Alleged deficiencies

For those in connection with maintenance of emergency lights and fire alarm etc no documentation has been requested to the relevant responsible person.

Ground 2 All of the matter of enforcement are clearly not deemed to be worthy of an enforcement notice. A simple letter could be issued instead. Enforcement notices should be issued only under very serious circumstances. What is referred to in the enforcement notice are mostly minor issues that are treated only will a letter asking to take corrective action. This is almost always resolved informally , and not with a formal legal document.I already showed my willingness to comply with whatever requests made on the day and I communicated very clearly that, no matter what the requests I would have complied based on the threats made of closure of the dwelling house (using a prohibition notice).

Almost all points int he enforcement could have resolved with a simple letter. Especially given the fact that the subject clearly showed compliance. This seems to be a misuse of the

Failure to communicate informally to address any concern informally.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-order-enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance/enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance-accessible

According to the guidance above it seems clear that if the officer deemed there were deficiencies on connection with, maintenance of emergency lighting, of the fire alarm, non fire risk assessment been carried out etc the appropriate documentation would have been requested either verbally or better in writing. hoower this was not done. If the correct procedure would hve been followed there would have been no need to produce an enforcement notice.

According to the guidance above an enforcement notice is issued when all else fails,meaning that attempts to correct potential deficiencies informally have failed due to non compliance.

One of the reasons to encourage communicatio with the resnsible person before issueing an enforcement notice are:

1 non statutory notices lead to much faster outcomes than statutory notices.

2 in non statutory notices there is the opportunity to find what the real deficiencies are therefore avoiding statutory notices based non allegged deficiencies which are not deficiencies a matters already compliend with.

At that point an enforcement notice maybe required due to the non compainace of the responsible person.

Compliance of the responsible person

As also shown in the enforcement notice, Andreas Russo demonstrated IMMEDIATE compliance with ALL requests made by the fire officers inside dwellinghouse at the time of the inspection. It was requested that the fridges were removed and this was done within one hour which the fickers were in the dwelling house. The back alley which is shared and does not belong to Andreas Russo was also cleared during the fire officers visit as per their request. Aslo ALL the fire officers requests were satisfied immediately. This is clearly confirmed in the enforcement notice itself. Therefor it seems UNREASONABLE and Disproportionate to issue a statutory enforceable document n a responsible person who clearly demonstrated compliance by clear demonstrated actions.

Why the normal procedure prefers informal action and negotiations?

This is because any alleged or presumed deficiencies can be investigated properly. Also any corrective action can be performed much faster by the responsible person. In fact an enforcement notice is a last resort tool because it is designed by the legislator as a legal tool to coerce non compliant businesses and individuals to compliance. Because of this this tool is not designed for efficiency and speed. The seep and efficiency of a fire enforcement notice is crippled by the 21-day period to issue an appeal and a further time period to allow for the workers to take place.

Correct procedure.

as stated int he link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-order-enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance/enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance-accessible

Generally for an enforcemnt notice to be valid any defisinecies should be first verified as true. In case of responsible persons which shows compllaince with the Fire authorities it is expected a non staturtory to be issued as the most severe measure. This is because it will be also help verify once again the level of comliace of the responsible person and the trufulness of allegged deficiencies.

Visit

Informal communication to verify alleged or presumed deficiencies

Informal request of corrective action usually within 14 days.

Verification of the corrective action has taken place.

Only if the deficiencies are confirmed and corrective action is not taken only then could an enforcement notice be justified. It is justified on case of a non-compliant “responsible person”

Failure to take informal speedy informal action as per government guidelines

Failure to educate.

It was clear that the subject, Andreas Russo, was willing and demonstrated cooperation. Almost none of the Subjects questions were addressed or answered either in writing or verbally.

Ground 7 This enforcement notice seems to be used as a tool to assert her personal power of the officer, and certainly it is very clear not used for public interest. If it were for public interest a simple letter would have been issued and it would not have wasted public funds and time. The enforcement notice is full of false statements as we will see below.

Ground 8 When the use of relevant British standards is made, It is not mentioned the excerpt of the relevant art of the British standard. This is very likely to cause the person subject to the enforcement notice to be placed in a difficult situation. British stands as not available to the public for easy access. The access is granted after paying a fee that varies between 100 and 200 pounds per standard. If the officer’s intention were really to provide help to safeguard the public the officer would have have sent an excerpt for the relevant part of the British standards available so that the relevant person could comply easily. This is not done and we speculate this is not done deliberately like in the case of the British standards for fire doors. We would need to pay 200 pounds to read it . If the officer really meant to help us the officer would have made this information available instead of being vague of their gap requirement between the fire door and the door frame. Therefore, things are kept vague and no help is made in order to access the relevant information.

Examination of the enforcement procedure as outlined by the government.

This is found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-order-enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance/enforcement-and-sanctions-for-non-compliance-accessible

3.3. All EAS are expected to enforce …… activities. This requires, for example, that enforcement is transparent and proportionate to risk, minimises the cost of compliance, and is delivered for the purpose of promoting and encouraging compliance.

Given the compliant nature shown by the Responsible person Andreas Russo” an informal request would have been very fast in achieving the EA goals and very inexpensive. Very fast because the any request would be been complied with properly.

3.4. If an EA determines that a Responsible Person has failed to comply with the fire safety legislation, it has a range of options available to enforce the fire safety legislation, including verbal advice, non-statutory and statutory notices.

As discussed in detail is is clear that the appropriate action was an “non-statutory” notice or a simple email. This would have resulted in a prompt immediate complaint at virtually no cost.

3.6. EAS will consider the appropriate enforcement action for each responsible person, as well as the risk caused by breaches. EAs should take into account factors such as:

previous breaches by that Responsible Person
evidence of best endeavours to comply on the part of that Responsible Person
whether breaches are inadvertent or an intentional attempt to save money
the general state of fire precautions in the building
the co-operation of that Responsible Person

No previous breaches were made by the Responsible person Andreas Russo. Andreas Russo had never had any enforcement notice served upon him prior to this. This is because authorities always seek to have informal conversations to try and rectify issues voluntarily. Since Andreas Russo had always rectified any issue voluntarily and promptly, no record of enforcement notice is to be previously found on this responsible person (Andreas Russo).

evidence of best endeavours to comply on the part of that Responsible Person

It is evident that the responsible Preson Andreas Russo had complied with the requests made by EA at the time of the visit.

whether breaches are inadvertent or an intentional attempt to save money

If there had any breaches these were unintentional and rectified immediately.

the general state of fire precautions in the building

It is our opinion that the fact that all auto closers were functioning and fire alarm , emergency light all operational and still are has the building in a general safe state. An enforcement notice was not required a simple letter or request to a specific corrective action would have been appropriate.

the co-operation of that Responsible Person

The cooperation of the responsible person is evident also, as also stated in the enforcement notice and clear by the fact that throughout this process the responsible person has encouraged and invited the AE to revisit the premises. The invitation had been tended in writing several times.

These are some of the reasons that demonstrate how the Enforcement notice was not the appropriate tool in this case.

5. Non-statutory verbal advice

5.1. If the EA finds only a small number of minor breaches of the fire safety legislation, the inspecting officer might choose simply to give verbal advice. The Responsible Person should comply with this advice and take appropriate action.

On the day of the instaection Andreas Russor the responsible person instructed a meanitence person to be wiothtb he fire prigades to COMPLY with ALL their requests. And all their requests were complied with before the fire Authority lest the premises. . As we have demonstred not only during the FA visit but all thoughout the process Andreas Russo was very cooperative and complaint with ALL requestes of teh FA. As soon as the FA instructeced to remove the fridges these were immediatelly removed on the day during the visit. It is worthwhile to note that no other verbal requestes were made. If other verbal requests were made compliance would bave followd immediatelly. Therefore a Verbal instruction would have been sufficient. An enforcement notice bypassed all the normal stateges outlined by the govenment guildelines.

5.2. For example, this approach might be adopted if it is clear that the Responsible Person is making best endeavours to comply with the fire safety legislation, but has missed a few minor, low-risk actions.

As mentioned not only the responsible person Andreas Russo demostarted immediate complainbce with all the requests of the FA during the visit in October 2024 but also all the fire detection hardware and software was fully functioning. This is indlugint all fire doors and autoclosers. Thereefore it seems clear that en eforcement notice was not the appropriate action in this case especially given the very well demnstrated complaince on the day of the inspection itself.

6. Non-statutory notices

6.1. If there are more significant breaches but, nevertheless, these are unlikely to place occupants of the building at serious risk, an EA may issue a non-statutory notice. Such notices may be referred to as a ‘Letter of Fire Safety Matters’ or a ‘Notification of Fire Safety Deficiencies’.

Once again at the time of the inspection all fire detection equitment was working porperly and the responsible person complied with all the requests of the fire Authority before they lest the premises. Although a verbal instruction would be suffiient given the complaince and the state of teh proeperty, if in double a letter of fire safety matters would have been more appropriate ant the enforcement notice.

6.2. A non-statutory notice will commonly incorporate a schedule, on which each Article of the Fire Safety Order (or each Regulation of the Fire Safety (England) Regulations) breached by the Responsible Person is listed, along with a description of the breach and a short description of an appropriate remedial action.

Although a verbal intruction would heve been more appropriate a non statutory notice seemed a better course of action than t he enforcement notice.

6.4. There is no offence of failing to comply with a non-statutory letter under the Fire Safety Order. However, other action may be taken in relation to the breaches themselves (e.g. if they are not addressed, an Enforcement Notice may subsequently be issued – see below). Non-compliance with a non-statutory notice can however be used as evidence in any subsequent prosecution and/or as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

As stated here it seems clear that the correct course of action seems to be 1 verbal reccommendation or request, if this fails non staturry notice isdued with a time frame for complaince and only afrer that, only if non complaince is demonstrted a fire enfocement notice is the couse of action as recoomended by the goverment.

6.5. The issuing of a non-statutory notice, as opposed to other enforcement actions described below, is consistent with the intent of the Regulators’ Code that enforcement should be proportionate to the risk arising from non-compliance and to encourage compliance with the fire safety legislation.

As mentioned previously compliance was very well demonstrated during the visit of the fire authority.

6.6. The non-statutory notice is likely to specify a recommended timescale for completion of remedial action. It is the prerogative of the EA as to whether they choose to carry out a follow-up inspection on expiry of the timescale.

It this case given the complaint attidude demmonstrated by the responsible person Andreas Russo a non statutory notie would seem a much more appropriate course of action.

6.7. An EA may choose to agree an Action Plan with the Responsible Person, particularly if the breaches are numerous or are of a more serious nature. In this case, the Responsible Person may be asked to sign a non-statutory, non-enforceable prioritised plan, for rectification of breaches. A timescale is attached to these actions, after which a follow-up audit will be carried out by the EA.

Although it is demed that no serious breaches were identified, and the compliant actions of the responsible person a non statutory notice os appropriate.

6.8. In the event that appropriate action is not taken by a Responsible Person in response to a non-statutory notice, the EA may subsequently wish to issue a statutory notice (see below), imposing an enforceable legal requirement for remedial action to be taken.

As mentioned numerous times earlier only after non complaince is demnstrated wioth the non statutory notice an enforrcement notice maybe issued. In this case the complainace was demontratged with the actionns taken to comply with ALL the requasts ofhte Fire Authority during their visit. Therefore it seems clear that ean enforcement notice was not the right cousrese of action and it was heavy handed action not approptiate to the case.

About the enforcement notice

Rememebr that enbbforcemnt nnoticed are statutory tools which are meant to be used in case on non compliance and as a last resort. after the infromal and non statutory tools ahve been already used and the responsible person shows non compliance.

It is important to note that as mentioned in the enforcement notice ALL the arequsts made at the time of visitwere complied with immediatelly. No communication of any type was made by the fire uthority after the visit. ALL request that the fire authorities made wwere at the time of the visit and they were all complied with. No request of documentation wasmade during the visit or after the visit, The only correspondence we have was the email taht contained the enforcement notice and no request for documentation were made prior the issuance of the enforcement notice.

To be clear just over two weeks passed between the visit during which the repsonsible person compliend with all the requests made by the Fire Authority. during the time between the visit in late october 2024 and the issuance of the enforcement notice no contact was made by the fire authority.

It is noteworthy that in the 17 plus years of ownership of HMOS and other real estates no enforcement notice was ever served on me prior to this. This is due to my inherent willingness to complay with ALL reasonable requests made by authorities. My attide it lets comply firs and discuss it leter if needed. As it is welll known enforccement notice are tools of last resort for proven non complaint individuals or businesses.

DEFICIENCY – Article 9(1)

For the purposes ………… of anyone especially at
risk must be recorded.
• A fire safety risk assessment has not been carried out.

The following claim is false as porven byt he fact that we submitted a FRA to the council during our HMO application process.

Despite I mentioned that this was done to the officer during the visit the claim made in the Enforcement notice is disproved by the evidence we still have on record. This evidence is attached in Anex (such and Such) Note that this is what evidence could be recovered after more than 5years the proof shows how Andreas Russo sent an email to MArk Sherwood to show how we were woking on it. We have the original FRA and this was never requested by the Fire Authority prior to issueing the enfforcement notice.

The course of action in case this claim were to be made seems quite clear that would have been a formal request for docummentation forst and this would have prevented the enforcement notice. However this as never requested and it was made the claim that an FRA was not carried out. We believe that the records we show in the annex alone is sufficient proof that the FRA was in clace and carried outl

The correct action would have been a simple document request and not an enforcement notice as shown in the government guildelines. Thje courts would have very likely overtuned this point based not only on the incorrect procedure followed but the evidence we can produce and was never requested in connection with the FRA.

DEFICIENCY – Article 11(1) & (2)

• An emergency plan has not been prepared.
Once again a formal or informal request of this document was never made. According to goverment guidelines and commonsense a request of docummentation would have sufficed to resolve this issue. An enforcement notice seems dispoportionalte.

1 There are fridge freezers plugged in on the escape route.

As mentioned earlier this was requested during the visit and it was done there and then. All the requests made by the fire Authority during the vist were completed on the spot this is confirmed in the enforcement notice therefore this item should not appear in the enforcement notice and it is a confirmation of the willing to comply of The responsible Person Andreas Russo.

Therefore diue to the fact that this was done there and then it should bnot be included in an enforcement notice.

2. The electric distribution board is located on the escape route.

The distribution board is made of metal and it has been boxed in even if this is not required. A simple request woudl have sufficed given my proven complaince.

3. The external escape route is obstructed by bins and rubbish

As noted depite the fact that the main espae route was avaialble for exit, we also cleared upon request refuse in the communal passage way that does not belong to us. Out complaince is also noted in the enforcement notice and therefore it seems clear that this since was addred and rresolved there and then it shold not ahve been included in an enforcement notice. Additionally it should not ghave been included in any informal letter since this issue was resolved immediatelly. Thhe compliance with this request is confirmed in the enforcemen tnotice itself.

DEFICIENCY – Article 17(1)

The premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of Article 4 of this Order
must be subject to a suitable system of maintenance; maintained in an efficient state; in efficient
working order and in good repair. Details of this activity should be recorded.
1. The fire alarm system is inadequately maintained.

Once again no request of maintence records were made at any point before the issue of the enforcement notice. The correct course of action would have been to request those records from the responsible person and this was never done.

Therefore this shows a misuse of the enfocement notice. Rememebr that enbbforcemnt nnoticed are statutory tools which are meant to be used in case on non compliance and as a last resort. after the infromal and non statutory tools ahve been already used and the responsible person shows non compliance.

2. The emergency lighting is inadequately maintained.

Therefore this shows a misuse of the enfocement notice.Rememebr that enbbforcemnt nnoticed are statutory tools which are meant to be used in case on non compliance and as a last resort. after the infromal and non statutory tools ahve been already used and the responsible person shows non compliance.

DEFICIENCY – Article 17(1)
The premises and any facilities, equipment and devices which are required by Article 4 of this Order
must be subject to a suitable system of maintenance; must be maintained in an efficient state; in
efficient working order and in good repair. Details of this activity should be recorded.
Whilst a comprehensive survey was not conducted, the following structural fire precautions are
inadequately maintained:
• Some fire resisting doors are missing combined intumescent cold smoke seals

This is a minor deficiency which was already corrected before the enforcement notice was issued. Once again this is testament of the fact that this enforcement notice was not necessary due to the propmt compaince of Andreas Russo.
• Some fire resisting doors have excessive gaps.

This does not specify which doors, and why thy are exessive. Therefor it is vague. Hence not only sthis item should have not been a subject to an enforcement notice becuase as started before a non statutory notice of email would have sufficed, giuven the alredy proven compaince of the Responsible person Andreas Russop.. , but due to the fact that it is vague in ists reasoning.

This allegeed vague request was made in slightly more detail by the housing officer in a letter previously to the Fire authority visit and by the time this enforcemnt notice was issued this request was complied with as requesed by the housing authority in a letter. Thereofee what happened here is that the fire autority took a remmomendation of the housing officer and incorporated it into the enforcemnt notice.

It is notwworthy to see how no statement as how wide the gaps were and why they were considered to wide by what set parameters in what legislation. An argument was made about smoke going trohough th egaps in the event of a fire but as metioned in other documents sent to the autority the smoke goes thought any gap anyway in case only an intumenscent strip is used. To be borne in mindt that, it is well known that intumenscent strips are the onbly requiremnt and despite the gap if only intumescent strips are used smkoke goes thought the gaps anyway.

Also we would like to note that there were no works done on any of these doors since the last visit of the housing authority in 2019 and the housing authority in 2019 never pointed out any of these allegged exessive gaps at the time.

In essence this requirement was

not owrthy of an enforcement notice because we complied already by the time the enforcement notice was issued was corrected without any enforcment action due to simple compliance.

The request was vague in terms of why the gaps were too large, no measurements were peovided and therefore there was no way to see why the measurements for example a 3 mm gap were too large. Large according to what standard or legal requirement set out wehere?

Our action on this item for complaince purposes was to review all the fire doors and reduce the gaps as much as feasibly possible and thi was done before the enforcement notice was issued and we sent proof via email to the housing oppffice. Email still on record.

Steps Required
The issues mentioned above must be suitably addressed.
Ensure regular inspection, maintenance and repair of any damage to fire resisting doors by a
competent person. Effective fire-resisting doors are vital to ensure that the occupants can evacuate
to a place of safety. Correctly specified and well-fitted doors will hold back fire and smoke
preventing escape routes becoming unusable, as well as preventing the fire spreading from one area
to another. Any necessary adjustment and repairs should be made in accordance with BS 8214

After checing this standard it is the correct standard for this particualr application. However any british standard is a technical paper that is not publicly available and it nees to be purchased the price ranges between 200 and 300 pound just to access it.

British atandrds are purchased nby manufacturing companies because they require it for com[plplainace, but the economy of scale justify the purchase of te british standards.

In this case the correct step would have been for the Authority to state their requirements of the gaps within the door and the doorframe and refer to an exerpt of this standard to hjustify iut. In this way it would have justification due to the reference to the relevant standard whicle providing specific advice and not vague advise as stated in the enforcement notice.

As mentioned our course of action was to reduce all gaps between the fire doors and the door frames as much as feasibly pssible and this was done prior to the issuance of this enfocement notice because thjis was a requst made by the housing office in a simple letter.

DEFICIENCY – Article 21A

• Relevant information has not been shared with tenants.

This is yet another request that does not jusifiable using a formal enforcement notice. No request was made to the relevant person prrior to the issuance of the enforcemnt notice.

Reasons for appeal widthdrawal.

Andreas Russo compliant with ALL requests made by the fire authorities as the time of the inspection. BAsed onn this an enforcement notice is not justified ny goverment guidance. The enforcement notice is justified in case on non complaince after an informal request..

no documentation or information was requested prior the issueance of the enforcement notice to veryfy those were indeed deficisncies. Given the type of deficincies stated in the enforcement notice it seems only reasonable that the fire authority would have made a request of diumentation before issuing ann non statutory notice.

The most cost feective action was a non staturtory notice, forllwed up possibly by a revisit for complaince check. This would have been much fasted and effective. Given the requests on the enforcement notice and the comapkliance oft he resonsible person this

The appliccation of a statutory notice for these matters appears upoon reading as if it was served on a non complaint responsible person / company.

The Fire authority were bringing to witness 3 to 4 people sparing no expense to this case. On the contrary in my case since I am a provate individual I need to watch carefully the expenses and brining in any witness to courrt is a large expense wich is not afferded to be compared to the virtually unlimited funds available to the public authority at their disposal. All this to dispute points which are quite clear and could be resolved using aloly the avaialble enforcement notice itself and papertrail. This is indicative of a non spare expense attitude that is not common in the provate sector. This is reasonable since the authorities are using not their money but public funds. Werein our opiion there is no rrreason to bring an

1 as seen most of the matters in the enforcement notice were either no deficiencies or if so the proper porcedure was not followed. Addtionally it seemd that the issuance of an enforcement notice was not appropriate especially due tot he situation.

Reasons for issuing the appeal/complaint

The way the matter was habndled seems evident that was unfair and too heavy handed. This seems to have gone against all normal prociple of conduct of public suthority. Please note that the Fire Authority can at any moment issue a a prohibition notice on the same basis. Therefore if left uncheck/unchallenged the unfaireness of the inssuance of this enforcement notice this could lead over time a more aggessive attitude were proportionality goes out of the scope of the authority . I was not aware of any other way to complain other than issuing appeal. Once I realised the compllexity and the le

Lts remind that when defending an appeal the Fire autority will use public money, each emplyee of public authority would defend their stance using public money even if this not the best course of action. At the preliminary hearing were dierections were given on the hearing I relaised that the Fire authrity would have no spared any cost at defending their position. The reason not to spare costs is simply due to the fact that the resources used are public which I pay for using my tax money.

In case it was founnf that the Fire Authority was not correct in issuing a statutory notice and the matter was to be dewalt with informally, then both myslef and the public authoryty would have spent a great deal of resources in other to ddeal with this complaint. upon speaking to the Fire authority representative it become clear to me that their intention was to widthdraw this enforcement notice upon revisit provided they were saispied. This was never clear in any of the documentation provided. Once this became clear then it was easy to come to the conclusion that the best course of action was as early a widdrawal from this appeal, which was the only form of complaint process I was aware of.

In case I would have won the case after full court proceedings, I would have not claimed my expenses to the FA through the courts becasue any reimbursement of costs would not be of interestes to me.

the reason it is mportant to challenge unfair statutory notices issued without the correct porcess is becasue if there is continously no challencge to unfair statutory notices then over time the authorities will be more and more agressive and abuse the power given to them. potentially issuing even unfair prohibition notices. Therefore a legitimate complant needs to be files when required to keep the authorities in check. This is exactly one of teh reasons for my appeal/complaint. therefore reminiding authorities that their power hass to be used with great degree of propeortionality, measure and respecting the due porcess set by the government guidance.

My behaviour

I seeked to find clarification inn writing since the beginning and attended the courts wen instructed and acted in a complaint manner all thoughout. In december I sendt a number eamil aking for clarification to which I receved little clarification in response this is all annexed.

In particualr I asked in writing if they werestill interested in visiting the property, and I reiterated my willingness to cooperate and invited them to revisit on the 6rth of January but more preferably the end of January.

Why no awarding costs of the fire brigatddes to the appellant.

Appeal Was Made in Good Faith

The above demonstrates without any court appearance that appeal was genuine and based on legitimate concerns, the and the courts were likelly to award the case to the appellant even without the use of expensive witnessess based only on conduct of the fire authority.
The appeal was widthdrawn as soon as possible well before any costs in wre incurred in the preparation of the case as per court directions, once reached an agreemnt with the Fire Authorities.
The appellant poractivelly and contructlivelly reached out to the authoriies to reach a resolution.

Therefore due to the inherent legittimacy of my complaint as explained at length above I kindly request no costs order is granted against me as this could deter any further legitimate complaints due to disoiprotionate use of statutory tools in the future. In this case given the reasons for my compaint a/appeal should the costs of the FA be attributed to me despite the validity of the complaint and the easly withdrawal of my appeal/ complaint to reduce costs this would mean thata legitimate complaint would be penalised in the future emboldening the fire Authority into a very aggressive use of statutory tools were it is clearly not neccessary.

Summary of key grounds for appeal

Compliance Before the Notice Was Issued

If all the required fire safety measures were already in place before the enforcement notice was served, the notice was issued in error.

Providing documentary evidence (e.g., fire risk assessments, inspection reports, certification for alarms) strengthens the appeal.

Proving That the Notice Contains Errors

Failure to Follow Proper Procedures

If the fire authority did not properly inspect the premises or failed to follow the correct legal process, this could weaken their case.

Lack of Clarity – for example in case of the gaps of the fire doors to be exxessive, there was no statement of the exaxct measurement of the gas, which doors, and by what measurements they would have needed to be rectified. This is a defect which can be successfully challenged in an appeal. This is done wiithout withness statements or expense just by reading the enforcement notice. it may be unenforceable because the criteria for complaince and non complaince are undefined and unclear.