In the Beginning

The case began when a contractor was accused of breaching fire safety regulations after installing fire-resisting flat entrance doorsets (FEDs) in a housing association property. Concerns were raised about excessive gaps, inadequate fire-stopping, and improper fixings. These allegations stemmed from limited inspections carried out by the FRA, which examined the FEDs only from outside the flats and relied heavily on photographic evidence.

The contractor cooperated fully during the investigation, providing detailed diagrams and explanations that clarified the FEDs’ installation within a cavity wall. However, the FRA proceeded to charge the contractor under Article 8 of the Fire Safety Order, claiming the alleged defects placed “relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.”

Expert Evidence and Defence Findings

The contractor’s legal team, BCL Solicitors LLP, appointed Colin Todd, Managing Director of C.S. Todd & Associates Ltd, and Lin Parry, a recognised timber fire door expert, as defence witnesses. Their investigation revealed critical flaws in the FRA’s case:

• Inspections were conducted in the wrong locations, often assessing decorative elements rather than the FEDs themselves.
• Proper access from within the flats was not carried out, making it impossible to determine the presence or absence of fire safety features accurately.
• The FRA failed to account for previous invasive inspections and remedial work, which caused damage to the FEDs and created misleading evidence.

Further, the FEDs were third-party certified and had undergone successful fire resistance testing. Manufacturer data confirmed that twin intumescent strips were fitted in the rear face of the door frame (to seal the gap between the frame and the structural wall) as part of the design, as required for an FD30-rated door. Despite this, the FRA insisted, based on inadequate evidence that no strips were present.

Key Turning Point: Definitive Inspection

Following defence requests, an invasive inspection was eventually conducted with representatives from both sides present. The inspection confirmed the presence of the twin intumescent strips and  fire-stopping, directly contradicting the FRA’s claims.

Subsequently, both defence and prosecution experts agreed that the FRA’s inspections had been flawed and insufficient. A joint statement concluded there was no evidence of a breach of the Fire Safety Order, nor any risk to individuals’ safety.

The Judge’s Ruling

At a hearing earlier this year, the FRA formally offered no evidence, and the court directed a Not Guilty verdict. The contractor then applied for costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which allows for costs to be awarded if the prosecution acted in a “starkly improper” manner.

The judge ruled in the contractor’s favour, accepting the defence’s evidence that the prosecution case was built on an incompetent inspection and compounded by misstatements from the FRA’s investigating officer. The judge concluded the prosecution “should never have been started” and ordered the FRA to pay costs.

Implications for Fire Safety Prosecutions

This case serves as a clear reminder that fire safety prosecutions must be supported by rigorous investigations and accurate evidence. Where inspections are incomplete or poorly executed, allegations of non-compliance can result in costly and unnecessary legal proceedings.

The assessment of costs remains ongoing, but this rare outcome underlines the high threshold for pursuing criminal charges under fire safety legislation and the consequences of failing to meet it.

The case highlights the essential role of qualified experts, thorough inspections, and evidence-based decision-making in fire safety prosecutions. For fire safety professionals and authorities, it reinforces the need for careful adherence to investigative procedures to ensure justice and regulatory compliance.