A Kent business has been sentenced in court for failing to ensure adequate fire safety measures were in place to protect its staff and customers. 

Canterbury Masala Ltd was issued fines of £4,000, a victim surcharge of £190 and ordered to pay costs of £19,293 at Folkestone Magistrates Court yesterday (5 July), for offences which took place at Masala Gate in North Gate, Canterbury. 

Building safety inspectors from KFRS visited the takeaway shop in June 2021 and found a number of safety concerns. 

The company was summoned to court on 26 April this year and pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which put one or more person at risk of serious injury, or death, in the event of a fire. 

The offences included not having a fire detection and warning system in place, failing to have a sufficient fire risk assessment, and two counts relating to inadequate emergency exit routes. 

KFRS Head of Building Safety Suzanna Chisholm, said: “If you’re responsible for a business, you have a legal duty to ensure it is safe for anyone who works or visits the premises. No-one is exempt. 

“We will always offer support and advice to any business that needs our help but if you fail to comply with fire safety regulations and put people’s lives at risk, then we will prosecute when necessary. 

“We hope the sentence issued to Canterbury Masala Ltd will remind other businesses across Kent and Medway to ensure they are consistently fire compliant to avoid prosecution and most importantly, to keep everyone safe.” 

Offences in full: 

1. No automatic fire detectors and alarms were provided in the premises to safeguard the safety of relevant persons. And that this failure to comply with Article 13(1)(a) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 placed one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire. 

2.  The door leading to the single staircase between the ground and upper floor which served as a means of escape in the event of fire, was not of fire resisting construction and not fitted with a self-closer and intumescent strips and seals, to prevent the spread of smoke and fire into the escape route, resulting in persons not being able to escape as quickly and safely as possible in the event of fire; and a boiler was located directly above the door from the single staircase discharging into the commercial kitchen, which prevented in the event of fire persons escaping as quickly and safely as possible, as a result of having to pass directly beneath the boiler which was not adequately separated from the staircase by fire resisting construction. This failure to comply with Article 14(2)(b) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 placed one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.

3. Escape routes in the premises requiring illumination were not provided with emergency lighting of adequate intensity in the case of failure of their normal lighting to enable escapees from fire to negotiate the said routes. This failure to comply with Article 14(2)(h) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 placed one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.

4. There was no suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons were exposed. This failure to comply with Article 9 (1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 placed one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire on the premises.