I don't have any hard statistics to hand but, being cynical, I'd suggest that 80% or more of companies either have no fire risk assessment at all, or have one which is simply a "tick box exercise", i.e. useless.

after all, if they didn't burst into flames yesterday then surely everything's OK and they can concentrate on the important aspects of the business? :0(

John, in my experience the frs fire safety officer would offer advice to improve the fire precautions. In cases of severe lack of fire safety they would strike up a relationship with re-visits to the premises looking for improvements. Only if the advice was being blatantly ignored would they prosecute.

However where life is endangered for example in clubs where exits are locked and overcrowding is on the go the premises will be cleared with assistance of Police and prosecutions probable.

The case in Wales deserves prosecution if only because of stupidity.

Thanks Motorhead, so no fires but prosecuted, maybe a 'history' of inspections.

The number of breaches is going to affect decision to prosecute, and the examples are domestic premises. One had 15 breaches, the other had 10 breaches and was preceded by a previous prosecution, brought by the borough council against the defendants, under the Housing Act 2004.

The website is a good source of case history. I will now look for prosecution cases of warehouse/manufacturing multiple occupation, closer to my line of consultancy work - I had a case where I walked away from a client because he refused to repair a faulty alarm system in his warehouse which also had other tenants a joinery, a car repair garage, several offices etc all in one building.

IMHO prosecution should be a last resort - and may deter others from seeking advice. Note that Fire brigades under the RRFSO can issue Enforcement, Prohibition or Alteration notices - and would probably do this first. However, if there has ben a serious fire..................they might prosecute.