The Cost of Noncompliance

Essential Compliance Document

Safe system of work

A formal management system or framework can help you manage health and safety; it’s your decision whether to use one or not. Examples include:

national and international standards such as:

ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use (HSE’s position statement on ISO 45001)
BS EN ISO 9001:2015 Quality management system

in-house standards, procedures or codes

sector-specific frameworks such as the:

Energy Institute’s High-level framework for process safety management
Chemical Industries Association's
Responsible Care framework

Although the language and methodology vary, the key actions can usually be traced back to Plan, Do, Check, Act.

PLAN Determine your policy/Plan for implementation

DO Profile risks/Organise for health and safety/Implement your plan

CHECK Measure performance (monitor before events, investigate after events)

ACT Review performance/Act on lessons learned

What does the law say?

You have a legal duty to put in place suitable arrangements to manage for health and safety. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to put in place arrangements to control health and safety risks. As a minimum, you should have the processes and procedures required to meet the legal requirements, including:

a written health and safety policy (if you employ five or more people);
assessments of the risks to employees, contractors, customers, partners, and any other people who could be affected by your activities – and record the significant findings in writing (if you employ five or more people). Any risk assessment must be ‘suitable and sufficient’;
arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures that come from risk assessment;
access to competent health and safety advice
providing employees with information about the risks in your workplace and how they are protected;
instruction and training for employees in how to deal with the risks;
ensuring there is adequate and appropriate supervision in place;
consulting with employees about their risks at work and current preventive and rotective measures.

Documentation

Keep health and safety documents functional and concise, with the emphasis on their effectiveness rather than sheer volume of paperwork.

Focusing too much on the formal documentation of a health and safety management system will distract you from addressing the human elements of its implementation - the focus becomes the process of the system itself rather than actually controlling risks.

Attitudes and behaviours

Effectively managing for health and safety is not just about having a management or safety management system. The success of whatever process or system is in place still hinges on the attitudes and behaviours of people in the organisation (this is sometimes referred to as the ‘safety culture’).

Competence

Competence is the ability to undertake responsibilities and perform activities to a recognised standard on a regular basis. It combines practical and thinking skills, knowledge and experience.

The competence of individuals is vital, whether they are employers, managers, supervisors, employees and contractors, especially those with safety-critical roles (such as plant maintenance engineers). It ensures they recognise the risks in their activities and can apply the right measures to control and manage those risks.

Truly effective health and safety management requires competency across every facet of an organisation and through every level of the workforce.

Permit to Work Systems

Contributory factors for an assessor to consider concerning the Work Permit System

Whether staff have been sufficiently informed, instructed, trained and supervised to minimise a potential human failing during operation of the work permit system;
Whether the work permit system includes sufficient safety information, maintenance instructions, correct PPE and equipment for use;
Whether the work permit contains sufficient information about the type of work required (Equipment removal, excavation, hot/cold work, repairing seals, vessel entry, waste disposal, isolation);
Whether there is sufficient provision available to fulfil the requirements of the work permit system;
Whether the employees responsible for control of the maintenance work are identified within the work permit system and that the work is properly authorised by a responsible person;
Whether the work permit system is managed, regularly inspected and reviewed;
Whether all work permits are kept on file;
Human factors (stress, fatigue, shift work, attitude);
Whether sufficient precautions are taken prior to initiating a work permit (isolation, draining, flushing, environmental monitoring, risk assessments, communication, time allotted for the work);
Whether staff are aware of the type of environment they are working in during the operation of a work permit (flammable, corrosive, explosive, zones 0, 1 & 2, electricity supplies);
Whether the person responsible for operating the plant is aware of the type of maintenance involved and how long it is likely to take; and
Whether the work permit system involves a formal procedure whereby the maintained plant or equipment is handed back to operation.

Key principles in permit to work systems

The issue of a permit does not, by itself, make a job safe.
Roles and responsibilities - is it clear who is in charge, and who does what - with no important gaps or overlaps?
If the job cannot be finished in one shift, ensure that it will be left in a safe state and that clear instructions are available for the next shift (see Shift Handover topic);
The Permit should contain all relevant information, be correct, and presented in a suitable format (e.g. not overly complex or ambiguous, a single-sided A4 permit might suffice - see Procedures topic);
Ensure end-user involvement in the design of the permit system, and the document design process;
Communicate all relevant information (including hazards and controls) to all personnel involved;
Ensure that other people are aware of what maintenance staff are doing and vice versa;
If there are a number of permits, they should be displayed at an appropriate location, in a systematic arrangement that enables staff to check which equipment is e.g. isolated or undergoing maintenance;
Make links between related permits – consider simultaneous tasks and interdependent activities;
Consider the balance between communicating ‘routine’ safety information on a Permit (e.g. PPE, housekeeping), and issues specific to the task in hand, including process safety information where relevant;
The permit system should have a process for hand-over of plant on completion of work;
Train all users in the PTW system and provide information to other persons affected by it;
Make arrangements to manage non-compliance e.g. where there may be overload of permits at the beginning of a shift;
Plan work to smooth out the distribution of PTWs, or provide more PTW authorisers at busy times;
If you are considering introducing an electronic permit system, assess the risks from the changeover from a paper-based system. Use good interface design, and train personnel in the PTW process, not just use of the software interface. See HSG250, p.16.
Ensure effective management and review of the work permit system

What is a permit-to-work system?

A permit-to-work system is a formal recorded process used to control work which is identified as potentially hazardous. It is also a means of communication between site/installation management, plant supervisors and operators and those who carry out the hazardous work. Essential features of permit-to-work systems are:

clear identification of who may authorise particular jobs (and any limits to their authority) and who is responsible for specifying the necessary precautions;
training and instruction in the issue, use and closure of permits;
monitoring and auditing to ensure that the system works as intended;
clear identification of the types of work considered hazardous;
clear and standardised identification of tasks, risk assessments, permitted task duration and supplemental or simultaneous activity and control measures.

When are permit-to-work systems required?

Permit-to-work systems should be considered whenever it is intended to carry out work which may adversely affect the safety of personnel, plant or the environment. However, permit-to-work systems should not be applied to all activities, as experience has shown that their overall effectiveness may be weakened. Permits-to-work are not normally required for controlling general visitors to site or routine maintenance tasks in non-hazardous areas.

non-production work (eg maintenance, repair, inspection, testing, alteration, construction, dismantling, adaptation, modification, cleaning etc);
non-routine operations;
jobs where two or more individuals or groups need to co-ordinate activities to complete the job safely;
jobs where there is a transfer of work and responsibilities from one group to another.

Permit authorisation and supervision

A permit-to-work system will be fully effective only if the permits are co-ordinated and controlled by an issuing or other responsible authority and there is adequate supervision and monitoring of the system to make sure that the specified procedures are being followed. This should include site visits by the issuing authority to check whether the conditions of the permit are being complied with (as a minimum, at start and completion of the task, with interim checks depending on hazard, complexity and duration of task). Managers or supervisors should not rely solely on scrutinising forms to see whether they have been completed properly, but should carry out additional checks of issuer’s forms on a sample basis. Careful consideration should be given to the number of signatures required for a permit. Signatures or ‘initials’ should only be required where they add value to the safety of the work undertaken, and those signing permits or supporting documentation should have specific training and authorisation from the company.

Contractors’ and subcontractors’ management (acting as performing authority or permit user)

ensure that they understand the principles of permit-to-work systems as they are applied in the industry;
ensure that they understand the permit-to-work systems and other arrangements that apply to the particular locations at which they or their employees are to work;
ensure that all performing authorities and permit users are properly trained, and understand the permit-to-work systems and any other specific arrangements made for a job, area or location in which they are to work;
ensure that up-to-date records of trained performing authorities are kept.

Electronic permits

Permits can be produced electronically and a number of companies are using this type of system. There may be advantages in reducing the amount of paperwork associated with the permit process. However, before introducing an electronic permit system operators must be sure that:

a suitable system (eg password-protected electronic signatures) is in place to prevent unauthorised issue or acceptance;
permits cannot be issued remotely without a site visit;
systems are in place to prevent permits already issued from being altered without the alterations being communicated to all concerned;
the facility exists for paper permits to be produced for display at the job site;
training is provided to ensure that operators assess the specific job and do not rely on ‘cutting and pasting’ existing sections from other permits;
suitable back-up systems are available in the event of a software failure or power outage.

Risk assessment and method statement (RAMS)

The law on construction health and safety requires action to protect those at work on site and members of the public who may be affected. There are a number of legal requirements concerning notifications, risk assessments, safety plans and examination reports etc. that must be also produced or submitted.

Notifications
Risk assessments
CDM plan and file
Thorough examination reports
Inspection reports
Method statements
Injuries and dangerous occurrences

Risk assessments

General assessment - employers are required to make an assessment of the health and safety risks to which employees and others are exposed on construction sites. The significant findings must be recorded where five of more people are employed.
Specific assessments – certain regulations require risk assessments for specific hazards and state in more detail what is required. These include: work at height; hazardous substance (COSHH); manual handling; noise; vibration and lead.

Method statements

The arrangements for carrying out demolition, dismantling or structural alteration must be recorded in writing before the work begins. This is usually achieved by means of a method statement that can be generated from a risk assessment.
While not required by law, method statements are also prepared for many other construction activities and are proven to be an effective and practical way to help plan, manage and monitor construction work.
They can take account of risks identified by the risk assessment and communicate the safe system of work to those carrying it out, especially for higher-risk complex or unusual work (e.g. steel and formwork erection, demolition or the use of hazardous substances). A method statement draws together the information compiled about the various hazards and the ways in which they are to be controlled for any particular job from the conclusions of the risk assessments.
A method statement also takes account of a company’s health and safety organisation and training procedures and may include arrangements to deal with serious or imminent danger.
The method statement describes in a logical sequence exactly how a job is to be carried out in a way that secures health and safety and includes all the control measures.
This will allow the job to be properly planned with the appropriate health and safety resources needed for it. It can also provide information for other contractors working at the site about any effects the work will have on them and help the principal contractor develop the construction phase plan (PDF)- Portable Document Format for the project.
If a similar operation is repeated, the statement will be similar from job to job. However, if circumstances change markedly e.g. with demolition, the statement should be revised for each job.
The method statement is an effective way of providing information to employees about how they expect the work to be carried out and the precautions that should be taken. The most effective method statements often include diagrams to make it clear how work should be carried out. Checking that the working methods set out in the statement are actually put into practice on site can also be a useful monitoring tool.
When reviewing the risk assessments, information from monitoring previous jobs, accident records and investigations can help to decide if adequate precautions are being applied.

Workplace Inspections

The monitoring and review of preventative and protective measures is a requirement of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations for which routine workplace health and safety inspections are to be conducted to check that such measures are in place and effective. Workplace health and safety inspections cover specific selected work areas within an organisation or workplace and should not be confused with health and safety audits of a safety management system. All workplace inspections should be recorded as evidence of legal compliance with the requirement to monitor and review preventative and protective measures and may form part of an audit trail demonstrating that appropriate arrangements are in place for active monitoring of the safety management system.

Manager

The manager should ensure that regular workplace health and safety inspections are carried out within their identified area(s) of responsibility by competent persons. Where practical any safety representatives (TU or staff elected) who cover the area/personnel involved should be informed of the planned workplace inspections and invited to participate. All deficiencies identified must be acted upon in a timely manner. Where practical, managers are encouraged to coordinate all interested parties to conduct joint inspections of their area to minimise "over regulation" and help to resolve any grey areas where responsibility is either shared or not clearly defined.

The frequency of inspection will be determined by the level of risk involved in the activities and the type of environment in which they are performed but should be conducted at least once in every 6 months.

The manager should ensure that a report of the inspection is produced which:

includes detail of the area of responsibility;
includes the date:
includes the name of the person conducting the inspection;
includes the findings/corrective action taken/required (where appropriate required actions added to the unit/establishment/vessel health and safety action plan);
is copied to the relevant managers for action; and
is copied for information to any local Safety Representatives who cover the area/staff involved.

Where applicable, actions failing to meet the target dates or failing to adequately manage the risks must be reported up through the chain of command.

Planning Workplace Inspections

Workplace health and safety inspections need to be more than just a simple hazard spotting tour of the premises and should adopt a more holistic and planned approach. The person undertaking a workplace health and safety inspection should already be familiar with the workplace activity, premises, equipment, personnel and procedures pertaining to their area of responsibility and should draw on this knowledge when planning the inspection taking into consideration:

known issues (individual and collectively) and other factors (who does what, where, when and how) to identify significant hazards;
the various categories of people who may be affected by, or impact on, the workplace activity (defence personnel, contractors, trainees, visitors, Service dependants or members of the public, etc.);
suitability, use, control and storage of PPE;
the workplace hazards and the existence and effectiveness of related control measures;
training and competence of defence personnel;
reviewing previous inspection reports, accident/incident reports and other records;
the timing of the inspection to take place during a time considered to be representative of normal working conditions;
that any workplace inspection checklist to be used should include to cover general workplace health and safety requirements and any other significant matters.

have you done Enough?

Summary

The offence is in creating a risk of harm - the New Sentencing Guidelines for Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene (NSG) 2016
HSE Funding Model - Fee for Intervention (FFI) (Proactive Intervention)
The larger the organisation the bigger the fine for the same offence
The greater the risk, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost

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.

SFAIRP & ALARP

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.

The Health and Safety and Nuclear (Fees) Regulations 2016

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.

Principles and guidelines to assist HSE in its judgements

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“

Enforcement Guide

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:

Large company (turnover of £ 50 million and over)*
Medium company (turnover between £10 million and £50 million)
Small company ( turnover between £2 million and £10 million)
Micro company (turnover of not more than £2 million)

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.

Consequences of not doing enough

First among equals

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.

In 1974, there were 651 fatal injuries and 336,722 non-fatal workplace injuries reported.
A total of 111 workers were killed at work in Great Britain in 2019/20, a decrease of 38 from the previous year and is the lowest annual number on record. It is difficult to assess what impact the current COVID-19 pandemic has had on the annual number of deaths. Statistics on output of the UK economy show that COVID-19 had a large impact on output of the UK economy in March, but also anecdotal evidence of some small effects in February too. The number of workers killed at work was also lower in both these months compared to recent years though, in statistical terms, numbers are small and subject to fluctuation.
Over three-quarters of fatal injuries in both 2019/20 and the combined five-year period 2015/16-2019/20 were accounted for by just five different accident kinds (see figure 4 below). Falls from a height, being struck by a moving vehicle and being struck by a moving, including flying or falling, object continue as the three main causes of fatal injury, between them accounting for over half of all fatal injuries each year since at least 2001/02.

The Legionnaires’ Outbreak

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.

Staffordshire Hospital outbreak, 1985: Some 103 cases of legionnaires' disease were reported, and 28 people died, after an outbreak at Staffordshire Hospital. Those with chronic diseases, smokers and heavy drinkers were particularly at risk. This marked the largest outbreak of Legionnaires disease in Britain.
Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, 2002: This outbreak saw 180 people infected and seven dead. The survival rate was comparatively high due to the development of a rapid urine test and the promotion of the antibiotic erythromycin. Penicillin, the normal treatment for pneumonia, had proved ineffective against legionnaires'. The cause was found to be a badly maintained air conditioning unit at a leisure centre, which vented over a busy town centre alleyway. Barrow Borough Council and a senior employee were cleared of manslaughter but fined for Health and Safety breaches.

Public Health England Monthly Legionella Report December 2019

36 number of cases of Legionellosis reported/notified during December 2019
503 number of confirmed cases of Legionnaires’ disease (LD) since 01 January 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 statistics for Great Britain, 2019

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:

There were 2,526 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2017, a broadly similar number to the previous five years.
The latest projections suggest that there will continue to be around 2,500 deaths per year for the rest of this current decade before annual numbers begin to decline.
More than half of annual deaths now occur in those aged over 75 years. Annual deaths in this age group continue to increase while deaths below age 70 are now decreasing.
There were 2,087 male deaths in 2017, a slight reduction compared with recent years, and 439 female deaths, a slight increase.
There were 2,230 new cases of mesothelioma assessed for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) in 2018 of which 245 were female. This compares with 2,025 new cases in 2017, of which 235 were female.
Men who worked in the building industry when asbestos was used extensively are now among those most at risk of mesothelioma.

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.

Building fire safety

In the year ending September 2019:

FRSs attended 163,039 fires. This was a 10 per cent decrease compared with the previous year (182,013). This decrease was across all fire types but was particularly driven by a 13 per cent decrease in secondary fires (from 103,360 to 90,236) now that the hot, dry summer in 2018 is in the comparator year. Secondary fires display seasonality, with more occurring during the hotter and drier months.
There were 69,534 primary fires (43% of the 163,039 fires attended). This was a seven per cent decrease compared with the previous year (74,730). There were similar decreases for dwelling fires (7%), other building fires (5%) and road vehicle fires (6%). Other outdoor fires1 decreased by 17 per cent, now that the hot, dry summer of 2018 is in the comparator year, as with secondary fires, but these are a relatively small category of primary fires.
There were 252 fire-related fatalities compared with 251 in the previous year (an increase of <1%). Fire-related fatalities have been on a downward trend since the 1980s but have plateaued in recent years.
There were 203 fire-related fatalities in dwelling fires, compared with 187 in the previous year (an increase of 9%).
There were 228,309 fire false alarms.

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.

Just before 01:00 on 14 June, fire broke out in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat at the 23 storey tower block in North Kensington, West London.
Within minutes, the fire had raced up the exterior of the building and then spread to all four sides. By 03:00, most of the upper floors were well alight.
Seventy-two people died.
Dr Nic Daéid's provisional report also identifies "unknown materials" stored between the freezer and wall which "may have become involved in the fire in the early stages of its development".
In another report, fire expert Professor Luke Bisby expressed his view that the likely reason for the fire spreading beyond the kitchen was that flame and hot gases penetrated the internal window frame.
In a report to the Grenfell Public Inquiry, fire safety engineer Dr Barbara Lane identified the fire spreading vertically up the tower columns, and "laterally along the cladding above and below the window lines (and) the panels between windows."

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

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….

as much work as possible from the ground
ensure workers can get safely to and from where they work at height
ensure equipment is suitable, stable and strong enough for the job, maintained and checked regularly
take precautions when working on or near fragile surfaces
provide protection from falling objects
consider emergency evacuation and rescue procedures

Don’t…

overload ladders – consider the equipment or materials workers are carrying before working at height. Check the pictogram or label on the ladder for information
overreach on ladders or stepladders
rest a ladder against weak upper surfaces, eg glazing or plastic gutters
use ladders or stepladders for strenuous or heavy tasks, only use them for light work of short duration (a maximum of 30 minutes at a time)
let anyone who is not competent (who doesn’t have the skills, knowledge and experience to do the job) work at height

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.

Slips and trips at work

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

Stop floors becoming contaminated
Use the right cleaning methods
Consider the flooring and work environment
Get the right footwear
Think about people and organisational factors

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.

HSE Vital Statistics Poster 2023