Former takeaway owner admits putting lives at risk

Overloaded extension leads and sockets

The former owner of a takeaway in Rochdale has pleaded guilty to putting the lives of a four-year-old girl and his employees at risk after admitting to 11 fire safety breaches.

Usman Adnan Farzand, (born 24/12/1970) of Oldham Road, Ashton, pleaded guilty to the charges after an inspection by fire protection officers from Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) in 2011.

He will be sentenced at Minshull Street Crown Court on September 13.

Assistant Chief Fire Officer Peter O'Reilly, Director of Prevention and Protection for GMFRS, said: "Farzand showed a total disregard, not only for his employees when they were working but also those he allowed to live in the cellar - which was not fit for habitation.

"This disregard is even more appalling, as it affected a young child. Anyone looking at the premises would see the risks of fire and this businessman ignored them - putting innocent lives at risk."

On Wednesday, February 23, 2011, they visited the Mr Cod takeaway, on Yorkshire Street in Rochdale, at the request of an operational crew who were carrying out inspections, looking into the safety of residential accommodation above commercial premises.

When they arrived, they were met by Farzand, who told them he had never heard of a fire risk assessment.

He also told the officers the takeaway's basement was used by his employees to live in.

Despite the increased risk of fire from the commercial kitchen, the officers found there was no fire alarm in the building and that the doors separating the takeaway from the living accommodation were not fire doors. This meant that if a fire had occurred, it would have spread rapidly through the building.

GMFRS' officers found a four-year-old child asleep in the cellar, which had no ventilation or natural light and was not suitable living accommodation. Farzand explained the child belonged to an employee.

The basement housed the mains gas and electric intakes and officers found overloaded extension leads and sockets powering a fridge, kettle and microwaves, all increasing the risk of fire. Piles of combustible materials were stacked in front of the gas meter and this area was directly opposite bottom of the stairs - meaning if a fire occurred at the gas meter it would develop rapidly and cut off the escape route.

There was only one staircase to and from the cellar and this lead up to an area linked to the takeaway with no fire separation. If a fire had occurred in the takeaway, smoke would have quickly logged the escape route and the lack of an alarm meant there was no warning at all for people in the basement.

On the ground floor, the hallway leading from the basement to the front of the building was blocked by a large freezer and combustible items which presented and obstacles to people escaping from a fire and could assist the fire to spread.

The building contained no emergency lighting or signage. If a fire broke out causing a power failure, the lack of emergency lighting combined with the fact there was no smoke alarm or fire doors as well as blocked escape routes means people would be trying to escape in the dark.

Officers were so concerned that someone could die in the event of a fire that they served a prohibition notice on the cellar being used on the same day.

Bury and Rochdale magistrates heard that Farzand had been given at least five opportunities to be interviewed about the premises, and on three occasions he cancelled an interview appointment the day before.

Prosecuting for Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority, Cassie Williams told the court that the cumulative effect of the charges meant that if a fire occurred it is highly unlikely anyone in the basement could have escaped and they would probably have died.

In asking the magistrates to consider whether their sentencing powers were appropriate, Miss Williams told the court that the risk to a vulnerable person - namely a four-year-old - was a serious aggravating feature.

The magistrates decided that their sentencing powers (which are limited to a fine) were not sufficient and committed Farzand to Manchester Crown Court to be sentenced.