common parts of the building including in an unlocked storage cupboard.

“In addition, this was when the fact that the kitchen door did not close properly into the door frame was first identified.

“This is particularly relevant as a kitchen is considered a high-risk room where there is greater potential for fire to begin.

“This was also the occasion on which it was first identified that the electrical intake / consumer cupboard was unlocked and was not encased in fire resisting materials.”

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service told Gowrikaran about the issues because he was the person responsible for fire safety in the building, in particular the common ways and flat doors.

Mr Claxton said: “A further inspection took place on (Friday) 24 February 2023. The fire safety concerns identified led to the issuing of an enforcement notice.

“At an inspection on (Monday) 19 June 2023, it was found that the notice had been partially complied with but there remained outstanding concerns.

“The fire service was satisfied that full compliance with the notice was achieved by (Wednesday) 28 June 2023.

“A further inspection of the premises was conducted on (Tuesday) 22 August 2023. This revealed that the electrical intake cupboard was unlocked and remedial works to the compartmentation issue had not been completed.

“The kitchen door was wedged open and did not close properly into the frame. The issues were communicated to Mr Gowrikaran.

“At a further inspection on (Wednesday) 20 September 2023, the same issues with the electrical cupboard and kitchen door were identified.

“In addition, fire officers observed that the means of escape was impeded by the presence of a mattress on the stair / ground floor area.

“A further inspection on (Saturday) 11 November 2023 revealed no change in the electrical cupboard and kitchen door and other items stored inappropriately.

“Again, on the (Monday) 4 December 2023, the same issues were identified during an inspection. Appropriate remedial work was not undertaken until the early part of 2024.”

Mr Claxton added: “This is a case where the culpability is high owing to the nature and duration of the failings in combination with the warnings from repeated contact with the fire service.”

The fire service said later that there were other problems in the premises including missing smoke detector heads and a fire alarm control panel displaying faults in several parts of the building.

It said that these matters were brought to Gowrikaran’s attention, along with the requirement to undertake and record a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.

The fire service added: “Despite informal advice, the service of formal enforcement notices and a number of follow-up inspections, insufficient progress was made to remedy the deficiencies.

“Inspections carried out between February and December 2023 identified many of the same defects, with substantial remedial work not being undertaken until the early part of 2024.”

Mark Davies, defending, said that his client was a long-serving postmaster who lived two hours away, in Essex. He bought the post office business in St James’s Street and the deal included the building.

As a result, he became the landlord of a shared house by default rather than by design and he employed a property manager, who lived in London, to take care of things.

Mr Davies said that Gowrikaran was not an experienced residential landlord nor what could be regarded as a professional landlord.

He was a man of previous good character and of integrity and had tried to achieve compliance with the fire safety rules albeit inadequately at times.

He had not left the mattress in a common part of the building and, at residents’ meetings, tenants were asked not to prop open fire doors.

Several attempts were made to deal with the ill-fitting door and, despite the display showing fault, the fire alarm worked at all times, he added.

The court was told that Gowrikaran earned £6,000 a month in take-home pay from a Shell filling station that he ran as a sole trader plus £1,200 a month in rent from his premises in Brighton.

District Judge Tessa Szagun said that the maximum penalty was an unlimited fine and that the prosecution had said that the breaches were persistent over a considerable time despite repeated warnings.

District Judge Szagun said that Mr Davies had said that Gowrikaran had not deliberately flouted the law but relied on help from a trusted individual and made several attempts to fix the ill-fitting door before eventually replacing it.

But she said: “The efforts could not be termed significant given the timeframe and the warnings given … Thankfully, there was no fire outbreak.”

The district judge said that her duties included to punish, deter and remove any gain arising from the flouting of the law

She fined Gowrikaran £2,768 and said that the sum was reduced because he had entered an early guilty plea.

She also ordered him to pay a victim surcharge of £1,107 and pay £7,075.31 in prosecution costs, making £10,950.31 in all.

Afterwards, the fire service said that Gowrikaran had breached the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

It placed “a legal duty on the responsible person to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of relevant persons from fire”.

The fire service added: “This includes carrying out and regularly reviewing a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment, implementing appropriate fire safety measures, maintaining fire safety equipment, ensuring escape routes remain available and protected and providing suitable information and training where required.

“By failing to address all the identified deficiencies within a reasonable period, Mr Gowrikaran exposed occupants to an increased risk in the event of fire.

“Had a fire occurred within the kitchen or electrical intake, the absence of adequate fire precautions could have allowed fire and smoke to spread more rapidly.

“In addition, combustible storage within the escape routes increased both the likelihood of fire development and the potential for obstruction of occupants attempting to evacuate safely.”

Station Manager Jake Kaye, who is responsible for enforcing fire safety rules, said: “Those responsible for fire safety have a legal duty to carry out and record a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.

“Effective fire safety management is essential to reduce the likelihood of fire occurring and to ensure that, should a fire happen, it can be detected quickly and occupants are able to escape safely. Escape routes must be kept clear and protected at all times.

“We continue to find that many houses in multiple occupation with shared communal areas do not have a suitable fire risk assessment in place.

“This remains a significant concern because the fire risk assessment is fundamental to identifying the measures needed to protect residents.

“We hope this prosecution serves as a reminder that those responsible for fire safety must comply with their legal duties and with any enforcement action taken by the fire authority.

“Where they fail to do so and place people at risk, we will take appropriate enforcement action.”