The blaze was brought under control by members of the Williams, Caterham and Force India teams, helped by circuit fire services.

31 team members required medical assistance on the scene and seven were transferred to hospital. One team member remains in hospital with burns.

Williams said they suffered a lot of damage and lost a lot of equipment, including IT equipment. Rival team Mclaren have offered to help Williams with any necessary equipment.

“We will have everything we need to run operationally at Monaco, but we may be missing a few of the extras because obviously we don’t carry a complete set of spares for everything.”

“Everyone at Williams F1 is extremely relieved that this event was contained as quickly as it was and the damage which occurred was, relatively speaking, limited in its nature,” said Frank Williams, team principal of the Williams F1 Team.

“While the incident was unexpected and definitely most undesirable, it has demonstrated the genuine cohesiveness, camaraderie and spirit of co-operation that exists within the Formula One paddock. The astonishing response from the teams and other paddock personnel was immediate, unconditional and overwhelming.”

Liberal Democrat Adrian Sanders, MP for Torbay, developed the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill in an attempt to improve fire safety standards in rental properties.

At present, there are only guidelines for landlords relating to the installation of smoke alarms but it is not required by law.

However, the bill will not be brought into law after it failed to complete its passage through Parliament before the end of the session.

Smoke alarms are a vital part of fire safety measures, with figures from the UK Statistics Authority showing that a smoke alarm was not present in over a third (38 per cent) of domestic fires in 2008.

Furthermore, a smoke alarm was not present in 37 per cent of the 353 domestic fire fatalities in 2008, while an additional 28 per cent had a faulty smoke detector fitted.

The enforcing authority and responsible person at an unnamed hotel were at odds of whether to fit intumescent strips and smoke seals on 167 bedroom doors.

The dispute revolves around the requirement of article 9 of the Fire Safety Order, which calls for the responsible person to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks from fire and to record the measures which will be taken.

While the enforcing authority called for the installation of the strips and seals to help reduce risk of injury or death in a fire, the responsible person claimed that a new fire risk assessment will be sufficient as long as the lack of these measures was recorded.

Following advice from the chief fire and rescue adviser, Mr Neil determined that the most appropriate way to comply with article 9 is for the responsible person to prepare a new risk assessment and justify the absence of intumescent strips and smoke seals.

His ruling, based on article 36 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, claimed that the measures are unjustified due to their expense and minimal potential safety improvements.

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service was called to a house in Spring Bank at 9.36pm on May 7th following reports of minor flooding at the property.

Crews found that a domestic sprinkler system was the cause of the flooding as it operated after a chip pan overheated.

Daryl Oprey, head of safety at Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, revealed that the 81-year-old homeowner did not suffer any injuries in the incident.

He said: “Having encountered many similar situations in my 27 years of service, I know that the oil in this chip pan was very close to igniting.

“However, the sprinkler did what it should and suppressed any fire, ensuring that the occupier was safe also causing minimal damage to the room and house.”

The sprinkler system was installed in the Spring Bank property as a result of the public/private partnership currently operating in Hull.

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service and its partners fit domestic sprinklers in properties owned by those most at risk from fire.

Following a £30 million cut to its budget, the brigade is looking to reduce the number of non-emergency call-outs it receives by charging for services such as pumping flood water from homes, clearance of debris and rescuing pets.

Upon dialling 999, callers will be informed that they will have to pay £412.80, including VAT, per fire appliance or vehicle per hour.

Watch commander Wesley Williams, from WMFS’ emergency response team, said: “We must ensure that genuine emergencies, which require the use of our specialist resources, receive a priority response.

“People call 999 and ask us to attend incidents when there is clearly no emergency, risk of danger, or threat to life, and we are not explicitly funded to do this.”

Earlier this year, a revision in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 gave fire services more freedom to charge for services.

Julian Price, director of Cotswold Fire Group (CFG), received a 40 week suspended prison sentence and a 150 hour community service order for committing two counts of Fraud by False Representation, contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Appearing at Gloucester Crown Court on 4th May, Mr Price was awarded costs of £1,500 following an investigation by NHS Protect.

In February 2008, Mr Price submitted unsuccessful bids for two contracts worth £290,000 over five years with the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for the maintenance of fire alarms and emergency lighting.

Mr Price falsely claimed to be accredited by the Electrical Contractors’ Association and the Security System Alarms Inspection Board in his attempt to win the contracts.

Mick Hayes, anti-fraud lead at NHS Protect, claimed the incident is “very serious” as the NHS and public expect “total integrity” from contractors.

He said: “These standards and systems exist with good reason. Fraud is a crime and NHS Protect will examine all allegations of fraud against the NHS and wherever appropriate, will launch a criminal investigation and press for the strongest sanctions.”

The overalls which 23-year-old Thomas Hatton were wearing caught fire, causing burns to his neck, hands and arms — in an accident described as ‘an injury waiting to happen’.

Swadlincote Diesel Fuel Injection Services, based in the Cadley Hill Industrial Estate, Ryder Close, was fined for failing to protect its staff from risk.

The company appeared at Derby Magistrates’ Court yesterday, almost three years to the day after the incident.

Simon Belfield, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, told the court burning rubbish was ‘common practice’ by staff on days when work was slow — although directors claimed they knew nothing about it.

“On March 16, 2009, the employee (who was not named in court) went to pick up a container to ‘brighten’ a fire in an old drum which had been lit by the injured party,” the prosecutor said.

“It was waste fuel and he poured it over the fire to brighten it.

“The result was effectively an explosion that caused serious injuries to Mr Hatton.”

He added: “Had there been effective supervision this would have been prevented.” The prosecutor said the company did not have a safe system of work for handling, storing or using flammable substances.

The court heard laboratory testing found the liquid in the barrel was a mixture of diesel, petrol and ethanol — which had a flashpoint of 11C.

A resulting inspection by the HSE found a string of safety breaches in the area where the company extracted fuel from the petrol tanks of cars.

They included using plastic barrels to store waste fuel which were not labelled correctly, and the risk of ignition near some of the flammable substances.

Company managing director Shane Richins said he ‘sincerely regretted’ the accident, and that health and safety at the site had since been overhauled.

Mark Savill, defending, said: “On the handling of flammable liquids, the company accepts there was no safe system.

“It was only after a visit from HSE subsequently that the company became aware (of the problems).” He said the company was not directly to blame, but it ‘accepted its role in the chain of events which led to the incident’.

Mr Hatton was left with minor scarring and returned to work a month later He still works at the injection specialists today.

Swadlincote Diesel Fuel Injection Services was fined £8,000, ordered to pay £4,000 court costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

Boss regrets injuries to apprentice

A COMPANY boss ‘sincerely regrets’ the explosion which left a 23-year-old with serious injuries.

Speaking outside Derby Magistrates’ Court court, Swadlincote Diesel Fuel Injection Services managing director Shane Richins said: “The company sincerely regrets this matter and the injuries to Thomas Hatton. He was, and continues to be, a highly valued member of our team.

“Following assistance from the Health and Safety Executive we have now reinforced our existing health and safety policy to prevent a repeat of this isolated incident.”

The company had warned in court a severe financial penalty could put it in a difficult financial position.

Mr Richins said: “In the current economic climate money is tight and we need to buy new machinery. We are going to have to look at it and see.

“Fuel should never be added to a fire. The waste fuel ideally should have been drained into a sealed, labelled container and then put into a locked storage area unless it was to be returned to the vehicle as soon as possible after repairs.

“Instead it was in an unlabelled container and had been left at the entrance to the workshop.

“As a result a young man has suffered unnecessarily.”

Source: Burton Mail

Tommy Hilfiger is the first label to come forward with voluntary rules that include paying $1million to $2million to devise a set of fire safety regulations and fund an independent inspector at every plant where its clothes are made.

The Gap and Kohl’s, two other American companies with products at the doomed Bangladeshi factory, have so far refused to set up similar safety regimes. Instead, labor groups say, they have paid only lip service to safety improvements in the wake of the disaster.

ABC News confronted the 60-year-old designer at New York’s Fashion Week, revealing that despite pledges to clean up their safety records after the December 2010 fire, workers at factories where Phillips-Van Heusen clothes are made have continued to die because of terrible safety conditions.

When fire broke out at a high-rise garment factory in the Ashulia industrial area of Bangladesh 15 months ago, it drew international attention to the horrifying safety conditions for local workers, most of them women, who make clothes for American and European companies.

Faulty wiring, overloaded by the sewing machines of 5,000 workers, started the fire, which grew into a raging inferno as bolts of fabric and clothing fueled the flames.

Workers on the roof in a makeshift break area were trapped. Some jumped to their deaths in panic. Others formed makeshift ropes from the cloth and climbed down several stories. As workers tried to flee, they found gates locked shut.

Source: Daily Mail Online

Connaught Hotel (West Midlands) Ltd, was found guilty of offences including a fire alarm not working, no smoke alarms or detectors in rooms, and blocked fire exits.

A number of detectors had been covered with plastic bags, the court heard, and escape routes were blocked with items including a wardrobe and ironing board. In addition, some fire doors had no self-closing mechanisms.

No one from the company formerly owning the hotel attended court and the judge ruled that the case could proceed in their absence.

Fire service inspectors uncovered the breaches after a fire broke out in the early hours of 12 October 2007 in a building next to the main hotel, which had 11 bedrooms over four storeys. Eight fire engines and a hydraulic platform were sent to scene.

At the time of the blaze, the hotel’s fire alarm didn’t work and the fire service was alerted by a call from a neighbouring premises.

Other offences included a failure to take general fire precautions to protects employees and relevant persons; failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment; failure to make appropriate measures for the effective planning, organising, controlling, monitoring and reviewing of preventative and protective measures; and failure to maintain equipment and ensure it was in working order and in good repair.

The fine includes costs, and was issued last Friday 16th March.

Fire crews were called to Llys y Coed care home in Llanelli at around 9.20pm on Wednesday night (14th March), reports This is South Wales.

It is believed that a faulty tumble drier caused the fire, in which no-one was hurt.

Mid and West Wales Fire Service head of Carmarthenshire County Command, Rob Quin, told the news provider: “Our firefighters and the care home staff must be commended for the excellent job they did in keeping the residents calm and informed throughout the evacuation.”

A ‘suitable and sufficient’ fire risk assessment must be conducted on all commercial properties in England and Wales, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

If the fire risk assessment is deemed to be carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or a prison sentence of up to two years.