While the term is not defined in a single piece of legislation, the requirement arises from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires employers to provide and maintain safe systems of work so far as is reasonably practicable.
An effective SSOW should:
A Safe System of Work is the documented process by which facilities management activities are planned, controlled, communicated and carried out safely, ensuring legal compliance while protecting people, business operations and asset value.
A Permit-to-Work (PTW) system is a formal, documented process used to control work that has been identified as potentially hazardous. It serves as both a safety control and a communication tool between those authorising the work and those carrying it out. [iwfmdirect.org]
A permit does not make a job safe by itself. It confirms that:
When is a Permit Required?
Typically for:
Modern FM View
A Permit-to-Work system is a management tool that ensures high-risk work is planned, authorised, communicated, supervised, and safely handed back, protecting people, business operations, and property assets.
In practice, the PTW system sits alongside CDM 2015, risk assessments, and safe systems of work as one of the core controls used by Facilities Managers to protect occupiers, employer interests, and asset value.
RAMS stands for:
Risk Assessment – identifies hazards, evaluates risks, and specifies control measures.
Method Statement – explains how the work will be carried out safely, step-by-step.
Together, RAMS provide the safe working methodology for a task.
In Simple Terms
The Risk Assessment answers:
"What could go wrong and how will we control it?"
The Method Statement answers:
"How exactly will the work be done safely?"
The Modern FM Approach
A competent Facilities Manager should ask:
If the answer is yes to any of these, RAMS should normally be requested, reviewed, and approved before work starts.
Key Takeaway
RAMS are not required for every task, but they are essential for construction, maintenance, contractor, and higher-risk activities. The principle is always proportionality: the greater the risk, the greater the need for detailed RAMS.
Health and safety offences are concerned with failures to manage risks to health and safety and do not require proof that the offence caused any actual harm.
In terms of what they require of duty-holders, HSE considers that duties to ensure health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable ("SFAIRP") and duties to reduce risks as low as is reasonably practicable ("ALARP") call for the same set of tests to be applied.
Harm - Health and safety offences are concerned with failures to manage risks to health and safety and do not require proof that the offence caused any actual harm.
The offence is in creating a risk of harm.
If HSE visit your workplace and find that you are in material breach of health and safety law, you will have to pay for the time it takes us to identify what is wrong and to help you put things right. It currently costs £157 an hour (2020). The fee will include the costs covering the time of the entire original visit. The total amount recovered will be based on the amount of time it takes HSE to identify the breach and help you put things right (including associated office work), multiplied by the hourly rate.
Determining that risk has been reduced ALARP: Thus, determining that risks have been reduced ALARP involves an assessment of the risk to be avoided, of the sacrifice (in money, time and trouble) involved in taking measures to avoid that risk, and a comparison of the two.
Risk: The risks must be only those over which duty-holders can exercise control or mitigate the consequences through the conduct of their undertaking. Some risks arise from external events or circumstances over which the duty-holder has no control, but whose consequences duty-holder can mitigate. Such risks should be included in the assessment. HSE will not expect them to take account of hazards other than those which are a reasonably foreseeable cause of harm, taking account of reasonably foreseeable events and behaviour.
Sacrifice: The sacrifice under consideration here is that which would be incurred by duty-holders as a consequence of their taking measures to avert or reduce the risks identified. In the Edwards case, Asquith LJ referred to the sacrifice in terms of money, time or trouble. These costs which should be considered are only those which are necessary and sufficient to implement the measures to reduce risk. Individual duty-holders' ability to afford a control measure or the financial viability of a particular project is not a legitimate factor in the assessment of its costs. HSE must present duty-holders with a level playing field. Thus HSE cannot take into account the size and financial position of the duty-holder when making judgements on whether risks have been reduced ALARP.
"The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost“
Once the Court has determined the annual turnover (or equivalent) of the organisation it then uses one of 4 tables to determine the starting point and range for the fine. There is a table for a:
For example, for a Large company being sentenced for a harm category 1 offence with medium culpability, the starting point is a fine of £1,300,000 with a range of £800,000 to £3.25 million. In most fatality cases there is likely to be a high risk of death so the harm category will be harm category 1 with high culpability the starting point would be £2.4 million with a range of £1.5 million to £6 million. However, as death actually resulted the court would need to consider moving up within the range of fines from the starting point.
*SME Medium-sized Turnover ≤ € 50 million
The fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with health and safety legislation.
Sentencing Council
It applies to all organisations and offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after 1 February 2016, regardless of the date of the offence.
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is the primary piece of legislation covering occupational health and safety in Great Britain. It’s sometimes referred to as HSWA, the HSW Act, the 1974 Act or HASAWA.
Before 1974 approximately 8 million employees had no legal safety protection at work. This could not be allowed to continue. In 1970 the Government set up a committee, chaired by Lord Robens to review the situation. It calls for better systems of safety organisation, for more management initiative and for more involvement of work people themselves'.It was from this report by Lord Robens that the Health &Safety at Work etc Act 1974 came into being.
On Saturday 1 June 1974 a massive explosion destroyed a large part of the Nypro (UK) Ltd plant at Flixborough, near Scunthorpe. Twenty eight people were killed in the incident and 36 people suffered injuries. More casualties could have been expected if the incident had occurred on a week day. Widespread damage was caused to surrounding commercial premises and residential housing. The explosion resulted from the ignition and deflagration of a huge vapour cloud which formed when cyclohexane under pressure escaped from a part of the plant used in the production of cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol.
A review of the history of Legionnaires' disease was first identified in 1977 following an outbreak at a convention of the American Legion at a Philadelphia hotel, in which 234 people fell ill and 34 died.
Public Health England Monthly Legionella Report December 2019
Prosecution: G4S fined £1.8 million after Legionella failure
G4S Cash Solutions has been fined £1.8 million after failing to reduce the risk of Legionnaires’ disease from its water systems.
In October 2013, a G4S worker was reported to have contracted Legionnaires’ disease, which causes flu-like symptoms and can, in some cases, lead to life-threatening problems. Harlow Council investigated but environmental health officers were unable to prove that the worker had contracted the disease from the site. However, the council did uncover a serious lack of compliance in maintaining water systems at the workplace. The council began prosecution procedings and G4S pleaded guilty to two charges under the H&SAWA. A spokesperson for Harlow Council said: “The environmental health officers found monitoring and testing of systems was erratic. Staff had received inadequate training and there were no up to date policies or suitable and sufficient risk assessments in place to safely operate or manage the building’s water systems. G4S did not take steps required to reduce the risk of Legionnaires’ disease from its water systems. This was despite a long-standing duty, extensive guidance, advice from their own consultants and advice from Harlow Council.”
The fine should send a message to other companies. Legionnaires’ disease is a real risk and companies need to take their health and safety duties to their employees and others seriously.
Mesothelioma is a form of cancer that takes many years to develop following the inhalation of asbestos fibres but is usually rapidly fatal following symptom onset. Annual deaths in Britain increased steeply over the last 50 years, a consequence of mainly occupational asbestos exposures that occurred because of the widespread industrial use of asbestos during 1950-1980.
The latest information shows:
Prosecution (16/01/20) Client and construction company sentenced after failing to control the removal of asbestos
Property owner Michael Cutmore and building contractors B and S BM Limited have both been sentenced after a refurbishment project of an old hotel was found to contain asbestos containing materials (ACMs) on site while work was still taking place.
Truro Crown Court heard that during September 2017 a property in Island Crescent, Newquay was to be partially demolished and refurbished under the control of one of its owners, Michael Cutmore. The hotel had been left derelict for several years, allowing it to be subject to vandalism and squatting and had been soft-stripped by its owner. Asbestos surveys identified the presence of ACMs, but these were not managed appropriately nor removed prior to the work. Local building contractors, B and S BM Limited were appointed by the hotel’s second co-owner to carry out works in half of the property while Mr Cutmore himself also stripped asbestos from within the former hotel.
During a proactive inspection, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified that the former hotel was being refurbished and partially demolished whilst ACMs remained in-situ. Some of these ACMs were licensable products (e.g. asbestos insulating board which contains amosite). Due to the extent of the spread of asbestos dust and debris throughout the building and the lack of adequate control measures, workers and visitors to the properties were at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.
B and S BM Limited of Prow Park, Newquay pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The company was fined £22,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000.
Michael Cutmore of Mount Wise, Newquay pleaded guilty to breaching S3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and has been ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay costs of £7,500.
Prosecution (27/09/2010) Retailer “unapologetic” after £1m asbestos-risk fine
Marks & Spencer has expressed its disappointment at the £1 million fine handed down to it yesterday (27 September) for putting staff and customers at its Broad Street store in Reading at risk of exposure to asbestos.
The retail giant and three of its contractors were sentenced at Bournemouth Crown Court in relation to refurbishment work carried out between 2006 and 2007 at the Reading store and at a store in Commercial Road, Bournemouth.
M&S was fined £1 million and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £600,000, having been found guilty of breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the HSWA 1974 for failing to protect staff at customers at the Reading store from the risk of exposure to asbestos between 24 April and 13 November 2006. The company was acquitted of four other similar charges in relation to the Bournemouth store, and a store in Plymouth.
During the three-month trial, which ended in July (click here for our original report on the case), Winchester Crown Court heard that, as the client, Marks & Spencer did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Reading store. Contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor to remove small areas of asbestos before the shop opened to the public each day.
Prosecuting, the HSE alleged that the retailer failed to ensure that the work complied with the appropriate legislative standards. Although the company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores, this was not followed properly by contractors during major refurbishment.
Principal contractor at the Reading Store, Styles & Wood Ltd, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal that did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on the site. Consequently, the Cheshire-based company was fined £100,000 plus costs of £40,000, after pleading guilty at a hearing in January 2010 to contravening sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the HSWA 1974.
Contractor PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel Ltd) was found guilty of contravening reg.15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 by failing to reduce to a minimum the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor between 5 May and 12 November 2006.
Witness said that areas cleaned by the company were recontaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work. The Manchester-based company, which went into administration in December 2008 and is awaiting dissolution, was fined £200.
Principal contractor at the Bournemouth store, Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd, of Hertfordshire, was fined £50,000 plus costs of £75,000 for breaches of sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the HSWA 1974 committed between 5 and 28 February 2007.
The company failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos-containing materials, the court heard, and did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively. Willmott Dixon Construction is applying for permission to appeal the conviction.
In the year ending September 2019:
The government has asked HSE to establish a new building safety regulator in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster and following recommendations in the ‘Building a Safer Future’ report by Dame Judith Hackitt.
Grenfell Tower: What happened
The fire which destroyed Grenfell Tower in June 2017 was one of the UK's worst modern disasters.
Prosecution (25/11/2009) New Look fire brings record fine
High Street fashion chain New Look has been fined a record £400,000 for fire safety breaches after a blaze broke out at a central London branch.
Staff initially ignored smoke pouring out of a window at New Look in Oxford Street, Southwark Crown Court heard. A fire alarm sounded but was switched off until staff finally "panicked" and evacuated customers. No-one was hurt.
Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said the April 2007 fire could have been "a disaster almost too awful to contemplate". The court heard that the store was filled with early evening shoppers on 26 April 2007 when the fire began in its second floor storeroom.
"Staff within the shop did not seem to have a plan to evacuate people. They went from no cause for alarm, to panic." Some customers fell over as they fled the store while others ducked shards of glass falling from above, the court heard. The store's windows were blown out in the fire.
The court heard that all 150 people in the store escaped unharmed and another 300 were evacuated from neighbouring premises. The cause of the fire was never discovered. It "virtually gutted" the building, which subsequently had to be demolished.
New Look was fined £250,000 for failing to supply a "suitable and sufficient" fire risk assessment for the premises and £150,000 for failing to adequately train staff. It was also ordered to pay more than £136,000 costs. The fines represent the largest imposed since new fire safety legislation came into being in 2006.
The judge said the charges represented "significant failures" which "constituted a risk of death and serious injury". "We are here dealing with a multitude of very real and deeply disturbing breaches, resulting in a system falling a very long way below the standard required and to be expected of a company of this size," he said. "As a result of these failures the potential for real human tragedy was always there."
Working at height remains one of the biggest causes of fatalities and major injuries. Common cases include falls from ladders and through fragile surfaces. ‘Work at height’ means work in any place where, if there were no precautions in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury (for example a fall through a fragile roof). In 2019/20, 29 fatal injuries to workers were due to falls from a height, accounting for around a quarter of all worker deaths over the year, a similar proportion to the latest five years combined. Sixteen percent (18) of the fatal injuries in 2019/20 were caused by being struck by a moving, including flying or falling, object, a similar proportion as for the 5-year period 2015/16-2019/20 combined.
Dos and don’ts of working at height
Do….
Don’t…
Prosecution 18/03/2020 Poor management control puts workers at risk
A Blackburn logistics company has been fined after failing to provide fall protection for workers replacing the roof of its premises.
Blackpool Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 29 May 2019, Health and Safety Executive inspectors visited a warehouse in Blackburn and observed two workers on the roof without any physical protection or any work equipment in place to prevent or minimise the distance of a fall.
Further investigation by HSE also found that the roof of the warehouse was fragile and people were at risk of coming through it. The company, Speed Drop Logistics Ltd, did not have any measures in place to prevent workers falling from or through the roof from which they could suffer personal injury or even death. The removal of tiles should have been carried out from underneath the roof using a scissor lift or a cherry picker. Scaffold should have been in place to create a barrier against and to minimise the distance of a possible fall.
Speed Drop Logistics Ltd of Manner Sutton Street, Blackburn, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1570.60.
Prosecution 06/03/2020 Building firm fined after worker injured
Stan England Builders Limited has been fined following an incident when a worker suffered serious injuries after falling from a mezzanine level and wooden platform.
Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard that on 31 March 2016, Alan Ness was working at a residential property in Banchory. He began taping areas on the ceiling of a mazzine level. He gained access to this level by a wooden platform which had a ladder propped against it. As he was working close to the edge of the mezzanine level, he lost his footing and stumbled a drop of 18.5cm onto the wooden platform. He was unable to regain his footing and fell a further 2.5 metres head first onto the floor below. He sustained head, back and neck injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that there was no edge protection on the wooden platform and no safe system of work had been put in place. Mr Ness had received no formal training for work at height or working on ladders, he had a lack of knowledge and awareness of the hazards associated with work at height. Stan England Builders Limited had failed to supervise appropriately and had not corrected deficiencies, despite visiting shortly before the accident there was no written risk assessments for this task.
Stan England Builders Limited of Raemoir Road, Banchory pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £6,000.
Prosecution 27/02/2020 Company fined after self-employed roofer falls from roof
A company specialising in roofing work has been fined after a self-employed roofer was seriously injured when he fell from a roof.
Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that, on 1 September 2016, a self-employed roofer was carrying out work for Phoenix Roofing and Cladding Limited, placing new roof panels and other materials on a roof at an industrial unit at the Butlerfield Industrial Estate, Newtongrange. Whilst traversing the roof, the roofer slipped and fell through an existing rooflight and landed on a suspended ceiling below.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the fall from height was possibly due to the unsafe working environment and unsafe methods of working being undertaken. It was established the main cause of the incident was insufficient identification of risk in the work being done.
Phoenix Roofing and Cladding Limited of Meeks Road, Falkirk pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at work etc Act 1974 and were fined £20,000.
Statistics show slipping and tripping to be the single most common cause of major injury in UK workplaces and they are often the initiators of accidents attributed to other causes, such as some machinery accidents, scalding and falls from height.
Practical steps to prevent slips and trips accidents
Icy conditions and winter weather
Slip and trip accidents increase during the Autumn and Winter season for a number of reasons: there is less daylight, leaves fall onto paths and become wet and slippery and cold weather spells cause ice and snow to build up on paths. There are effective actions that you can take to reduce the risk of a slip or trip. Regardless of the size of your site, always ensure that regularly used walkways are promptly tackled.
Gritting
The most common method used to de-ice floors is gritting as it is relatively cheap, quick to apply and easy to spread. Rock salt (plain and treated) is the most commonly used ‘grit’. It is the substance used on public roads by the highways authority.
Salt can stop ice forming and cause existing ice or snow to melt. It is most effective when it is ground down, but this will take far longer on pedestrian areas than on roads.
Gritting should be carried out when frost, ice or snow is forecast or when walkways are likely to be damp or wet and the floor temperatures are at, or below freezing. The best times are early in evening before the frost settles and/or early in the morning before employees arrive. Salt doesn’t work instantly; it needs sufficient time to dissolve into the moisture on the floor.
If you grit when it is raining heavily the salt will be washed away, causing a problem if the rain then turns to snow. Compacted snow, which turns to ice, is difficult to treat effectively with grit. Be aware that ‘dawn frost’ can occur on dry surfaces, when early morning dew forms and freezes on impact with the cold surface. It can be difficult to predict when or where this condition will occur.