Youth charged over sheltered housing deaths
A 15-year-old boy has appeared in magistrates’ court charged with killing a couple living in sheltered housing in Warwickshire.
Kathleen and Albert Adams, both aged 77, died after their mobility scooter was set alight outside their home in Harold Cox Place, Rugby.
The fire spread through their home and a 74-year-old woman from a neighbouring property had to be rescued, although was unhurt.
The teenager, from Rugby, was charged last Friday with two counts of manslaughter, two counts of arson with intent to endanger life and two counts of arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.
He appeared before magistrates in Nuneaton on Saturday, and will appear in Warwick Crown Court next Monday.
This followed the fatal fire in Harold Cox Place on Saturday 27 February and another on Monday 1 March. No-one was injured on the second occasion.
It has been suggested the earlier fire was started as retribution after the couple tackled youths about anti-social behaviour, but Warwickshire police denied there was any evidence for the link.
Steven Shanahan, head of housing for Rugby council, explained safety advice had been issued to tenants and wardens had been reassuring them.
‘Our primary concern at the moment is to remind our residents to keep mobility scooters out of communal corridors and away from entrance doors to their house or flat, keep fire doors shut at night, and to remain in their homes in the event of a fire unless the fire is inside the home,’ he said.
‘The fire doors give the emergency services time to attend to the fire, and the smoke alarms are tested regularly and give you notice of any fires.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
John | 09/03/2010 3:26 pm
I wonder whether fire risk assessments had been done?
I understand that arson is the most common cause of fire in commercial buildings and second most common in domestic premises. Notwithstanding the comment above about anti social behaviour, I wonder whether managing agents or owners of the sheltered scheme had done proper fire risk assessments?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 10/03/2010 11:04 am
This is tragic case but unfortunately the reasons for the madness by the young person is not very clear.
Clearly the storage of mobility scooter now must be of prime concern and advice must be given to all who owns a scooter and its correct storage.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 10/03/2010 11:21 am
From what I've read it appears there were some accelerants also being stored alongside the scooter, in a store or similar. Not that that in any way puts blame on the deceased, or excuses the actions of any perpetrator. Most mobility scooters, if not all are electric. I'm not aware of the flammable qualities of such objects but would have thought they weren't particularly high risk? Still, absolutely tragic whichever way, but I'm not convinced whether "yet another" risk assessment is a balanced response, to my mind it's a fairy unique occurrence.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PJ | 11/03/2010 9:32 am
Interesting comments.
I agree with John though! Maybe setting fire to an electric scooter is unusual, but certainly arson in homes or business premises is not. I think the point John might be making is that Arson should be considered when carrying out a Fire Risk Assessment.
My local fire service in West Mids has an Arson Task force and they give advice on how to make yourself less vulnerable to arson attacks.
It will be interesting to find out whether the local fire service in Warwickshire carry out any fire safety inspections and audits in these types of premises. If not, why not?
Also Harrys point about whether another fire risk assessment is a blanced response - I am pretty sure it is a legal requirement!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 11/03/2010 2:44 pm
My point PJ is not to do with legal requirements, it's more that these sorts of things become an industry in itself. The landlord often can't win, in this example if the landlord had "ordered" the accelerants to be moved, they probably would have been accused of being overdramatic, or "picky". I can just imagine the outcry if there was a new ruling along the lines of all mobility scooters if parked outside must be 20ft from the property. As for mitigating arson risks in an assessment, what can you do if some lunatic is determined enough, board up letterboxes?, put grills across windows? I'm overemphasising the point, but I think you can see the one I'm making.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment