Marlborough Court Limited admitted 11 counts of the offence relating to a property on Douglas promenade.
One of their directors appeared in court on Tuesday, January 28, entering the guilty pleas on behalf of the company.
Prosecuting advocate Victoria Kinrade told the court that an inspection by the fire service in September 2022, at Marlborough Court on Central Promenade, had initially identified faults with alarm panels.
Letters were sent to the company advising them of this.
The fire service visited the property again in January 2023 and there were still faults.
It was also found that there was no record of an inspection of fire extinguishers.
A prohibition notice was issued relating to the North block of the building, which meant that residents had to leave until the faults were corrected.
On February 16, 2023, the residents were allowed to return after the prohibition notice was withdrawn.
A further inspection was carried out in March 2023 and found that fire doors did not close, and combustible materials were present in escape routes.
Faults were also found with alarm panels.
This resulted in a prohibition notice being issued for the South block of the building, which was then withdrawn after the installation of a new alarm system.
In October 2023, a further inspection found alarm faults, issues with fire doors, and the separation between the basement ceiling of one floor, and the flat above not providing the minimum 60 minutes fire resistance.
One of the directors attended a voluntary interview and handed in a prepared statement, saying that tenants in the property had not been paying the management company, so they had not had funds to rectify faults.
In March 2024, the fire service declared that they were satisfied that all issues had been resolved.
The court heard that the company, whose address was listed as Elm Tree Road in Onchan, had no previous convictions.
Defence advocate Joseph Burrows said that the building was now compliant and had been for some time.
Mr Burrows said that the company had never shied away from its responsibility and had provided a history of attempts made to render the building fully compliant.
The advocate said that his client had been in a precarious position, as a considerable number of residents at the property had not been paying their management fees.
Mr Burrows said that a letter was sent to residents in October 2021, advising them that funds were needed in order to upgrade the fire system, and requests for payment had continued.
He added that the company had issued small claims proceedings to recover outstanding management fees against some residents, but when money had been received it had been spent on improving the fire system.
Deputy High Bailiff Rachael Braidwood fined the company £11,700 for six breaches relating to fire alarm panels, £2,200 for two counts relating to fire doors, £1,000 for one count relating to fire extinguishers, £1,200 for one charge relating to combustible materials, and £1,500 for one charge relating to the separation between floors.
Prosecution costs were also ordered in the sum of £50 and all amounts must be paid within three months.