Rosepark care home had no evacuation plans

Evacuation plans were missed out of a safety report produced for the owners of a care home where 14 elderly residents were killed in a fire, the inquiry into the tragedy has heard.

Health and safety consultant James Reid admitted “serious failings” in the document he wrote for the Balmer family, who had hired him to carry out the checks on the Rosepark care home in Uddingston, near Glasgow.

However, Mr Reid had warned of a “high-risk” fire hazard a year before the incident on January 31, 2004.

The “worst-case scenario” of a blaze breaking out overnight was not considered by the fire-safety specialist and he owned up to “serious shortcomings with things that should’ve been documented but weren’t,” the inquiry heard.

A computerised checklist of people at risk from a fire counted staff and visitors, but not the elderly residents that the owners were supposed to be looking after.

The Fatal Accident Inquiry heard that favourable assessment of the home’s emergency procedures was based on verbal questioning of Alan Balmer, one of the joint owners, and was not supported by documents.

It also heard that a policy document produced at the home in 2002 included the statement: “We will develop a control system which is designed to provide speedy recognition and resolution of health and safety problems.”

Mr Reid said he would have taken issue with it at the time of his inspection in 2003 had he seen it as it implied that the control system was not ready.

He added that had he been aware that some corridor fire doors were left open overnight, it would not have got pass marks in the relevant sections of his report.

He also said his advice would have been for staff to call 999 in the event of an alarm sounding before carrying out any investigation to check that there was a real fire.

He would also have recommended that the alarm system be linked to the fire brigade, a move that would have automatically triggered a call-out.

When asked by advocate-depute James Wolffe QC why some bedroom doors were left open overnight, Mr Reid said it was because certain residents became “distressed” when the doors were closed.

The inquiry had heard from nurses that some residents were too weak to open doors, and several rooms had the automatic closing hinges removed.

Pressed on the matter, Mr Reid said that he “grudgingly accepted” the Balmers’ decision to honour residents’ wishes, though he insisted that he had raised concerns about the wisdom of leaving doors open.

Mr Reid’s professional qualifications were also questioned. Mr Reid, who holds several relevant professional body memberships, admitted that he had never assessed such a “challenging” premises as Rosepark before the Balmers took him on.

Paul McBride QC, for the Balmer family, secured confirmation from Mr Reid that there were “serious deficiencies” in the risk assessment.

He suggested that Alan Balmer may not have been the person who provided the information used to compile the report. Mr Reid said he could not recall with any certainty the nature of conversation between the two men.

Mr McBride raised the possibility that information in the Rosepark report was “copied and pasted” from research on the Balmers’ other care home, Croftbank. Mr Reid denied this was the case.

The inquiry continues.