Insight

Posted on

Unsafe working

Unsafe working at height activity has resulted in a carpentry and joinery company being fined after a man working unsecured on the forks of a fork-lift truck fell 3.5 metres to the ground.

On 14 June 2021, the man was working for Staircraft Group Limited at their head office site at Bayton Road Industrial Estate, Exhall, Coventry.

The employee was working from an unsecured stillage on the forks of a fork-lift truck in order to clean office windows at height.  The stillage tipped and the employee fell 3.5 metres to the ground.  As a result of the incident, he sustained a broken leg and an injury to his elbow.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company failed to identify that using a stillage to lift someone on the forks of a forklift truck, a method that they had used before, was unsafe.  There was a lack of training for employees on the dangers of working at height without the proper equipment and there were no systems of work or risk assessments in place.

At Redditch Magistrates’ Court Staircraft Group Limited, of Bayton Road Industrial Estate, Exhall, Coventry pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Regulations 1974 and was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,477.93.

“The employee’s injuries were very serious, and he could have easily been killed.

“This serious incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out correct control measures and safe working practices.

“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

HSE inspector Rebecca Whiley

Employers have a duty to assess the risks of working at height and to eliminate or reduce risks as far as reasonably practicable.  The Work at Height Regulations 2005 impose duties on employers to ensure that activities which are required to take place at height are conducted safely. 

Work at height means work in any place where, if precautions were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. This includes work above ground/floor level, locations where you could fall from an edge, through an opening or fragile surface or could fall from ground level into an opening in a floor or a hole in the ground

Work at height does not include a slip or a trip on the level, as a fall from height has to involve a fall from one level to a lower level, nor does it include walking up and down a permanent staircase in a building. 

unsafe working

Unsafe working at height can occur when tasks are not properly planned.  The Regulations apply to all work at height, where there is risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. They place duties on employers, and those who control any work at height activity (such as facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height).  As part of the Regulations, you must ensure:

  • all work at height is properly planned and organised
  • those involved in work at height are competent
  • the risks from work at height are assessed, and appropriate work equipment is selected and used
  • the risks of working on or near fragile surfaces are properly managed
  • the equipment used for work at height is properly inspected and maintained

Before working at height, you must follow these simple steps:

  • avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so
  • where work at height cannot be easily avoided, prevent falls using either an existing place of work that is already safe or the right type of equipment
  • minimise the distance and consequences of a fall, by using the right type of equipment where the risk cannot be eliminated

Unsafe working at height can occur when tasks are not properly planned. In planning a work at height task, you should:

  • 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
  • not overload or overreach when working at height
  • take precautions when working on or near fragile surfaces
  • provide protection from falling objects
  • consider emergency evacuation and rescue procedures

What about ladders?

Unsafe working can occur if ladders are used inappropriately. The law says that ladders can be used for work at height when a risk assessment has shown that using equipment offering a higher level of fall protection is not justified because of the low risk and short duration of use; or there are existing workplace features which cannot be altered.

Short duration is not the deciding factor in establishing whether an activity is acceptable or not – you should have first considered the risk. As a guide, if your task would require staying up a leaning ladder or stepladder for more than 30 minutes at a time, it is recommended that you consider alternative equipment.

You should only use ladders in situations where they can be used safely, e.g. where the ladder will be level and stable, and where its reasonably practicable to do so, the ladder can be secured.

The HSE has produced a guide, Safe Use of Ladders and Stepladders which is available as a free download.

If you require advice on working at height in your business, please contact on of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Transport safety failures

Transport safety failures resulted in a company being fined £380,000 after a bus caused life-changing injuries to one of its employees when they were between a reversing bus and a stationary vehicle.

The employee of Stagecoach Devon Limited was working at the company’s Torquay depot on the morning of 3 October 2019.  Due to space limitations, buses often had to reverse to be able to leave the depot in readiness for the day’s work.  The sole banksman, who would direct vehicles, was occupied at the top of the depot where most buses were parked.

As a result, it became custom and practice for the bus drivers at the front of the depot to reverse without a banksman, or to assist each other when reversing, despite not being trained as banksmen.

The injured employee, who was caught between a reversing bus and a stationary vehicle, suffered compound multiple fractures of his arm requiring six titanium plates and 65 metal staples between his wrist and elbow.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Stagecoach failed to put a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in place.

This should have identified the risks inherent in the bus parking layout and action could have been taken to remove the need to reverse or mitigate the risks from reversing. For example, changing the parking layout, providing a sufficient number of trained banksmen for peak times, and improved segregation of vehicles and pedestrians.

At Plymouth Magistrates Court Stagecoach Devon Limited of Stockport, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.  The company was fined £380,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000.

transport safety failures

“Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of work.

“If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the life changing injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.”

HSE Inspector James Collins

Employers who operate depots must ensure that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken covering the transport risks to ensure transport safety failures do not occur.  When considering the risks from vehicle manoeuvring, employers must ensure that vehicles have large enough windscreens (with wipers where necessary) and external mirrors to provide an all-round field of vision.  It is often worthwhile adding extra mirrors to reduce blind spots for drivers. Side mirrors can allow drivers of larger vehicles to see cyclists and pedestrians alongside their vehicles and can be effective in improving visibility around the vehicle from the driving position. These mirrors are fitted to larger road-going vehicles as standard.

Drivers should not place items in the windscreen area or in the way of mirrors or monitors, where they might impede visibility from the driving position. The area of the windscreen that is kept clear by the wipers should not be obscured, and nor should the side windows. Windows and mirrors will also normally need to be kept clean and in good repair. Dirt or cracks can make windows or mirrors less effective.

Some types of vehicles (such as straddle carriers, large shovel loaders and some large quarry vehicles) often have poor visibility from the cab. Visibility can be poor to the side or front of a vehicle as well as behind and loads on vehicles can severely limit the visibility from the driving position.

Lift trucks and compact dumper vehicles in particular can have difficulty with forward visibility when they are transporting bulky loads. Employers should recognise these risks in their risk assessment and think about ways to minimise them.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) may help drivers to see clearly behind or around the vehicle. CCTV can cover most blind spots and the cost of fitting CCTV systems has fallen since the technology was first developed. Companies who have fitted CCTV have found that it can reduce the number of reversing accidents, so the systems usually pay for themselves in a few years.

Colour systems can provide a clearer image where there is little contrast (for example, outside on an overcast day). However, black-and-white systems normally provide a better image in lower light or darkness, and usually come with infra-red, which can be more effective than standard cameras at night.

Monitors should have adjustable contrast, brightness and resolution controls to make them useful in the different light conditions in which they will be used. Drivers may need to use a hood to shield any monitor from glare.

If possible, fit the camera for a CCTV system high up in the middle of the vehicle’s rear (one camera), or in the upper corners (two cameras). This will provide a greater field of vision and a better angle for the driver to judge distance and provide. It also keeps the camera clear of dust and spray, and out of the reach of thieves or vandals.

However, CCTV systems do have some limitations which employers should consider:

  • If the vehicle leaves a darker area to a more strongly lit area (for example, driving out of a building) the system may need time to adjust to the brightness.
  • A dirty lens will make a camera much less effective.
  • Drivers may find it difficult to judge heights and distances.

Drivers should not be complacent about safety even with CCTV systems installed as this can result in transport safety failures. They should be trained in proper use of the equipment and employers have a duty to provide such training and instruction.

Reversing alarms may be drowned out by other noise or may be so common on a busy site that pedestrians do not take any notice. It can also be hard to know exactly where an alarm is coming from, and people who are less able to hear are also at greater risk. Alarms can also disturb nearby residents.  However, reversing alarms may be appropriate (based on the risk assessment) but might be most effectively used with other measures, such as warning lights.

Additional advice on transport safety can be found in the HSE Guide to workplace transport safety (HSG 136, 2014) which is available free on the website.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Construction site safety

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has successfully undertaken a prosecution following the death of a seven-year-old child over construction site safety.  The civil engineering firm involved has been fined £600K for safety breaches after the child became trapped and suffocated.

The seven-year-old went missing from home on the morning of 26 July 2015 and was found the next morning by workers at the construction site at Bank End Road, Worsborough, in South Yorkshire.

An investigation by the HSE found that the child had become trapped in a drainage pipe, which had been fixed into the ground in preparation for the installation of fencing posts. Tragically, he had suffocated before being found the next morning when work restarted on site.

Howard Civil Engineering Ltd of Leeds pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 13(4)(b) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £600K and ordered to pay £42,952.88 in costs at Sheffield Crown Court.

The construction site was a new-build housing development next to an existing housing estate and adjacent to busy pedestrian footpaths and roads. The HSE investigation found that there was insufficient fencing in place to prevent unauthorised persons from accessing the construction site due to a combination of poor planning, management and monitoring of the site and its perimeter.

construction site safety
HSE photograph

“Conley should never have been able to be on that site. He should have been kept out.  The construction industry should be aware of the dangers of construction sites to members of the public and any other unauthorised persons.

“The dangers to children gaining access to construction sites and treating them like a playground is an ongoing problem which must be addressed at all types of sites no matter what their complexity or size.

“The industry must do all it can to ensure children can’t access construction sites and be exposed to the inherent risks they present to prevent further tragedies like this from occurring.”

HSE inspector Paul Yeadon

Construction site safety is vital as such sites are dangerous work environments but are also interesting places for children.  All construction sites require measures to manage access across defined boundaries; and steps to exclude unauthorised people.

While the numbers of children being killed or injured on construction sites has reduced, there is no room for complacency. Each year, two or three children die after gaining access to building sites, and many more are injured.  Also, members of the public are seriously injured by materials or tools falling outside the site boundary, falling into trenches or being struck by moving plant and vehicles.

Some children are drawn to construction sites as exciting places to play. Those managing construction sites must do everything they can to keep children out of the site and away from danger.  The following specific steps are particularly relevant to child safety:

  • Secure sites adequately when finishing work for the day.
  • Barrier off or cover over excavations and pits.
  • Isolate and immobilise vehicles and plant and if possible, lock them in a compound.
  • Store building materials (such as pipes, manhole rings, and cement bags) so that they cannot topple or roll over.
  • Remove access ladders from excavations and scaffolds.
  • Lock away hazardous substances.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Cleveland Potash fined £3.6m following accidents

Cleveland Potash fined £3.6m following accidents which left two electricians injured.

The owners of Boulby Mine in Saltburn-by-the-Sea were fined £3.6 million and ordered to pay costs of £185,000 after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Cleveland Potash Limited (CPL) own the mine, which extracts organic fertiliser known as Polyhalite. Teesside Crown Court heard that on the 3 August 2016 a contract electrician received serious burns from an 11,000-volt electrical system. He unknowingly had placed a vacuum cleaner nozzle into a live electrical chamber. He had to be air lifted to Newcastle hospital specialist burns unit, where he was placed in an induced coma for 10 days.

On the 12 February 2019, another electrical contractor made contact with a live conductor on a 415-volt electrical system during electrical testing works and received serious burns. He was hospitalised for six days.

The HSE found deficiencies from the owner of the mine in risk assessment, planning of works, and shortfalls in providing warnings about which parts of the electrical systems the two electricians were working on remained live.

Cleveland Potash fined

Cleveland Potash Limited (CPL) of Boulby Mine, Loftus, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Cleveland pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) and two counts of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

“These serious electrical incidents were easily preventable. CPL should have had a heightened awareness of electrical risks following the first incident in 2016, however failures to apply learnings and to adequately control risks resulted in the 2019 incident”.

“Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise risks when working on electrical systems. Both these incidents were preventable if long established electrical safety practices been applied.”

HSE specialist regulatory principal inspector Paul Bradley

Employers are required by law to protect your employees, and others, from harm.  Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the minimum an employer must do is:

  • identify what could cause injury or illness in your business (hazards)
  • decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how seriously (the risk)
  • take action to eliminate the hazard, or if this isn’t possible, control the risk

Assessing risk is just one part of the overall process used to control risks in the workplace.  For most small, low-risk businesses the steps that employers need to take are straightforward.  Risk management is a step-by-step process for controlling health and safety risks caused by hazards in the workplace.  An employer can undertake the risk assessment themselves or appoint a competent person to help.  The five steps of a risk assessment are:

  • Identify hazards
  • Assess the risks
  • Control the risks
  • Record your findings
  • Review the controls

Identify hazards

Look around your workplace and think about what may cause harm (these are called hazards). Think about:

  • how people work and how plant and equipment are used
  • what chemicals and substances are used
  • what safe or unsafe work practices exist
  • the general state of your premises

Look back at previous accident and ill health records as these can help you identify less obvious hazards. Take account of non-routine operations, such as maintenance, cleaning or changes in production cycles.  Think about hazards to health, such as manual handling, use of chemicals and causes of work-related stress.  For each hazard, think about how employees, contractors, visitors or members of the public might be harmed.

Some workers have particular requirements, for example young workers, migrant workers, new or expectant mothers and people with disabilities.  Ensure that you involve your employees as they will usually have good ideas.

Assess the risks

Once you have identified the hazards, decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how serious it could be – this is assessing the level of risk. In assessing the level of risk, decide:

  • Who might be harmed and how
  • What you’re already doing to control the risks
  • What further action you need to take to control the risks
  • Who needs to carry out the action
  • When the action is needed by

Control the risks

Look at what you are already doing, and the controls you already have in place to ensure the safety of workers and others. Consider:

  • Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
  • If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?

If you need further controls, consider:

  • redesigning the job
  • replacing the materials, machinery or process
  • organising your work to reduce exposure to the materials, machinery or process
  • identifying and implementing practical measures needed to work safely
  • providing personal protective equipment and making sure workers wear it

Put the controls you have identified in place. It is important to remember that you are not expected to eliminate all risks but you need to do everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or trouble.

Record your findings

If you employ 5 or more people, you must record your significant findings, including:

  • the hazards (things that may cause harm)
  • who might be harmed and how
  • what you are doing to control the risks

The HSE has a number of example risk assessments on its website as a guide for employers.  Employers should not rely purely on paperwork, as the main priority should be to control the risks in practice.

Review the controls

You must review the controls you have put in place to make sure they are working. You should also review them if:

  • they may no longer be effective
  • there are changes in the workplace that could lead to new risks such as changes to:
  • staff
  • a process
  • the substances or equipment used

Also consider a review if your workers have spotted any problems or there have been any accidents or near misses.  You should then update your risk assessment record with any changes you make.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Dyson fined after worker injured

Technology firm Dyson fined after worker injured by a machine sustained head and chest injuries when he was struck by a 1.5 tonne milling machine.

The worker, at Dyson’s Wiltshire factory, was hit while moving the machine, which fell on top of him.  He only escaped being crushed under the weight of the machine because it landed on two toolboxes and the handle of another machine. The incident happened on August 27, 2019. 

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Dyson Technology Limited failed to provide suitable and sufficient information, instruction, and training to those undertaking the task. They also failed to adequately assess the task and devise a safe system of work to ensure the machine was moved safely.

Dyson fined
Milling machine accident (coutesy of HSE)

The investigation found that two employees were moving a large CNC milling machine within the engineering department of Dyson’s site at Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury. The employees lifted the machine using a five-tonne jack and were in the process of replacing two fixed roller skates with several wooden blocks when it fell.

One of the employees was struck by the machine and sustained a wound to his head and injuries to his chest.

At Swindon Magistrates’ Court Dyson Technology Limited of Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury, Wiltshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £1.2m and ordered to pay costs of £11,511.

“This incident could have been fatal. Those in control of work have a duty to assess the risks, devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction, and training to their workforce.

“Had a suitable safe system of work been in place this incident and the related injuries could have been prevented.”

HSE inspector James Hole

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) require employers to put in place arrangements to control health and safety risks. As a minimum, employers must have the processes and procedures required to meet the legal requirements, including:

  • a written health and safety policy (if they employ five or more people)
  • assessments of the risks to employees, contractors, customers, partners, and any other people who could be affected by work activities – and record the significant findings in writing (if they 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 either internally or externally e.g. a consultant
  • providing employees with information about the risks in their 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 protective measures

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrook team.

Posted on

Waste exports prosecution

Director fined following a waste exports prosecution investigation by the Environment Agency.  The EA successfully prosecuted a former company director for illegally exporting banned household waste including nappies, clothing, textiles, tins and electrical items from a site in Droitwich, Worcestershire, to Indonesia in 2019.

At Kidderminster Magistrates Court on Wednesday 10 August 2022, Tianyong Wang, 43, of Solihull, Warwickshire, was fined £1,200 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

He had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing in April 2022 to causing his dissolved company, Berry Polymer Limited, to export the waste to Indonesia. Shipping documents described the waste as plastic, which can be exported to Indonesia for recycling.

Howard McCann, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that between 27 June and 5 July 2019, Wang had caused his company to export some 382 tonnes of household waste in 22 sea containers from its site in Droitwich via the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton to Indonesia.

Included in the waste were about 1,590 nappies or sanitary items, plus 1,338 electrical items and about 33,639 tins/cans.

waste exports prosecution
One of the 22 containers of waste investigated (courtesy of the Environment Agency)

Other contaminants included numerous items of clothing, textiles and rags, unopened plastic bags, glass, wood, golf balls, toys, a used toilet brush and contaminated food and drink cartons.

Mr McCann told the court that the defendant was the sole director of Berry Polymer Limited, a company which was dissolved on 24 August 2021, at the time of the offending.

Wang had agreed to sell some 500 tonnes of plastic bottle waste to a broker at £270 per tonne. A purchase order confirmed the load site of the waste as “Berry Polymer Limited, 20 The Furlong Droitwich WR9 9AH.” Berry Polymer invoiced the broker £103,210.20 for 382.26 tonnes of “plastic bottles.”

The offence was discovered by Environment Agency officers who conducted initial inspections of some of the 22 containers at the ports of Southampton (17 containers) and Felixstowe (5) on 4 July 2019.

These inspections recorded significant evidence of contamination, flies and, in some containers, a rotting decomposing smell.  The containers were deemed unfit for export at that stage and prevented from onward shipment to Indonesia.

Five of the containers were transported to the Environment Agency’s inspection facility at Felixstowe for full examination, one of the bales examined was so bad that an officer was physically sick.  Ultimately all the containers were returned to the site in Droitwich for reprocessing.

When interviewed, Wang, who was abroad at the time, said the material supplied was not as described because his company’s usual bale inspection had either not happened or was sub-standard.

In sentencing, District Judge Strongman said this was a “blunder” by Wang, which had cost him his business and his reputation.

This prosecution sends out a strong message that we will investigate and where necessary prosecute anyone found to be involved in illegally exporting waste.

Waste crime can have a serious environmental impact and puts communities at risk. It undermines legitimate business and the investment and economic growth that goes with it.

We support legitimate businesses and are proactively supporting them by disrupting and stopping the illegal waste exports.

Sham Singh, senior investigating officer for the Environment Agency

In this case the defendant was charged with offences under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 (TFS).  The export of waste collected from households to non-OECD (Organisation for Economic and Development) countries is prohibited by Article 36 of the Waste Shipment Regulations.  The offence of transporting waste to a non-OECD country in breach of the prohibition is created by Regulation 23 and the directors’ offence by regulation 55(1) of the TFS Regulations 2007. The offence is one of strict liability – strict liability offences are crimes which require no proof of intent. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to environment, health and safety.

A shipment of waste starts at the point of loading in the country of dispatch and continues until the waste has been recovered at the facility in the country of destination. This is why the export is not regarded as an attempt, despite the containers being prevented from leaving Felixstowe and Southampton.

For waste to be categorised as green list such as plastic waste, it must have been collected separately or been properly sorted.

Properly sorted means that the sorting is sufficient to remove contaminants to the point where any contamination that remains is so small as to be minimal and does not prevent the waste from becoming green list waste. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Worker injured by lathe

A worker injured by lathe suffered lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face.  Kent Auto Developments Limited, a classic Mini car part manufacturing and engineering firm based in Romney Marsh, was fined following an investigation and prosecution.

On 10 August 2020, the worker was completing the process of polishing brake drums rotating on a manual metalworking lathe. The worker was applying emery cloth by hand, a practice condoned by the company, when he was drawn into the machine which resulted in lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face. Similar occurrences in Great Britain have resulted in other serious injuries to workers such as severed limbs.

The incident was not reported to Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as is required under The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR), until three months after the incident.

An investigation by the HSE found that the business had failed to implement a safe system of work in that employees had routinely polished brake drums with an emery cloth by hand on the lathe. This task is known to be dangerous due to the potential risk of entanglement of the cloth in the rotating parts of the lathe, which can result in serious personal injury. If the requirement to use emery cloth on a lathe is unavoidable, then tool posts and holding devices should be used.

At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, Kent Auto Developments Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 4(2) of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6,349.34 in costs.

“We still see incidents like this, where unsafe work practices with machinery lead to injury, despite the existence of specific guidance published by HSE.

“Workers coming into contact with machinery is the fourth biggest cause of workplace fatalities in Great Britain, with 14 people killed in the year 2020/21. Over 50,000 non-fatal injuries were reported by employers in the same year.

“Employers should ensure that measures are taken to prevent workers from sustaining injury, where it is evident that persons are at risk of becoming entangled in machinery. It’s important that, when people do get hurt, the relevant authorities are notified so that action can be taken to prevent recurrence.”

HSE inspector Sam Brown

Work related deaths and certain injuries are required to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive under RIDDOR.  All deaths to workers and non-workers, with the exception of suicides, must be reported if they arise from a work-related accident, including an act of physical violence to a worker.

Specified injuries to workers

The list of ‘specified injuries’ in RIDDOR 2013 replaces the previous list of ‘major injuries’ in RIDDOR 1995. Specified injuries are (regulation 4):

  • fractures, other than to fingers, thumbs and toes
  • amputations
  • any injury likely to lead to permanent loss of sight or reduction in sight
  • any crush injury to the head or torso causing damage to the brain or internal organs
  • serious burns (including scalding) which (i) covers more than 10% of the body, or (ii) causes significant damage to the eyes, respiratory system or other vital organs
  • any scalping requiring hospital treatment
  • any loss of consciousness caused by head injury or asphyxia
  • any other injury arising from working in an enclosed space which (i) leads to hypothermia or heat-induced illness, or (ii) requires resuscitation or admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours
worker injured by lathe
Specified work-related accidents must be reported

Over-seven-day incapacitation of a worker

Accidents must be reported where they result in an employee or self-employed person being away from work, or unable to perform their normal work duties, for more than seven consecutive days as the result of their injury. This seven-day period does not include the day of the accident but does include weekends and rest days. The report must be made within 15 days of the accident.

Over-three-day incapacitation

Accidents must be recorded, but not reported where they result in a worker being incapacitated for more than three consecutive days. If you are an employer, who must keep an accident book under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1979, that record will be sufficient.

Non-fatal accidents to non-workers (e.g. members of the public)

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.  There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

Occupational diseases

Employers and self-employed people must report diagnoses of certain occupational diseases, where these are likely to have been caused or made worse by their work: These diseases include:

  • carpal tunnel syndrome;
  • severe cramp of the hand or forearm;
  • occupational dermatitis;
  • hand-arm vibration syndrome;
  • occupational asthma;
  • tendonitis or tenosynovitis of the hand or forearm;
  • any occupational cancer;
  • any disease attributed to an occupational exposure to a biological agent.

Dangerous occurrences

Dangerous occurrences are certain, specified near-miss events. Not all such events require reporting. There are 27 categories of dangerous occurrences that are relevant to most workplaces, for example:

  • the collapse, overturning or failure of load-bearing parts of lifts and lifting equipment;
  • plant or equipment coming into contact with overhead power lines;
  • the accidental release of any substance which could cause injury to any person.

Gas incidents

Distributors, fillers, importers & suppliers of flammable gas must report incidents where someone has died, lost consciousness, or been taken to hospital for treatment to an injury arising in connection with that gas. Such incidents should be reported using the Report of a Flammable Gas Incident – online form.

Registered gas engineers (under the Gas Safe Register,) must provide details of any gas appliances or fittings that they consider to be dangerous, to such an extent that people could die, lose consciousness or require hospital treatment. The danger could be due to the design, construction, installation, modification or servicing of that appliance or fitting, which could cause:

  • an accidental leakage of gas;
  • incomplete combustion of gas or;
  • inadequate removal of products of the combustion of gas.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

TCM attendance changes

The Environment Agency has published the results of a consultation on TCM attendance changes.  The Environment Agency consulted with stakeholders to hear their views on proposed options and changes to the attendance requirements for technically competent managers (TCMs).

The consultation explained:

  • how the current technical competence attendance requirements work
  • options for proposed changes to the methods of calculating TCM attendance and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements
  • proposed implementation timescales

The responses to the TCM attendance changes consultation will help shape a second, more detailed consultation.  This will provide further details for option 1: attendance linked to charge bands, and other rules associated with the attendance requirements for technically competent managers.  The EA aim to publish the next consultation in summer 2023.

The EA received a broad range of views which will help develop guidance on the attendance requirements for technically competent managers.  The EA received 75 responses to the consultation:

  • 32 from site operators and companies with permits
  • 18 from trade associations and other organisations and groups
  • 12 from consultants
  • 5 from local authorities
  • 8 from individuals and members of the public

Those responding generally agreed that new guidance was needed to explain the attendance requirements for TCMs and provided views on the 3 options preferred for calculating the attendance requirements:

  • option 1: attendance linked to charge bands – 36%
  • option 2: standard baseline attendance for all waste facilities – 16%
  • option 3: tailored baseline attendance for waste operations and waste installations – 30.67%
  • no preference – 14.67%
  • Two respondents (2.67%) did not provide an answer to this question.

Many of those responding highlighted the potential for environmental benefits should TCM attendance increase at poor performing sites. However, the extent of this benefit would depend on the specific circumstances. Approximately 75% of those responding supported the adjustment of the attendance requirement based on operator performance, with those in deteriorating or poor compliance bands requiring increased TCM attendance.

TCM attendance changes
Changes proposed to TCM attendance requirements at waste sites

Some of those responding stated that applying attendance requirements for the Environmental Services Association (ESA)/Energy & Utility (EU) Skills technical competence scheme would undermine the purpose of this scheme, but there was general support for other proposals on the 48 hour attendance cap, 24 hour operations, multiple regulated facilities and mothballed sites.

For permit transfers, some respondents highlighted situations where transfers were ‘administrative’ and in those instances they did not support previously agreed TCM attendance requirements reverting back to those required by the guidance.

For closed landfills nearly 40% of respondents agreed with the proposals, whilst 50% did not have a view. The Environment Agency concluded that it anticipate the majority of the 50% who did not have a view do not operate activities involving closed landfills.

Most of those who responded did not have a view on the proposals for mobile plant attendance requirements. Around one third supported the proposals on mobile plant and less than 10% disagreed.

Nearly half of respondents supported a 12 month implementation period for the new guidance. Because, for example, this would give operators time to understand the new guidance and train or recruit additional TCMs if required.

The Agency received a broad range of views which will help develop the attendance requirements for TCMs guidance and it intends to launch the next consultation in summer 2023. It will include further details of the favoured option and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements.

Operators who apply for an environmental permit for a waste operation must be members of (and comply with) a government approved technical competency scheme. Most existing waste environmental permit holders must also comply with a government approved technical competency scheme through the conditions in their permits.

For operators that show competence through the scheme run by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board, the Environment Agency requires that sites have nominated technically competent manager(s) on site for a specified amount of time each week – this is called the attendance requirement.

The Environment Agency used to calculate attendance requirements using the OPRA risk appraisal guidance. However, except for the sections relating to attendance levels for technically competent managers, this guidance has been withdrawn.

The Agency is now considering changes to the requirements for attendance by TCMs at environmental permit sites. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

HSE inspectors refused entry

HSE inspectors refused entry to a construction site resulting in a prosecution of the man who was in control of the premises.  The inspectors were denied entry to the construction site in Scotland to deal with unsafe work activities.

In 2021 multiple concerns about unsafe work at a construction site in Irvine had been sent to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).  On 16 March 2021, two HSE inspectors attended the construction site and observed unsafe work at height taking place on a steel structure.

The inspectors tried to gain entry to the site, but the gates were locked.  They spoke to the person in control of the site, Baldev Singh Basra, but he refused to unlock the gates and let them in.  Despite explaining the powers to enter a premise given to HSE inspectors as part of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Mr Singh Basra still refused entry to the site.

After officers from Police Scotland attended and gained entry to the site, the HSE inspectors were able to take enforcement action to stop the unsafe work. Two workers were then found to be on the roof of the structure with no safe means of getting down.  The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service attended the site and rescued the workers from the structure.

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, Baldev Singh Basra of Irvine pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for contravening a requirement of an inspector – namely refusing entry to a premise where unsafe work was taking place. He was fined £1,500.

inspectors refused entry
HSE inspectors have extensive powers to inspect sites for safety offences

Following the sentencing, HSE Principal Inspector Graeme McMinn said: “Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority have the right to enter any premises which they think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing health and safety at work and any relevant statutory provisions.

“They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous. In this case, the priority of the inspectors was to deal with the unsafe work activity, and they could not allow the person in control of the site to refuse them entry to stop the unsafe work.”

Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), such as the HSE, have extensive powers to carry into effect any of the relevant statutory provisions.  The powers set out in sections 20(2) and 25 HSWA include powers to:

  • Enter any premises which inspectors think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing HSWA and the relevant statutory provisions. They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous.  If they have reasonable cause to apprehend serious obstruction, they may take a police officer;
  • Order areas to be left undisturbed, take measurements, photographs and recordings, take samples and take possession of, and carry out tests on, articles and substances that appear to have caused (or be likely to cause) danger;
  • Require the production of, inspect and take copies of relevant documents;
  • Require anyone they think might give them relevant information to answer questions and sign a declaration of the truth of the answers;
  • Require facilities and assistance to be provided; and
  • Seize and make harmless (by destruction if necessary) any article or substance which they have reasonable cause to believe is a cause of imminent danger of serious personal injury.
HSE education video – When an inspector calls

Inspectors are also given any other power which is necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the relevant statutory provisions.  It is an offence to obstruct an inspector in the execution of their duties. 

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Posted on

Roadmap for flood and climate-resilience

In June, a roadmap for flood and climate-resilience was published.  The Environment Agency (EA) launched the roadmap setting out practical actions to be taken over the next four years to tackle the growing threat of flooding from rivers, the sea, and surface water as well as coastal erosion.

The FCERM Strategy Roadmap builds on existing progress and sets out how we can be better prepared for the unavoidable impacts of climate change by ensuring the country is resilient and ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change. The Environment Agency will be delivering the Roadmap with many partners including local authorities, local drainage boards, farmers, environmental groups, infrastructure providers and the insurance sector.

Delivery of the actions in the Roadmap will improve climate-resilience and will:

  • Ensure that new homes will be safe from flooding.
  • Maximise the use of nature to enhance flood and coastal resilience while aiding nature recovery.
  • Improve the flood resilience of our roads, railways, and other vital national infrastructure.
  • Ensure the delivery of environmental improvements and sustainable growth as part of flood and coastal projects.
  • Enhance our flood forecasting and warning services to help people be better prepared to respond to flood events.
  • Support building back better to reduce the damage and disruption caused by flooding.
  • Work with communities and local partners to develop long term plans to manage future flooding and coastal change and adapt to future hazards.

Climate-resilience

The Roadmap was launched by the Environment Agency’s Chief Executive, Sir James Bevan,  and Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow, at the Flood and Coast Conference. It directly supports the implementation of the £5.2 billion capital investment programme which will better protect many hundreds of thousands of properties from flooding and coastal erosion by 2027.

“This roadmap sets out how we can build a more resilient nation. It will work alongside our record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027 to help better protect communities.

Climate change will only bring more extreme weather and this roadmap will spur on the timely action required to manage flood and coastal risk, help reduce the costly impacts and manage the risks to people’s homes and businesses across the country.”

Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow

climate-resilience
flood and climate-resilience will impact all sectors

“Climate change is happening now, and its impacts will continue to worsen. Rainfall patterns are changing, causing more frequent flooding, and while we continue to protect and prepare coastal communities from rising sea levels, it is inevitable that at some point some of our communities will have to move back from the coast.

We all need to adapt and become more resilient to these challenges, and this roadmap sets out actions that will be taken to do this over the next four years.

It will ensure that we make our communities more resilient to flooding and coastal change, so that when it does happen, it causes much less harm to people, does much less damage, and ensures life can get back to normal much quicker.”

Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency

Roadmap key elements

Key actions from the roadmap include:

  • Developing a new national assessment of flood risk from rivers, the sea and surface water that will provide better data and mapping to inform future risk and investment decisions.
  • Working with coastal groups to update the policies and actions in Shoreline Management Plans so they reflect adaptation to a changing climate.
  • Working with national infrastructure providers, including National Highways and Network Rail, on joint investment opportunities to ensure national infrastructure is resilient to future flooding and coastal change.
  • Working with Ofwat to ensure that water company assets are resilient and contribute to better flood risk outcomes.
  • Working with Natural England, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and other partners to collate evidence and case studies to help mainstream nature-based solutions that enhance flood and coastal resilience and nature recovery.
  • Working with Flood Re and the insurance sector to develop a communications programme for homeowners to signpost advice and support on the benefits of property flood resilience.
  • Developing new training materials with the Town and Country Planning Association to help improve skills and capabilities on flood risk and development planning.
  • Working with the Environment Agency’s supply chain to ensure all flood and coastal projects adopt low carbon technologies that contribute to zero carbon targets.
  • Continuing to improve the Environment Agency’s digital tools for people to check their flood risk and sign up to flood warnings.
  • Working with Department for Education, schools, and children’s charities to improve young people’s knowledge of flood risk and climate change.

The publication of the Roadmap comes after the Environment Agency announced that it had exceeded its target in delivering the government’s £2.6 billion investment in flood and coastal defence schemes since 2015, better protecting more than 314,000 homes.

The Environment Agency is now working alongside partners to deliver on the government’s record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027, which will better protect hundreds of thousands more properties as well as avoid £32 billion of wider economic damages. 

If you require advice on environmental issues, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Privacy Statement (UK) Proudly powered by WordPress