A recent prosecution under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 serves as a stark reminder of what happens when property owners ignore their legal duty of care — and the consequences can be severe.
When fire safety officers from County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service (CDDFRS) made an evening visit to Ridgemount House on Bede Way in Peterlee, they expected to find an empty office block.
What they found instead was nine men sleeping on makeshift beds constructed from chairs and blankets on the third floor — inside a building a judge would later describe as “fundamentally derelict.”
The outcome at Durham Crown Court on 24 February 2026 was swift and significant.
Tarlochan Singh, 48, director of 5th Capital Limited, was ordered to pay a £48,000 fine plus £45,711.48 in costs — a combined total of nearly £94,000 — within 12 months, or face a year in prison.
It is one of the most striking fire safety prosecutions of recent years, and the lessons it carries extend well beyond County Durham.
What Officers Found Inside
The inspection, triggered by concerns raised with CDDFRS in 2022, revealed a catalogue of serious failures. Breaches discovered during the inspection included failure to provide a fire risk assessment, failure to protect the means of escape, a lack of sufficient fire doors or fire doors in poor repair, no suitable fire alarm system, no fire safety drill procedure, and defective emergency lighting.
The alarm system had been completely disconnected from its power supply. Key exit routes were in darkness. Emergency exits were obstructed. There was, in short, almost nothing in place to give nine sleeping men any realistic chance of escaping safely in the event of a fire.
The location made matters worse. The court heard that 10 deliberate fires had been recorded within 100 metres of the property over the previous ten months — an area already known for high levels of anti-social behaviour and arson. The risk was not theoretical. It was immediate and documented.
“He Must Have Seen the Risk But He Chose to Take It”
What made this case particularly serious in the eyes of the court was the evidence of awareness. Prosecutor Rosalind Scott Bell told Durham Crown Court that Singh knew the state of the building and knew the workers were being housed in it. Ddfire The workers, it emerged, had been employed on another building in the Peterlee area — also owned by Singh — and were being accommodated in Ridgemount House as a cost-cutting measure.
Judge Joanne Kidd did not hold back. She described the premises as “fundamentally derelict” and said that “nobody could have thought they were suitable for anyone to spend any period of time in them.” She added that in the event of a fire, the nine men “would have been very much at risk of not being able to get out of the building.”
The judge also criticised Singh’s conduct during proceedings, describing his behaviour regarding his financial circumstances as “mendacious from the outset.” Singh pleaded guilty to a total of eight charges, all relating to breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
A Growing Enforcement Picture
This case does not sit in isolation. Fire safety enforcement across England has been intensifying for several years.
The Home Office’s fire prevention and protection statistics for 2023–24 revealed a 79% rise in prosecutions related to fire safety violations.
That figure represents a significant shift in how seriously fire and rescue services are pursuing non-compliant premises — and how willing courts are to impose meaningful penalties.
Recorded workplace fires in England fell from 9,347 in 2015/16 to 6,665 in 2024/25, which reflects improved awareness and compliance across much of the sector. But the Peterlee case is a reminder that progress in aggregate statistics can mask serious pockets of negligence — particularly in commercial premises that fall outside conventional oversight.
Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, responsible persons must undertake regular fire risk assessments, implement appropriate fire safety measures, maintain fire safety equipment, and provide staff training. Breaches can lead to prosecution, with penalties including unlimited fines and up to two years’ imprisonment for serious offences.
The “Beds in Sheds” Problem
The Ridgemount House case belongs to a growing category of enforcement action that fire authorities across England have been increasingly active in pursuing.
English fire authorities have started to prosecute owners and operators of illegally converted “dwellings” in non-habitable buildings — including disused offices, public houses, and factories — under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
These situations often involve vulnerable workers, sometimes from overseas, being housed in premises with no meaningful fire protection in place.
The power imbalance between employer and occupant can mean that serious risks go unreported until a routine inspection — or worse, a fire — exposes the reality.
CDDFRS Director Ben Cairns welcomed the court’s decision. “The breaches of fire safety legislation were so serious that there was an immediate risk to life,” he said. “In this case there was a serious disregard for fire safety and the risk to life was so serious that it was in the public interest to pursue prosecution.”
What This Means for Property Owners and Building Managers
Whether you own a single commercial property or manage a portfolio of buildings, the obligations under the Fire Safety Order are not optional — and they do not disappear simply because a premises is vacant or ostensibly unoccupied.
A responsible person under the legislation must ensure that:
- A suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment is in place and regularly reviewed
- Fire detection and alarm systems are installed, maintained, and connected
- Emergency escape routes are kept clear and properly lit
- Fire doors are installed, maintained, and fit for purpose
- Appropriate fire safety procedures are documented and communicated
The Peterlee case illustrates that ignorance of these requirements is not a defence, and — critically — that awareness of a risk without acting on it is treated by courts as a serious aggravating factor.
In the year ending March 2024, 2,823 audits resulted in formal notifications — an increase of 11% on the previous year. Enforcement activity is rising. The question for any property owner or manager is not whether inspections will happen, but whether their premises will pass them.
Building Safety Starts with Assessment
At ESI: Electrical Safety Inspections, we work with commercial property owners, landlords, and building managers to ensure that premises meet their legal obligations — including electrical installation condition reporting, emergency lighting testing, and fire alarm system verification.
Many of the failures identified at Ridgemount House had an electrical component: disconnected alarm systems, defective emergency lighting, and the absence of any working detection equipment.
These are not issues that emerge overnight. They are the result of deferred maintenance, absent inspection regimes, and a failure to treat compliance as an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time event.
If you manage a commercial property and are unsure whether your electrical systems and fire safety equipment meet current standards, contact us today. The cost of a professional inspection is a fraction of the cost of a prosecution — and the value of getting it right is immeasurable.
Sources: County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service | Home Office Fire Prevention and Protection Statistics 2023–24 | International Fire and Safety Journal — Workplace Fires Analysis | Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
