/ Climb Rochdale Fined

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Mark Collins - on 03 Jan 2013
Sarah G on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:
You can be sure the company directors won't take the hit...
dunnyg - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins: Seems as it is big rock climbing that is getting fined, not pink climbing centres, I would guess not at all.
SCC - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> (In reply to Mark Collins)
> You can be sure the company directors won't take the hit...

How so?
Will they fine the staff?
Charge the customers extra?

Or will the fine simply reduce the profits of the company? You know, the profits that the directors draw remuneration from?

Si
The New NickB - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:

Read this in the local paper a few weeks ago. Seems the wall has since changed hands. The former Directors have blamed their Manager, perhaps not fully understanding their obligations. The (former) Manager posts on here sometimes, he may or may not want to comment.
digby - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:

What a shambles. They deserved it.
Lukeva - on 03 Jan 2013
In reply to digby:
> (In reply to Mark Collins)
>
> What a shambles. They deserved it.

Agree!
Neil Williams - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to SCC:

It might mean prices at Big Rock needing to go up sooner to cover it... I never quite saw the sense in fining companies in this manner for that very reason.

Neil
jonnie3430 - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SCC)
>
> It might mean prices at Big Rock needing to go up sooner to cover it..

Well it may mean that a better run local wall will get the customers instead, you should run your own. Look at the competition!! You'd make a killing. (I have no idea where Rochdale is, I was just trying to help him out as he seemed to need a suggestion or two.)
cuppatea on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:

There are no excuses for blocked and locked emergency exits.
None.

If there's a crime of corporate manslaughter, how about a new one of corporate attempted manslaughter for cases such as this?
Ghastly Rubberfeet on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to cuppatea:
> (In reply to Mark Collins)
>
> There are no excuses for blocked and locked emergency exits.
> None.

Too true!


> attempted manslaughter

Lovin' the logic of that one!

;~))

SCC - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SCC)
>
> It might mean prices at Big Rock needing to go up sooner to cover it... I never quite saw the sense in fining companies in this manner for that very reason.
>
> Neil

As it's a different comapny running it, I'm not so sure.

I do agree with your other point though. In most cases the fine will come out of shareholders dividends or be paid by an increase in costs to customers.
Maybe they should fine the directors personally. but then wouldn't they just take a larger paypacket to cover it.

Si
Bulls Crack - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to jonnie3430:
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
> [...]
>
. (I have no idea where Rochdale is,

Really?!
stuartholmes - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:
Hi, I would like to introduce myself as one of the new owners. As the article said it was Big Rock Climbing ltd that were fined.

The incident happened 12 months ago and is nothing to do with us and will have no effect on Climb Rochdale or its customers/prices.

The centre has had new alarms,sensors,fire doors,emergency lighting and better improved signs.

The centre was due to close for good in December, but we made a deal with the previous owners and bought the assets and took over the building lease.

We have lots of plans to improve and develop the centre, we have started with a new cafe, better quality routes and problems. And a new training/warming up area.

I won say to much on this thread as I should really be using premier post (UKClimbing do lots for free so paying for advertisement on here is well worth it and a good cause). But its still 5.50 entry for adults and cheaper for concessions and children.

Keep an eye out for developments and if you havn't been for a while come see the changes. We are on Facebook and twitter and our new improved website will be finished shortly.

As a new business venture we appreciate support from our customers. As the bad publicity at the same time as we opened really had us worried.

Regards
Stuart Holmes
Climb Rochdale
(Pink Climbing Centres

JJL - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins:

It's hilarious that the Directors knew of serious problems 2 months before the inspection, but didn't move the hoover.

The entire corrective action only took a week, so what were they doing the rest of the time?
Neil Williams - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to SCC:

> Maybe they should fine the directors personally. but then wouldn't they just take a larger paypacket to cover it.

That's the difficulty. If you fine a company, unless it is really having good times the outcome will either be:-

1. Price rises for customers
2. Staff cuts, usually at the lower end
3. The company failing and thus no longer serving its customers and laying off all its staff

Even in good times it will mean less improvements for customers.

So how does that actually benefit anyone? The question is how (on a generic level rather than commenting on this specific case) you actually deal with it. Personal liability for those whose job description involved managing that specific aspect, perhaps, rather than company liability? For example, if you're a lorry driver and you're caught speeding, you get the conviction, not the company.

Neil
Simon Caldwell - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to stuartholmes:
> the bad publicity at the same time as we opened really had us worried

great shame the article originally linked to only mentioned your take over right at the end, long after most people will have stopped reading.
Monk - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SCC)
>
> [...]
>
> That's the difficulty. If you fine a company, unless it is really having good times the outcome will either be:-
>
> 1. Price rises for customers
> 2. Staff cuts, usually at the lower end
> 3. The company failing and thus no longer serving its customers and laying off all its staff
>
> Even in good times it will mean less improvements for customers.
>
> So how does that actually benefit anyone? The question is how (on a generic level rather than commenting on this specific case) you actually deal with it. Personal liability for those whose job description involved managing that specific aspect, perhaps, rather than company liability? For example, if you're a lorry driver and you're caught speeding, you get the conviction, not the company.
>
> Neil

I've always seen these fines as a last measure to punish a company and to serve as a warning for others and for the future. In my experience, you don't end up in court straight away - you get warnings and advice. It is only if you show persistent disregards for safety that you end up in court.
Lukeva - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to SCC:
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
> [...]
>
> As it's a different comapny running it, I'm not so sure.
>
> I do agree with your other point though. In most cases the fine will come out of shareholders dividends or be paid by an increase in costs to customers.
> Maybe they should fine the directors personally. but then wouldn't they just take a larger paypacket to cover it.
>

The court could not fine the directors, personally. The directors are not liable; their company is liable. That is one of the advantages of creating a company, and being a director, the personal and severable liability is hugely reduced. They would have still taken the hit; it appears that the company has parted ways with said wall now anyway. So, they did suffer the fine which was absolutely justifiable? Had that building suffered an aggressive fire under those circumstances it would have been headline news, for sure.

Sounds like the current management has the necessary measures in practice. Good news


winhill - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to Mark Collins)
>
> It's hilarious that the Directors knew of serious problems 2 months before the inspection, but didn't move the hoover.
>
> The entire corrective action only took a week, so what were they doing the rest of the time?

Yes, also blaming the manager because they decided not to ensure their liabilities were being honoured means that at other centres they own they adopt the same casual approach?
ads.ukclimbing.com
winhill - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to stuartholmes:
> (In reply to Mark Collins)
>
> As a new business venture we appreciate support from our customers. As the bad publicity at the same time as we opened really had us worried.

Did they tell you about the court case during the sale? If not perhaps you could get some cashback if they mispresented themselves?

OTOH If you knew about it you must have made the decision that keeping the name Climb Rochdale (and presumably pay them a premium to do so) was likely to be more cost effective (profitable) in the longer term?
Neil Williams - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to winhill:

Not that I've seen at Big Rock, and I climb there regularly. (Indeed, there's the opposite problem in summer, the fire exit in the bouldering area gets left open to let some of the heat out/fresh air in, so people sneak in without paying...)

I've never quite been sure how the Beacon (the other affiliated wall) fits into the structure, nor have I ever been there - but as it's quite new (in its new form) one would hope and assume it complied.

Neil
Sarah G on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to SCC:
Insurance company take the hit. The personal income of the directors will remain untouched. Then the directors will create a new company with a different name, same premises, same business, etc- just like the double glazing window peeps.

Sx
Howardw1968 - on 04 Jan 2013
I guess that the sale is paying for the upgrades Big rock MK is about to get :)
efrance24234 - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Mark Collins: been to climb rochdale today and the food is great! We had the chilli and the curry and both were very good and homemade! Much better than the usuall crap at climbing walls. The plans they have to develop sound good too!
neilh - on 04 Jan 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
That is wrong.It is illegal to take out insurance to pay for criminal fines, and this will be a criminal fine.Best comparison is your motor insurance paying for speeding fines.

As regards the personal income of the directors, that depends on whether its the company or the individuals that have been prosecuted.In this case it looks like the company. I would suggest that only if there had been a fire- and somebody hurt - would the directors have been personally fined.So it comes out of the companys coffers.

You can get insurance cover for the legal expenses. Also civil damages, as in liability cases ( which is not what has happened here).

Its a big fine- reflecting the seriousness of blocking fire exit doors in a premises used by the public.Probably awarded because of that aspect.

Yes the directors can form a new company - it is quite legal to do this.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.