Roofers broke the rules before the devastating cancer hospital fire, yet they will not be prosecuted.
A roofing business was found to have broken safety laws in the aftermath of a fire that destroyed a cutting-edge cancer hospital, but will not be prosecuted.
In 2017, a fire ripped through the Paterson Building, which was utilized as a research center by the University of Manchester and Cancer Research UK, while the Christie Hospital in Withington, Manchester, was receiving repairs.
The structure had to be demolished and reconstructed at a cost of £150 million.
Police continue to cordon off the crime site as tributes swell around the street sign.
Claims regarding a Wallasey-based roofing company, Helix Roofing Contractors Ltd on Breck Road, were discovered after a thorough inquiry.
The Wirral firm’s hot welding trash likely fell behind a wall unseen and ignited a fire while contractors were on a tea break, according to Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.
According to fire chiefs, the report was produced after a “intensive” forensic examination, interviews, and reconstructions.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a “contravention notice” to Helix’s directors, rather than taking the company to court, according to the Manchester Evening News.
The sanction only requires them to pay for the cost of an HSE officer visiting their premises and explaining the notice, which is paid at £160 per hour and is unlikely to exceed £500.
When The Washington Newsday visited the firm on Friday, a representative told us that Helix had no additional comment on the topic.
The fire started on April 26, 2017, and by the time it was extinguished, 32 fire engines had been deployed to the scene, which had been deemed a major incident.
More than 300 scientists and support employees were transferred, and years of significant research and equipment were lost.
In addition, insurance firms have paid out a total of £17 million in compensation for the damage.
Helix executives stated in 2018 that they disagreed with the fire department’s findings, arguing that the report was only a “hypothesis.”
“It appears like someone needs to be accused even if there is no definite evidence,” said a statement to the MEN in January of that year.
The company claims that its employees are “conscientious and well-trained” and that they are not to blame for the incident.
However. “The summary has come to an end.”