Dairy farmer pollution prosecution

A Wellington dairy farmer pollution prosecution following incident after slurry entered watercourse.

A farmer has been given 14 weeks in prison suspended for a year and ordered to pay £10,000 costs after he persistently allowed slurry to run off into a stream near his farm.

David Bartlett, aged 70, of Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, appeared for sentencing before District Judge Brereton at Taunton magistrates’ court on Thursday 18 July.

He had previously pleaded guilty to three offences relating to pollution to the Westford stream, a tributary of the River Tone. He was also ordered to pay £154 victim surcharge.

In a case brought by the Environment Agency, the court heard that the farm had a long history of failing to properly contain slurry and had been warned several times in the past for causing pollution of the Westford stream.

In October 2022, Agency officers installed remote monitoring equipment on the stream which confirmed regular pollution events were continuing to occur.

Using the data from the remote monitoring, officers went to the monitoring site in December 2022 where they found significant amounts of sewage fungus contaminating the bed of the watercourse, an indication of persistent pollution.

Pollution resulted in poor quality of water

Continuing upstream towards Upcott Dairy Farm, colonies of bloodworm were evident. These are a species of pollution tolerant organism associated with poor water quality. No invertebrate life forms were noted when stones in the stream bed were turned over, further indicating the poor quality of the water.

Near the farm, one of the officers saw a nearby ditch had suddenly started to discharge a significant amount of effluent with the appearance and smell of slurry. The source was quickly traced to an overflowing underground slurry tank on Upcott Dairy Farm.

Officers also investigated the system used for applying slurry to fields. Typically, farmers will use slurry to provide nutrients to their crops or grass. Bartlett was using a simple pipe to dispose of slurry in a single location.

Although not discharging slurry at the time of the pollution event inspection, it was clear there was significant contamination of slurry around the end of the pipe and evidence that slurry had tracked down the field toward the Westford stream.

A subsequent visit found slurry being pumped on to waterlogged land with no attempt to use the slurry for crop benefit. The slurry was several inches thick in the field indicating it had been pumped over a prolonged duration in the same location.

Toward the bottom of the field there was a significant build-up of mud and slurry either side of the gateway crossing the stream. This too presented a risk of further runoff pollution into the stream.

Pollution survey revealed stream affected for 2.5km

A biologist’s survey and report confirmed that the Westford stream had experienced repeated, acute and sustained chronic pollution events by slurry. Lack of slurry storage had led to slurry being pumped inappropriately on to a single patch of land where it was likely to run-off and cause pollution.

Bartlett had failed, despite repeated warnings, to install slurry storage facilities that would allow slurry to be stored during winter when ground conditions were unsuitable.

The report stated there had been “a significant negative impact on the aquatic invertebrate community and water quality along 2.5km of Westford stream.”

Bartlett submitted a statement to the Environment Agency in which he made limited admissions, implying others, such as his neighbour and the local authority were responsible. He denied deliberately pumping slurry into the watercourse.

Judge Brereton said there were significant aggravating features in the case, including Bartlett having previously been warned over causing pollution, his failure to carry out proper checks or make structural improvements by way of an adequate, compliant slurry storage system which is capable of storing slurry having received funds from the Rural Payments Agency to pay for infrastructure that would improve the environment and not cause significant, sustained pollution incidents.

Dairy farmer repeatedly ‘failed to acknowledge’ advice

David Womack of the Environment Agency said:

This farmer has, over the years, caused numerous pollution incidents and he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the advice given or to improve the facilities for storing or properly using slurry.

For over 30 years there has been legislation in place requiring all livestock farmers to have storage facilities capable of storing a minimum of four months’ slurry production. The 2018 Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Regulations now also require farmers to plan all applications of slurry in order to reduce the risk of pollution. Pumping slurry on to waterlogged land is unlawful and is likely to cause diffuse pollution.

We hope Mr Bartlett will now work with us to voluntarily improve the facilities at Upcott Dairy Farm. If he doesn’t, we won’t hesitate to use other legislative powers to reduce the risk of further pollution

Pollution prosecution charges

The charges against the defendant were:

On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, did cause an unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter from Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, Somerset, into inland fresh waters contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that organic matter, namely cattle slurry, was not applied to agricultural land that was waterlogged, flooded or snow covered in that you applied organic fertilizer to waterlogged ground contrary to Regulation 3(a) and 11 of the Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that for each application of organic or manufactured fertilizer to agricultural land, the application was planned so as not to give rise to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution contrary to Regulation 4(1)(a)(ii) and 11 of the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018.

Prevent pollution with effective slurry management

Effective slurry management is crucial for both environmental sustainability and farm productivity. Here are some best practices for slurry management in the UK:

Assess Nutrient Content: Use tools like the Nutrient Management Guide (RB209) to determine the nutrient content of your slurry. This helps in applying the right amount to meet crop needs.
Proper Storage: Ensure you have enough well-maintained storage to hold slurry until conditions are optimal for spreading. Covering slurry stores or allowing a natural crust to form can reduce ammonia emissions.
Application Timing: Spread slurry when crops can best utilize the nutrients, typically during the growing season. Avoid spreading during wet conditions to prevent runoff and water pollution.
Application Methods: Use low-emission spreading techniques such as trailing shoe or injection methods to minimize ammonia loss and improve nutrient uptake by crops.
Safety Measures: Always prioritize safety when handling slurry. Ensure proper ventilation and avoid entering enclosed slurry spaces due to the risk of toxic gases.
Compliance with Regulations: Stay updated with local regulations and take advantage of available grants and support schemes, such as the Slurry Investment Scheme (SIS), to improve your slurry management practices.

Implementing these practices can help you manage slurry more effectively, benefiting both your farm and the environment.

If you require environmental advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

17 July 202417 July 2024

Company Director Fined

A company director fined after an employee was struck by an object while manufacturing large steel cable drums for the offshore industry.

The man, who is now 54, had been working for Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited when the incident happened on 19 November 2022. Although the company had manufactured steel drums previously, they had never manufactured drums of this size – with these ones weighing in excess of seven tonnes.

However, during the process, the jacking set-up failed at the company’s site in Harfreys Industrial Estate in Great Yarmouth which resulted in a catalogue of serious injuries including fractures to the man’s face and skull, and him losing the sight in one eye.

He was airlifted to hospital, placed into an induced coma and spent just under three weeks in hospital whereby he needed facial reconstruction surgery.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited failed (i) to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment; (ii) control risks from welding in confined spaces; and (iii) to provide the full training required.

The investigation also found that company director, David Fowler, failed to provide safe systems of work in relation to metal fabrication work, despite previous HSE interventions regarding failure to risk assess activities in the fabrication workshop.

Had the company put in place correct measures, such as suitable risk assessment, safe systems of work and planning for jacking activity, the incident could have been prevented.

The HSE publication, Health and safety in engineering workshops provides valuable practical advice and can be downloaded free at: Health and Safety in engineering workshops.

Following a sentencing hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on 20 June 2024, DJ Williams issued their written judgment on 5 July as follows:

Company Fined

Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £24,000 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs.

Director Fined

David Fowler, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs.

HSE Statement

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

HSE inspector Natalie Prince

If you require advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

1 March 20231 March 2023

Corporate Manslaughter Prosecution

A corporate manslaughter prosecution by Dorset Police has resulted in convictions for a waste management company and its director.

A waste and recycling company has been sentenced for corporate manslaughter and other health and safety offences following the death of a man at a site in Poole. A company director has also been sentenced in connection with the incident.

Detectives from Dorset Police have been working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to conduct investigations into two incidents that occurred at the FDS Waste Services in Mannings Heath Road.

The first incident occurred on Thursday 13 December 2018 when an employee at the site was injured following a collision with a vehicle and very sadly died as a result of the injuries he sustained. The man was sorting recycling materials by hand in the yard when he was struck and killed by a reversing wheeled loader vehicle, which was being used to sort materials.

A further incident occurred on Monday 1 June 2020, in which an employee sustained injuries after becoming trapped in a large mechanical conveyor after he had climbed in to remove a blockage. The man sustained broken ribs and other injuries.

The joint investigation focused on allegations that the company had failed to put in place sufficient working practices to safeguard its employees, including failing to ensure employees were segregated from moving vehicles during waste sorting. It was also found that the company failed to provide its employees with adequate training, monitoring and supervision to prevent vehicle collisions in the yard.

A separate investigation by the HSE found that FDS Waste Services failed to ensure that the workforce was provided with the padlocks required for locking the power source of the machinery in the ‘off’ position and did not offer adequate training for dealing with blockages and other maintenance tasks, which required access behind the machinery guards.

Detectives from Dorset Police’s Major Crime Investigation Team (MCIT) worked jointly with the HSE to conduct detailed enquiries into the operations at the facility and liaised with a number of experts to compile evidence. Following engagement with specialists at the Crown Prosecution Service, charges were approved and the matter was brought before the court.

Following a four-week trial at Winchester Crown Court the company was found guilty of a charge of corporate manslaughter. It was also convicted for two offences of failing to discharge its duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

At a sentencing hearing on Wednesday 22 February 2023, the company was ordered to pay fines totalling £640,000, as well as costs of £60,000. Also, the company director, Philip Pidgley, was also convicted of an offence of failing to discharge his duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for 12 months.

“Our thoughts remain with the family and loved ones of Mr Mohamed, who sadly died as a result of the incident on Thursday 13 December 2018.

“Nothing will ever make up for their loss, but we owe it to them to ensure those who put him and other employees at risk by failing to instil safe working practices are held to account.

“We have carried out a detailed investigation in conjunction with the HSE and other experts in order to demonstrate how the company fell below the standards required of them.”
Detective Superintendent Rich Dixey, of Dorset Police

After the prosecution, HSE inspector Berenice Ray said:

“Both of these incidents, including the tragic death of Mr Mohamed, could have been avoided had well-established measures been taken to ensure workers’ health and safety.

“Those in control of work must ensure that their workplace is organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles can circulate in a safe manner.

“They must also ensure that the power source of relevant machinery is isolated and physically ‘locked off’ whenever the guards are removed or access within the machinery is necessary.

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

“They must also adequately supervise work activities to check the effectiveness of the training provided and ensure safe systems of work are followed.

“There is clear, freely available guidance on how to manage these risks available on HSE’s website.”

Guidance

Employers who operate waste management sites must ensure that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken covering the plant movement risks. 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. 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 our team.

27 October 202227 October 2022

Peanut allergy breach

A restaurant worker has been fined for a peanut allergy breach. The worker who served peanuts to a woman with a peanut allergy putting her in hospital on her 18th birthday was fined in court.

Eleanor Lincoln ate the takeaway, a chicken tikka masala, at home as part of a family birthday celebration. But very quickly she went into anaphylactic shock and had to be treated by her mum with adrenalin via an Epi pen before being taken to hospital by ambulance.

Doctors at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle had to administer Miss Lincoln, who was struggling to breathe, with steroids. She was kept in hospital overnight for observation but discharged the next day.

Newcastle City Council’s Environmental Health Team launched an investigation into the incident.

Inspectors found that when the order was made in March 2021, during lockdown in the pandemic, the family specifically asked for no peanuts, but staff missed the crucial information. Peanut and almond protein were found in the meal.

The Council charged the food business operator, Samir Najeeb, of Khan’s Restaurant, Heaton Road, Newcastle, with two breaches, one under the Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations 2013 and one under the Food Safety Act 1990. He pleaded not guilty to both charges but was found guilty of the Food Hygiene Regulations charge. The charge under the Food Safety Act was dismissed by the court.

Najeeb was fined £450 with £3,000 in costs at Newcastle Magistrates Court.

Council cabinet member for a Dynamic City, Councillor Irim Ali, who has responsibility for regulation, said:

“People have died from food allergies and contaminated food from takeaways and restaurants. I can’t emphasise enough the seriousness of this case. Thankfully Eleanor is fit and well now. The case highlights the need for very strict management of food orders and great care needed when serving food. There is no room for complacency or error. The public must be confident that businesses are safe and take no risk with their safety. We are committed to supporting businesses with training and help but will hold those to account that put lives at risk.”

Miss Lincoln has fully recovered from her ordeal and is now at university.

Peanut allergy breach — Photo by Eren Li

The case highlights the importance of food establishments having robust food safety management systems in place and staff being trained in allergen management.

It also underlines the importance of understanding customer requests for allergen free meals, the general importance of allergen awareness to food operators and customers.

An estimated 1-2% of adults and 5-8% of children in the UK have a food allergy which is around 2 million people. Nut allergies affect approximately 1 in 50 children and around 1 in 200 adults in the UK.

In September 2021, a joint health promotion programme was undertaken with both Newcastle and Northumbria Universities and North East Ambulance Service, aimed at new students coming to live in the city and visiting the city’s many and varied food establishments. The promotional event urged takeaway lovers to be more allergy aware.

Allergy Awareness Top Tips

The majority of the allergy reports relate to 17 to 30-year-olds ordering takeaways or food in bars and nightclubs, and so organisations are working together to offer top tips to students to keep themselves and others safe:

Be allergy aware – Find out if anyone in the group you are ordering for has a food allergy.
Speak to the restaurant every time – If ordering by app, do not rely on the in-app messaging service. Call the restaurant directly and make sure they understand the allergy. Remember to ask, even when ordering the usual, because the recipe, ingredients, chef or kitchen staff may have changed.
Be clear – Give examples of food that could cause a reaction and be clear about the allergy.
Ask the restaurant to label the allergy-safe meal – Make sure the container will be labelled so that it is clear when the meal arrives and there is no risk of cross-contamination.
Follow your instincts – If the person you are ordering from does not understand the allergy or intolerance, ask to speak to the manager. If you still do not feel confident, consider ordering elsewhere.
Do not feel embarrassed – There is no need to feel awkward asking about an allergy. Food business are legally required to make allergen information available when you order and when the food is delivered.

Allergy Guidance

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) publishes guidance for food businesses on allergy safeguards and controls.

Food business operators in the retail and catering sector are required to provide allergen information and follow labelling rules as set out in food law (Opens in a new window).

This means that food business operators must:

provide allergen information to the consumer for both prepacked and non-prepacked food and drink
handle and manage food allergens effectively in food preparation.

Food businesses must make sure that staff receive training on allergens. Staff can complete the FSA’s free food allergy training. Managers can also share the FSA’s allergen checklist with staff for tips on food allergy best-practice.

The FSA also has separate guidance for food manufacturers and institutional caterers such as schools and care homes.

Allergens

Food businesses need to tell customers if any food they provide contain any of the listed allergens as an ingredient.

Consumers may be allergic or have intolerance to other ingredients, but only the 14 allergens are required to be declared as allergens by food law.

The 14 allergens are:

celery
cereals containing gluten (such as barley and oats)
crustaceans (such as prawns, crabs and lobsters)
eggs
fish
lupin
milk
molluscs (such as mussels and oysters)
mustard
peanuts
sesame
soybeans
sulphur dioxide and sulphites (if the sulphur dioxide and sulphites are at a concentration of more than ten parts per million) and
tree nuts (such as almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts, brazil nuts, cashews, pecans, pistachios and macadamia nuts).

This also applies to additives, processing aids and any other substances which are present in the final product.

Allergen labelling

There are a number of ways in which allergen information can be provided to your customers. You will need to choose the method which is best for your business and the type of food you serve.

Prepacked foods refer to any food put into packaging before being placed on sale, while non-prepacked food (loose food) is unpackaged food. Different allergen labelling rules apply depending on how the food is provided.

The FSA has published technical guidance which provides a detailed explanation of the labelling requirements for each food type.

If your business needs food safety advice, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

21 October 20221 July 2024

Company worker paralysed

A Bernard Matthews worker paralysed in an accident has resulted in the company being prosecuted. Bernard Mathew’s Food Ltd has been fined £400,000 following two separate incidents where employees were seriously injured.

Colin Frewin was left permanently paralysed and spent six months in hospital following an incident at the company’s Suffolk manufacturing plant.

Worker paralysed

Mr Frewin suffered multiple serious injuries, including a pierced left lung, several broken ribs, four fractured vertebrae and a spinal bleed. He was put in an induced coma for three weeks and is now classed as a T6 paraplegic and has been diagnosed with autonomic dysreflexia (AD).

Chelmsford Crown Court heard how 54-year-old Mr Frewin suffered the injuries on 28 January 2020. He had been tasked with cleaning a large screw conveyor used to move poultry turkeys along and chill them. While working on the gantry between the spin chillers he noticed a turkey stuck at the bottom of it.

As he attempted to dislodge the turkey using a squeegee, Mr Frewin was drawn into the machine. It was only when a colleague noticed Mr Frewin was missing from the gantry and heard his cries for help, the emergency stop was pulled.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found an unsafe system of work meant the chillers remained running as Mr Frewin went to dislodge the turkey.

In a victim personal statement, Mr Frewin described how his horrific injuries left him feeling “isolated” and in need of daily care.

“I will never walk again and so I will be in a wheelchair permanently. I now have a suprapubic catheter, which was inserted via an operation. The district nurse has to give me bowel care every day and visits me daily at home. I also suffer from AD – a condition which is life threatening, as my body doesn’t register if I’m ill. I have moved from my flat overlooking the sea, to a bungalow. However, I miss seeing the sea and being close to the seafront and all the amenities. I feel isolated as I cannot go out when I want as I need people to assist me. The accident has affected my life and my family’s lives. When I talk about the incident, I sometimes find this upsetting and then have restless nights.”

There was another incident at the same plant five months earlier, on 12 August 2019, when a turkey deboning line had to be shut down after developing a fault.

As a result, 34-year-old Mr Adriano Gama, along with the rest of the employees, were moved to a surplus production line to continue the process.

Whilst working on the surplus production line, one of the wings became stuck in the belt under the machine. Mr Gama attempted to push it out of the way, but as he did do, his gloved hand became caught in the exposed sprocket of the conveyer and was drawn into the machine.

He was eventually freed and taken to hospital having suffered a broken arm and severe damage to the muscles in his forearm.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that on the day of the incident pre-start checks were only completed on the production lines that were regularly used.

Therefore, when workers were asked to move to the surplus deboning line there was no system in place to ensure that it was checked prior to it being put into operation.

The investigation uncovered that two safety guards had been removed and a team leader responsible for the production lines had verbally reported this issue to the engineering team, but it was not followed up by either party.

Bernard Mathews Prosecution

Bernard Matthews Food Ltd of Sparrowhawk Road, Halesworth in Suffolk pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £400,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

“Both incidents could have been avoided – the consequences were devastating for Mr Frewin in particular.

“If Bernard Matthews had acted to identify and manage the risks involved and put a safe system of work in place they could have easily been prevented.

“Fundamentally, you should not clean a machine while it is running.

“Companies need to ensure that risk assessments cover activities including cleaning and blockages, and that where appropriate, robust isolation and lock off mechanisms are in place for these activities.

“Prior to use you can put in place some pre-start checks and if faults such as missing guards are identified they need to be formally reported, tracked, rectified and closed out.”
HSE Principal Inspector Adam Hills

worker paralysed — Do you provide suitable equipment to your workers?

Worker Equipment

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:

suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses

Some work equipment is subject to other health and safety legislation in addition to PUWER. For example, lifting equipment must also meet the requirements of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 and personal protective equipment must meet the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).

If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:

ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety

New Equipment for Workers

When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008). You must check it:

has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

21 October 202221 October 2022

Uninsured employer prosecuted

An uninsured employer prosecuted for failing to have appropriate insurance in place has been fined by Luton Magistrates Court.

Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd and its director, Mr Kian Hoo Tay, appeared at Luton Magistrates Court on 10 October for failing to have Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance (ELCI).

The court heard an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) discovered the failure when one of the company’s employees was injured at work on 1 March 2022.

Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd and Mr Hoo Tay had failed to renew the insurance policy that expired on 13 May 2021.

Prosecution

Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd, of Bellfield Avenue, Harrow, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance Act 1969, fined £1,650, a victim surcharge of £165 and ordered to pay costs of £1750.

The Director, Mr Kian Hoo Tay, of same address pleaded guilty to breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance Act 1969, fined £1,650, a victim surcharge of £165 and ordered to pay costs of £1750.

“Every employer needs to ensure that they have Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance in place to ensure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment.
“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”.
HSE inspector Emma Page

Uninsured employer prosecuted — Do you have insurance for your business?

Employer Liability Insurance

Most employers are required by the law to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires your employer to have at least a minimum level of insurance against any such claims. Employers’ liability insurance will cover relevant work injuries or illness whether these are caused on or off site. However, any injuries or illness relating to motor accidents which occur while you are at work may be covered separately by the employer’s motor insurance.

Public liability insurance is different. It covers employers for claims made against them by members of the public or other businesses, but not for claims by employees. While public liability insurance is generally voluntary, employers’ liability insurance is compulsory. Employers can be fined if they do not hold a current employers’ liability insurance policy which complies with the law. Employers must display a copy of this certificate where employees have reasonable access to it. If they do not, they can be fined. Since 1 October 2008, employers have been allowed to satisfy this requirement by displaying the certificate electronically for example on the company’s intranet or website. If your employer chooses this method, they must ensure that you know how and where to find the certificate and you have reasonable access to it. If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

4 August 20221 July 2024

Prosecution after worker loses part of hand

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has undertaken a prosecution after a worker loses part of hand. Laxtons Limited, a West Yorkshire manufacturing company, has been fined for safety breaches after a worker lost part of their hand in a textile machine.

On 24 March 2021, an employee of Laxtons was running a number of textile machines. When he opened a guard to check on a build-up of fibres, he reached in to remove material, losing part of his hand.

HSE investigation

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that one of the machines had a defective interlock device. This allowed the machine to continue running when the guard, which was located over a pair of in-running rollers and gears, was opened.

Laxtons Ltd of Shipley, West Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £15,750 and ordered to pay £759 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court.

worker loses part of hand — Work equipment must be safe to use (stock image)

HSE inspector Julian Franklin said:

“Machine guarding should be in line with the appropriate standard, and regularly checked. This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply training staff in the safe and correct way of operating machinery, and regularly checking that safety devices are functioning.”

Work equipment

suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses

If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:

ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety

has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

1 August 20221 July 2024

Prosecutions for angling offences

The Environment Agency has prosecuted two men for angling offences. Wayne Knight of Cosby, Leicester, was fined £220, ordered to pay costs of £135 plus a victim’s surcharge of £34. Knight admitted fishing without a licence at Mill on the Soar, Sutton Elms, on 1 February 2022.

Lester McManus of Leicester, was fined £40, ordered to pay costs of £135 plus a victim’s surcharge of £34. McManus admitted fishing for freshwater fish during the close season at Aylestone on the River Soar on 24 March 2022.

A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said:

“These cases show we pursue offenders through the courts and won’t hesitate to take enforcement action where anglers break rules.”

Anyone found fishing illegally may face prosecution and a fine of up to £2,500.

Any angler aged 13 or over, fishing on a river, canal or still water needs a licence. The money raised through the sales of rod licences is re-invested back into the sport and illegal fishing undermines the Environment Agency’s efforts to make fishing sustainable.

A 1-day licence costs from just £6 and an annual licence costs from just £30 (concessions available). Junior licences are free for 13 – 16-year-olds.

Licences are available online or by calling the Environment Agency on 0344 800 5386 between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. The Environment Agency carries out enforcement work all year round and is supported by partners including the police and the Angling Trust. Fisheries enforcement work is intelligence-led, targeting known hot-spots and where illegal fishing is reported.

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

1 August 20221 July 2024

Working at height leads to prosecution

A steel fabrication company has been fined £8,000 after employees working at height fell two metres from the forks of a telehandler.

The workers of Eagle Structural Ltd were dismantling an unwanted shipping container at Great Carlton, Lincolnshire on 7 October 2019.

Operatives were working in an unsecured non-integrated working platform when it fell from the forks of a telehandler. One employee suffered a broken arm and fractured elbow and has been told that he will never regain a full range of movement in his arm. The second employee suffered internal bruising.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the non-integrated working platform was not compatible with the telehandler and that it had not been properly secured to prevent it falling.

Working at height requires careful planning (stock image)

Eagle Structural Ltd of Lincolnshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(b)(i) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005. At Lincoln Magistrates’ Court on 1 July 2022, the company was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,497.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Tim Nicholson said:

“This 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.”

Working at height requires careful planning and the use of suitable equipment. A risk assessment should be undertaken as part of the planning and detail the controls required to ensure workers’ safety. Any worker involved in an activity at height must be competent to carry out the task and be proficient in using the equipment provided.

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.