Plumber charged over carbon monoxide death
A plumber has been charged with the manslaughter of a young dance teacher who died of carbon monoxide poisoning in a shared-ownership flat.
Paul Williamson, 51, of Chaucer Gardens, Sutton, was charged on Monday with the manslaughter of 26-year-old Elouise Littlewood on or about the 27 February 2008. Ms Littlewood died in the new-build flat in Bedfont Lakes, Hounslow, that she co-owned with housing association Notting Hill. Her lodger, Simon Kilby, was found unconscious and is still in a coma. He is in a permanent non-responsive state.
Mr Williamson has been charged with the unlawful wounding of Mr Kilby, who was 32 at the time, on or about the same date. He has also been charged with breaching regulation 26(9) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. He has been bailed to appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on 7 May.
Plumbing firm Malden Plumbing and Heating, of Bridge Parade, Croydon, was also served with a summons to appear at the court on the same date. It has been charged with breaching section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The home was built by developer Barratt. Malden Plumbing and Heating Ltd were sub-contracted by Barratt Homes to do the plumbing and heating on the development.
Mr Williamson was sub-contracted by Malden Plumbing as the commissioning agent.
The death of Ms Littlewood prompted Inside Housing’s Safe as Houses campaign to raise awareness of gas safety issues.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
Dave Hollins | 29/04/2010 10:27 am
It's hard to comment on a specific case subject to criminal proceedings but my general thought is that we still haven't got corporate manslaughter right in this country. Why is that an individual get the blame when they are working for a company that sets the standards for what individual workers do, that should supervise and check their work, and where there is a client that should know about designs and specifications that carry inherent dangers? There is a chain of companies and a housing association that actually sold the property involved and they do not seem to be held accountable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Francis | 29/04/2010 10:50 am
This is good news if the prosecution can get their act together though I am not suggesting that the plumber is guilty. If it can be proven that works were carried incorrectly or not within the required specification then those who guilty must be charged.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
NICOLA CONLON | 29/04/2010 11:27 am
I agree in principle with Dave Hollins but if people hold the correct credentials to carry out work and these have been checked you would assume that they are capable of carrying out the work correctly and safely. Obviously in this case the individual did not!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P. Gas | 29/04/2010 6:41 pm
When live's are lost and destroyed we all in the industry should be held accountable because we let it happen. To many contractor's do shoddy work and offer discount price's for system's. If all gas inspector's did their job and enforced local gas code's this would not happen. Bid's for job's would be comparable. All heating contractor's would be forced to do the right thing.
Any worker who knowingly puts a customer in harm's way should also be held
accountable. Walking away from a know problem is inexcusable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Lerner | 30/04/2010 6:48 am
As per Dave Hollins. There were architects who designed this, Clerk of Works who presumably are meant to check that the work was done to spec. It wasn't only this flat which had faults in the flues in voids at this property. Many others did so. And also many other flats across the country. It was just this flat at which there was a fatality.
Corgis Technical Bulletin on the subject of flues in voids said perhaps builders and architects wherever possible could be persuaded to put boilers on outside walls - a recognition in itself of the dangers inherent. The fact that clause had no force and no effect on builders and architects was itself a disgrace in my opinion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Brunton | 30/04/2010 8:22 pm
As usual the finger is pointed yet again at the installer but this incident is one of many involving flues in voids. Two of the guilty parties in this saga must be the people who designed flue systems which travel up to 60 metres through a building and the policing body who turned a blind eye to the problems inherent in this type of installation despite being warned of the dangers.
The regulations require that all flues should be inspected throughout their entire length for competence but these flues are installed without access for inspection being provided. They also pass through other peoples property where access can and often is refused so how can the installer comply with the requirements of the law. When it became obvious that the problems would not go away a warning notice was issued which required the installer to take extra care when dealing with flues in voids. How was this received by the designers and builders with contempt, one architect actually saying that there would be no access panels in the ceilings because this was a prestigious development. The number of properties affected runs into several hundreds and to date there seems to be no acceptable solution to the problem, but ones things for certain it won't go away.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
H Lance Bent | 03/05/2010 3:26 pm
It just goes to prove that the last professional to startup a system and turn the switch on is the last resort in making sure it is safe. This person cannot be a helper but must be a highly trained, experienced person who reviews all aspects of the job. There is no room for compartmentalization. All parts of the construction that affects the system no matter who built it must be reviewed. It has been my experience that many companies no matter if the system cost millions, make the mistake of turning on a system before the inspection process is completed. And some, even after told of their flaws, still try and run the system even when told it invalidates the manufacturers warranty. This is why many manufafturers are beginning to insist that a specially trained person inspect and perform the startup. Even though it may take a second trip because the install was not right or incomplete the first time it was inspected.
Our society often puts the lowest paid people in charge of the front line of the job. How can we not fail now and then?
Don't like to loose lives; pay more for better people. Pay more for good work, and don't accept the alternative.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan | 08/05/2010 8:39 am
I think people should wait until the full details emerge about this case before making comments, when people decide to become Gas Installers nobody holds a gun to their heads, nobody holds a gun to their heads when they quote the price nor when they accept the job, and nobody holds a gun to their heads when they sign a Gas Safety Certificate on a Faulty Gas System. If you do not want the responsibiltiy for peoples lives then change your job, it is not good enough to say it was somebody elses fault because they never paid enough money, it certainly was not Elouises or Simons fault that people put money before peoples lives, And when the full details emerge and hopefully somebody is found guilty of causing the death of Elouise and the permenant Brain damage to Simon sadly no one will hold a gun to their heads then either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
realolman | 09/05/2010 2:08 pm
"Our society often puts the lowest paid people in charge of the front line of the job. How can we not fail now and then?
Don't like to loose lives; pay more for better people. Pay more for good work, and don't accept the alternative."
I agree with this statement. The regulations seem always to be geared not toward the individual worker's capabilities, but with the de-skilling of the workers, as if the same worker could be stocking shelves at Wal-Mart one day, wearing arc flash suits and performing electrical work the next, and installing gas boilers the next.
The idea is to keep him lowly paid, so that there can be several levels of non-contributing people sitting around being highly paid. The worker is just a body in various safety harnesses and suits, subject to various safety regulations dreamed up by the non- contributors... until something happens... then you want to criminally charge the worker.
Theer is criminal activity all right, but is ain't by the workers' level of folks, and it ain't at the point of some tragedy
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment