Today's most viewed
LISTEN HERE
 Jessica Goyder is the latest musician to put her singles on our site. Listen here
| THE INSIDER
 Get the lowdown inside the corridors of power in Oxfordshire here.
| SEND AN OBITUARY
Send us a tribute to someone who has passed away
| ON YER BIKE
 Get the view from the gutter with cycling group Cyclox in Oxfordshire
|
|
|
|
Council 'sorry' over smoke alarm fiasco
 |
| Charmaine Partlett with her children Skye, Mimi Travis and Rhiannon |
Council officials have apologised for putting the survivors of a house blaze into emergency accommodation without working smoke alarms.
Charmaine Partlett, 25, and her four children aged between two and nine, were left homeless after a fire ripped through their three-storey home in Lyndworth Mews, Headington, on Sunday.
They were only rescued after hearing the smoke alarm and being able to call firefighters.
Oxford City Council placed the family - who lost all their possessions in the blaze - in a flat in Rectory Road, East Oxford.
But they were horrified to discover that neither of the two smoke alarms were working.
The council has apologised to the family and moved them to a hotel until suitable accommodation can be found.
Tonight, Miss Partlett said: "I can't take my kids back somewhere without a smoke alarm. It's too dangerous.
"My family's life was saved by the working smoke alarms. I could barely sleep knowing there were no smoke alarms in the council's flat.
"The council should take a long hard look at some of its landlords and carry out some proper safety checks."
Miss Partlett was rescued from the blaze in the early hours of Sunday morning.
Son Travis, seven, and daughters Mimi, three, and Skye, two, were also saved by fire crews.
Eldest daughter Rhiannon, nine, was staying at a friend's house during the night of the fire.
Fire service station manager David Heycock cor said firefighters offered to fit smoke alarms in the flat, but the family had already been moved to a hotel.
He added: "The council has been presented with a very large family at the very last minute.
"But smoke alarms saved their life and it is indef- ensible."
Council spokesman Chris Lee said the family was rehoused in an emergency and the flat was not checked.
But smoke detectors were fitted when the issue was raised on Monday.
Mr Lee said: "The fact that the smoke detector was not working is unfortunate, particularly given the circumstances.
"We apologise if we caused the family any additional stress as a result.
"However, we did respond promptly to their emergency by providing suitable accommodation for overnight use."
He added the council's policy was to only place families in homes with smoke alarms and usually officers check homes first to ensure they have working safety devices.
He said a reputable landlord had been used, but because the family needed housing so quickly there was no time to check the smoke alarms were working.
The council said it was keeping its fire safety policy under constant review.
6:47pm Tuesday 13th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: MG, OX4 on 7:17pm Tue 13 May 08
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
Posted by: Peter, Oxford on 7:19pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote]Tonight, Miss Partlett said: "I can't take my kids back somewhere without a smoke alarm. It's too dangerous.[/quote]
Buy some then you silly cow they only cost about a fiver. The council should now be apologising to the council tax payers for wasting money putting them up in a hotel.
Tonight, Miss Partlett said: "I can't take my kids back somewhere without a smoke alarm. It's too dangerous.
Buy some then you silly cow they only cost about a fiver. The council should now be apologising to the council tax payers for wasting money putting them up in a hotel.
Posted by: ricky, redbridgecrew on 7:25pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]MG[/bold] wrote:
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.[/quote] your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???
MG wrote:
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???
Posted by: Joe, Marston Road on 7:29pm Tue 13 May 08
No father available to check the smoke detectors then?
More taxpayers money being misused.
More kids, more money, more benefits more housing!!!!!!
Sad.
No father available to check the smoke detectors then?
More taxpayers money being misused.
More kids, more money, more benefits more housing!!!!!!
Sad.
Posted by: Mike, East Oxford on 7:38pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]ricky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]MG[/bold] wrote: Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.[/quote] your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???[/quote] She is entitled to have as a larger family as she wishes.
I do not know her background, so cannot comment, but a father,([bold]or four),[/bold] would show some semblance of a stable family backgroud for the 'family'.
Narrow minded no!
Poll tax payer yes!!!!
ricky wrote:
MG wrote: Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???
She is entitled to have as a larger family as she wishes.
I do not know her background, so cannot comment, but a father,(
or four), would show some semblance of a stable family backgroud for the 'family'.
Narrow minded no!
Poll tax payer yes!!!!
Posted by: K, Oxford on 8:16pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]ricky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]MG[/bold] wrote:
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.[/quote] your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???[/quote] People are entitled to whatever lifestyle they want as long as they pay their own way. However, this person is one of many "career Mums" who push out babies from multiple fathers and live solely off benefits - or, in other words, your and my money.
If you're paying for something you should have a right to decide if it's value for money or not.
ricky wrote:
MG wrote:
Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???
People are entitled to whatever lifestyle they want as long as they pay their own way. However, this person is one of many "career Mums" who push out babies from multiple fathers and live solely off benefits - or, in other words, your and my money.
If you're paying for something you should have a right to decide if it's value for money or not.
Posted by: mr anon, abingdon on 9:57pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Peter[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Tonight, Miss Partlett said: \"I can\'t take my kids back somewhere without a smoke alarm. It\'s too dangerous.[/quote] Buy some then you silly cow they only cost about a fiver. The council should now be apologising to the council tax payers for wasting money putting them up in a hotel.[/quote] the fire service will fit them for free
Peter wrote:
Tonight, Miss Partlett said: \"I can\'t take my kids back somewhere without a smoke alarm. It\'s too dangerous.
Buy some then you silly cow they only cost about a fiver. The council should now be apologising to the council tax payers for wasting money putting them up in a hotel.
the fire service will fit them for free
Posted by: Janet, Oxford on 10:11pm Tue 13 May 08
She HAD smoke detectors in her house and they saved her children's lives. She has lost everything so why shouldn't she have emergency accommodation? The waste of money is by the council who are using unsafe accommodation. The only winner is the landlord who clearly couldn't care less.
She HAD smoke detectors in her house and they saved her children's lives. She has lost everything so why shouldn't she have emergency accommodation? The waste of money is by the council who are using unsafe accommodation. The only winner is the landlord who clearly couldn't care less.
Posted by: alan page on 10:14pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]K[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ricky[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]MG[/bold] wrote: Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.[/quote] your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???[/quote] People are entitled to whatever lifestyle they want as long as they pay their own way. However, this person is one of many \"career Mums\" who push out babies from multiple fathers and live solely off benefits - or, in other words, your and my money. If you\'re paying for something you should have a right to decide if it\'s value for money or not.[/quote] Mmm interesting. So if somebody believes that working god knows how many hours to fill som fat bloated drug abusers pockets, they can call a wildcat strike and put him out of business.
Parasites don't only live on council estates, the vast majority of us are obliged to keep them in drugs on a minimum wage.
K wrote:
ricky wrote: MG wrote: Pikeys are so ungrateful! Stop having kids, start paying taxes and get your own place.
your a bit type cast,whos said shes anything to do with the so called pikes,if she wants a large family..great for her!!! narrow minded ???
People are entitled to whatever lifestyle they want as long as they pay their own way. However, this person is one of many \"career Mums\" who push out babies from multiple fathers and live solely off benefits - or, in other words, your and my money. If you\'re paying for something you should have a right to decide if it\'s value for money or not.
Mmm interesting. So if somebody believes that working god knows how many hours to fill som fat bloated drug abusers pockets, they can call a wildcat strike and put him out of business.
Parasites don't only live on council estates, the vast majority of us are obliged to keep them in drugs on a minimum wage.
Posted by: Taxpayer on 7:30am Wed 14 May 08
If I were rehoused after a fire, I would expect smoke detectors to be provided: when you have lost everything and have four small children to look after, this is not an unreasonable expectation.
What is totally unreasonable is to have so many children and expect working people who often can afford only one or two children themselves to pay for everything for you for at least a quarter of a century.
Had she insured her possessions? Please tell me she had.
If I were rehoused after a fire, I would expect smoke detectors to be provided: when you have lost everything and have four small children to look after, this is not an unreasonable expectation.
What is totally unreasonable is to have so many children and expect working people who often can afford only one or two children themselves to pay for everything for you for at least a quarter of a century.
Had she insured her possessions? Please tell me she had.
Posted by: Craig Simmonds, Green green grass of Oxford on 9:31am Wed 14 May 08
RIDE BICYCLES!!!
Posted by: Someone that cares about others on 9:41am Wed 14 May 08
Will people learn to respect each other,no matter if they are on benefits or not,just remember one day you may have to go on benefits,they what are you going to say about people on benefits,still bad mouth them,i think not,so think before you go on one......we all have a right to be,on this earth,no matter if your on benefits or not,if your black or white,if your fat or slim,if your intelligent or not........RESPECT OTHERS X
Will people learn to respect each other,no matter if they are on benefits or not,just remember one day you may have to go on benefits,they what are you going to say about people on benefits,still bad mouth them,i think not,so think before you go on one......we all have a right to be,on this earth,no matter if your on benefits or not,if your black or white,if your fat or slim,if your intelligent or not........RESPECT OTHERS X
Posted by: alan page on 10:24am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]Someone that cares about others[/bold] wrote:
Will people learn to respect each other,no matter if they are on benefits or not,just remember one day you may have to go on benefits,they what are you going to say about people on benefits,still bad mouth them,i think not,so think before you go on one......we all have a right to be,on this earth,no matter if your on benefits or not,if your black or white,if your fat or slim,if your intelligent or not........RESPECT OTHERS X[/quote] Nice post.
Sadly wasted on the racist drug abusing residents of Oxford though.
Burning witches is still considered a worthy pastime.
Someone that cares about others wrote:
Will people learn to respect each other,no matter if they are on benefits or not,just remember one day you may have to go on benefits,they what are you going to say about people on benefits,still bad mouth them,i think not,so think before you go on one......we all have a right to be,on this earth,no matter if your on benefits or not,if your black or white,if your fat or slim,if your intelligent or not........RESPECT OTHERS X
Nice post.
Sadly wasted on the racist drug abusing residents of Oxford though.
Burning witches is still considered a worthy pastime.
Posted by: Ghost of Robert Malthus on 10:28am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]Taxpayer[/bold] wrote:
If I were rehoused after a fire, I would expect smoke detectors to be provided: when you have lost everything and have four small children to look after, this is not an unreasonable expectation. What is totally unreasonable is to have so many children and expect working people who often can afford only one or two children themselves to pay for everything for you for at least a quarter of a century. Had she insured her possessions? Please tell me she had.[/quote] You've got in in one.
As I wrote overpopulation is the problem and we should abolish state handouts and let nature take its course with the surplus.
Oddly enough I was one of 7 children myself.
Perhaps if my parents had been more careful, I would never have been born. Now there's a thought.
Taxpayer wrote:
If I were rehoused after a fire, I would expect smoke detectors to be provided: when you have lost everything and have four small children to look after, this is not an unreasonable expectation. What is totally unreasonable is to have so many children and expect working people who often can afford only one or two children themselves to pay for everything for you for at least a quarter of a century. Had she insured her possessions? Please tell me she had.
You've got in in one.
As I wrote overpopulation is the problem and we should abolish state handouts and let nature take its course with the surplus.
Oddly enough I was one of 7 children myself.
Perhaps if my parents had been more careful, I would never have been born. Now there's a thought.
Posted by: Marina, oxon on 6:34pm Wed 14 May 08
I'd just like to say, that is my sister whose house has burnt down and almost lost her children! So to all of you that have posted the vindictive bullshit above - I hope that you have the pleasure of your houses burning down with your families trapped inside, and having to read comments such as the ones that have been made above. I think the things that you have said are completely pointless and ignorant! You are a bunch of self-righteous pr*cks.
I'd just like to say, that is my sister whose house has burnt down and almost lost her children! So to all of you that have posted the vindictive bullshit above - I hope that you have the pleasure of your houses burning down with your families trapped inside, and having to read comments such as the ones that have been made above. I think the things that you have said are completely pointless and ignorant! You are a bunch of self-righteous pr*cks.
Posted by: YES BUT NO BUT, Cuntley on 9:24pm Wed 14 May 08
If people have insurance the isurance will pay for housing, obviously not bothered to get any. Why would any landlord let a fire hazard move into a property of his! Is this a regular problem for the family?
I feel sorry for [bold]VICKY POLLARD[/bold] yeh but no but but yeh but no bet yehh but no, but...
If people have insurance the isurance will pay for housing, obviously not bothered to get any. Why would any landlord let a fire hazard move into a property of his! Is this a regular problem for the family?
I feel sorry for
VICKY POLLARD yeh but no but but yeh but no bet yehh but no, but...
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
