Ouch, that seems like a greater evil Cheebs, but you also gotta remember that legislating this, enacting the change, and then enforcing it also cost additional money. Chances are this rule was set in place the way it was because it was also cost effective.
I can't imagine the number of fires they'd need to respond to would be that great to cause such concern in additional costs. The few they need to over the course of X number of years would more than likely result in bills being paid (I assume), and if not than tackling the outstanding fees and revisiting the notion of removing all services. There's always a way.