£1.2m fine for water company, Anglian Water following Environment Agency prosecution. Anglian Water has been hit with fines totalling £1,221,000 after it admitted to causing pollution incidents in two separate court cases this week.
The water company was ordered to pay £871,000 after a catalogue of system and maintenance failures caused several incidents of pollution across Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, and Northamptonshire across a five-month spell, between May and September 2019.
The list of process failures included reporting delays, faulty screening and a general breakdown in planning and maintenance, all of which caused damaging blockages and pollution. After one particular incident, a subsequent biological survey showed dead aquatic invertebrates for 1,500 metres. The court also heard how at one site an unchecked build-up of ‘unflushables’ such as cotton buds and sanitary pads caused a blockage resulting in discharge of settled sludge into the treated sewage.
The site was originally fitted with a screen to prevent blockages in the process but was removed in 2018. The court heard that increased cleaning had not taken place and no steps taken to reduce the risk of blockages caused by the removal of the screen.
The water company was also ordered to pay £37,605.13 in costs at Loughborough Magistrates Court on 12 September 2022.
Big fines for water companies causing pollution
In a separate court case, heard at Cambridge Magistrates Court, Anglian Water was sentenced to pay £350,000 after a pumped sewer at Bourn Brook at Caldecott, Cambridgeshire, burst for the sixth time in several years. Officers visiting the site in September 2019 found ammonia and low oxygen levels in the water, posing a potential risk to wildlife at the site. Despite efforts from Anglian Water to stop the polluted water from spreading, its methods proved insufficient and a total of 4km of the watercourse was affected for at least five days.
Since 2004 the sewer, which is only 1.5km long, had burst 6 times. The court found that Anglian Water had been too slow in putting in place potential mitigation measures. They only located air valves, designed to reduce stress on the sewer, after the incident took place. These valves had been in place for at least 25 years.
Anglian Water pleaded guilty to causing poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter inland freshwaters without an environmental permit, and were told to pay £28,025.66 in costs as well as a victim surcharge of £181.
“Serious pollution is a serious crime and I welcome these sentences from the courts.
“The Environment Agency will pursue any water company that fails to uphold the law or protect nature, and will continue to press for the strongest possible penalties for those which do not.”
Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency
Vehicle injured guard which has resulted in a meat production company being fined £440,000. The security guard at an abattoir was seriously injured by a vehicle passing through the site gate.
The 63-year-old security guard, who was working for an independent security company, was on duty at the gated entrance of the Dunbia (UK) abattoir at Hatherleigh, near Okehampton, Devon early on the morning of November 29, 2018.
Her duties included operating the gates to allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the site. She sustained serious leg and head injuries requiring surgery when she was hit by a vehicle towing a trailer leaving the site. She was holding the gate open at the time.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the system of work was unsafe and that the company’s risk assessments did not extend to the security guards. Risks had not been adequately assessed or controlled.
Although there was a high volume of vehicle movements on site there was no segregation between the vehicle routes and pedestrians on site.
Dunbia (UK), of Castle Street, Exeter, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. the company was fined £440,000 and ordered to pay costs of £27,016 and a victim surcharge of £170 at Plymouth Magistrates Court on 12 October 2022.
“Employers have a legal duty to ensure that the health and safety of their employees, contractors and members of the public are not put at risk.
“This incident could have been avoided had the company assessed the risks from vehicle movements and implemented safety measures including segregating vehicles and pedestrians.”
HSE inspector Victoria Buchanan
Does your workplace transport keep pedestrians safe?
Vehicle Safety
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.
Vehicle CCTV
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.
Vehicles Reversing
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.
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
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
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
A bonfire prosecution of a Kent groundwork contractor has resulted in the company being fined. A petrol fire resulted in injuries to an employee when petrol was thrown on a bonfire.
On 24 June 2020, a 26-year-old groundworker employed by Kent County Surfacing Limited was working on a new residential development in Ramsgate, Kent when a co-worker used petrol on a bonfire. The groundworker was unaware of this and after he was instructed to light the bonfire, it engulfed him in flames as the petrol vapour ignited. The worker suffered serious burns and underwent two skin graft operations to his left hand, left arm, left side of torso and both his legs.
Groundworkers help prepare a construction site and ensure it is ready for the structural work to start.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to appropriately supervise their operatives and failed to provide them with the appropriate information and instruction, so far as is reasonably practicable to ensure work was carried out without risks to health or safety.
Does your workplace have fire safety precautions in place?
At Folkestone Magistrates on 10 October, Kent County Surfacing Ltd of 7 Mariners View, Deal, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 15 (8) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015. They were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,333.42.
“The operative’s injuries are life changing and could have easily been fatal.
“This serious incident and devastation should have been avoided if those in control of the work provided the appropriate supervision, information and instructions to their workers.”
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
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.
A refrigeration company has been fined £27,000 after an incident where a worker suffered gantry fall injuries while carrying out work at height.
GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd was replacing a cooler unit located on a gantry 10m above the warehouse floor at an Iceland depot in Swindon on 1 February 2017.
Stock image
This required a section of the gantry floor to be removed. A GEA employee fell 2.5 metres through the gap created by this removal and on to a cherry picker, suffering fractured ribs and internal injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to properly plan, co-ordinate and supervise the work, including the removal of the gantry floor to ensure the work was carried out in a safe manner to control the risks of falls.
GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd, of Ludgate Hill, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay £35,000 costs and a victim surcharge of £170 at Bristol Crown Court on 30 September 2022.
“This incident could have been avoided by identifying and implementing effective control measures and safe working practices.
“Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related injury and fatalities and the risks associated with working at height are well known.”
HSE inspector Leo Diez
In his victim personal statement, the injured worker said: “The effect of the accident on my personal and work life has been huge and has had a lasting effect.”
Work at Height Regulations
Falls from height are one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries. Common causes are falls from ladders and through fragile roofs. The purpose of The Work at Height Regulations 2005 is to prevent death and injury caused by a fall from height. If you are an employer or you control work at height (for example facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height) the Regulations apply to you.
Employers and those in control of any work at height activity must make sure work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. This includes using the right type of equipment for working at height. Low-risk, relatively straightforward tasks will require less effort when it comes to planning. Employers and those in control must first assess the risks by carrying out a risk assessment. Where you employ 5 or more employees, your risk assessment must be in writing.
Employees have general legal duties to take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions, and to co-operate with their employer to enable their health and safety duties and requirements to be complied with.
Work at Height Guidance
Work at height means work in any place where, if there were no precautions in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. For example, you are working at height if you:
are working on a ladder or a flat roof;
could fall through a fragile surface;
could fall into an opening in a floor or a hole in the ground.
Take a sensible approach when considering precautions for work at height. There may be some low-risk situations where common sense tells you no particular precautions are necessary and the law recognises this.
There is a common misconception that ladders, and stepladders are banned, but this is not the case. There are many situations where a ladder is the most suitable equipment for working at height. Before working at height, you must work through these simple steps:
avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so;
where work at height cannot be 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.
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;
make sure you don’t overload or overreach when working at height;
take precautions when working on or near fragile surfaces;
provide protection from falling objects;
consider your emergency evacuation and rescue procedures.
Our consultants consider a recent radiation breach prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). A company which provides diagnostic imaging services, and its radiopharmaceutical subsidiary company, have been given six-figure fines following incidents at two sites in which employees were exposed to radiation levels in excess of the legal annual dose limit.
Radiation Exposure
On 25 March 2019, a vial of a radioactive substance (FDG) leaked after it was installed into a shielded dispensing pot in the dispensing laboratory of Alliance Medical Limited’s (AML) Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) facility at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds.
Stock image
This resulted in two members of staff becoming contaminated with skin doses in excess of the annual dose limit as defined by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017.
In a second incident, on 15 November 2019, the same radioactive substance was unknowingly handled during the production process at the Alliance Medical Radiopharmacy Limited (AMRL) facility at Keele University Science Park in Staffordshire.
Consequently, a member of staff was contaminated with a skin dose in excess of the annual dose limit as defined by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017.
An investigation by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident at the AML Leeds PET-CT centre found that training and instruction was inadequate and supervision below an acceptable standard.
Staff were not made fully aware of the localised instructions and were using personal protective equipment (PPE) unsuitable for work with radioactive material.
Further radiation incident
A separate investigation by HSE found that at AMRL’s facility at Keele University Science Park, the radiation warning system associated with the particular production equipment was not operational at the time of the incident and had not undergone routine maintenance and testing at suitable intervals.
Radiation prosecution
Alliance Medical Limited, based at Iceni Centre, Warwick Technology Park, Warwick, Warwickshire pleaded guilty to breaches of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulations 12, 18(3), 18(4) and 18(5)a, and were fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,382 at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 29 September 2022.
Alliance Medical Radiopharmacy Limited, also based at Iceni Centre, Warwick Technology Park, Warwick, Warwickshire pleaded guilty to breaches of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulations 9(2)a, 11(1) and 12, and were fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,382 in the same court on the same date.
“The workers in both these incidents were exposed to levels of radiation which could potentially impact on their health in the future.
“Employers in the nuclear medicine sector must properly assess the risks to their employees and others and ensure all radiation doses are as low as reasonably practicable.
“Both these incidents could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out the correct control measures and ensuring safe working practices were followed. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement actions against those that fall below the required standards.”
HSE specialist inspector Elizabeth Reeves
The HSE has published an approved code of practice and guidance for Working with ionising radiation (L121) which is free to download.
Waste offences in Darlington have resulted in a Darlington man been given a two-year community order to incorporate 20 rehabilitation activity days and 300 hours unpaid work after magistrates in Middlesbrough sentenced him for serious waste offences. He was also disqualified from acting as a company director for three years and ordered to pay £490 costs.
John Burnside Jones (26), of Coniscliffe Road, Darlington was sentenced at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 September 2022 having previously pleaded guilty to involvement in illegally misdescribing waste for financial gain.
Courtesy of the Environment Agency
Environment Agency officers visited Jones’ waste operation at the Trinity Works site in Haverton Hill, Billingham in January 2019. They found the business to be processing large volumes of waste types which the site’s environmental permit did not allow. The site was also found to lack the required management systems to deal with the environmental risks. Jones was served with notices requiring details of the site’s waste but failed to respond to these in full.
Further investigations by the Environment Agency revealed that between September 2018 and February 2019, over 6,000 tonnes of unpermitted, combustible waste had been transported to the site from as far away as Bristol. Jones had then transported more than 11,000 tonnes of inert waste soils to a nearby landfill site during the same period. The discrepancy between the volumes of incoming and outgoing waste was a result of Jones mixing incoming waste with soil and stones left from previous site operations and falsely describing this resulting mixture as inert waste.
Inert waste incurs significantly lower landfill tax per tonne and may also be disposed of at a much-reduced rate at landfill facilities without the same level of safeguards and protections as would otherwise be required. By fraudulently misdescribing the waste, Jones was able to make large sums of money by flouting his environmental obligations.
In mitigation, Jones stated that although his company had operated the site, he had limited direct involvement and had been very naïve in relying upon others to run the site for him. He had never previously been in trouble and fully co-operated with the investigation. He admitted that he had never seen the site’s environmental permit and was oblivious to its requirements.
The court ruled that the offending was deliberate and committed for financial gain. At an earlier hearing the permit holder James William Mason, 64, of Camden Street, Stockton-on-Tees had pleaded guilty to allowing the illegal waste activities to be undertaken on his site and was ordered to pay a total of £2,528 in fines and costs.
The conditions of an environmental permit are designed to protect people and the environment. Failure to comply with these legal requirements is a serious offence that can damage the environment, undermine local legitimate environmental permit holders, put jobs at risk and cause misery for local communities.
We welcome sentencing by the Court, which should act as a deterrent to others considering flouting the law.
A spokesperson for the Environment Agency
In most situations waste can only be kept on land if there is an environmental permit in place. The permit will contain a number of conditions which must be observed in order to protect the environment. Failure to comply with the conditions of an environmental permit is a criminal offence which can be committed by the permit holder as well as the person conducting the activities if they are different. Any transfer of waste from one party to another must be accompanied by a controlled waste transfer note which accurately describes the waste and contains the relevant six-digit waste category code.
A waste management company has been fined £190,000 after a contractor died when he fell seven metres while carrying out maintenance work and our ultimate safety guide to working at height will help avoid similar accidents in your business.
The experienced maintenance contractor was part of a team under the control and direction of Wiltshire-based Hills Waste Solutions Limited. He sustained fatal injuries in the fall on 18 November 2020, while working on a mechanical screening and separating plant on the Hills Waste Solutions site in Stephenson Road, Westbury.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Hills Waste Solutions Limited failed to ensure that work at height was properly assessed and planned. The company failed to consider and identify how the necessary work at height could be carried out safely to ensure that the risk of falls was controlled.
Hills Waste Solutions Limited, of Swindon pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £190,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,816, with a victim surcharge of £190 at Aldershot Magistrates’ Court on 17 August 2022.
“Those in control of work have a duty to assess the risks and devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to those undertaking the work”.
“This incident could have been prevented had the work been adequately planned.”
HSE inspector Matt Tyler
Ultimate safety guide to working at height
The purpose of The Work at Height Regulations 2005 is to prevent death and injury caused by a fall from height. If you are an employer or you control work at height (for example facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height) the Regulations apply to you, and you must take steps to eliminate or reduce the risks as far as reasonably practicable.
Employers and those in control of any work at height activity must make sure work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. This includes using the right type of equipment for working at height. Low-risk, relatively straightforward tasks will require less effort when it comes to planning.
Employers and those in control must first assess the risks.
Employees have general legal duties to take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions, and to co-operate with their employer to enable their health and safety duties and requirements to be complied with.
Step by step guide to working at height
Considering the risks associated with work at height and putting in place sensible and proportionate measures to manage them is an important part of working safely. Follow this simple step-by-step guide to help you control risks when working at height.
Can you avoid working at height in the first place?
Do as much work as possible from the ground. A health and safety manager who I worked with for many years always used to say, “the safest place to be when doing work at height is on the ground!” Some practical examples of this include:
using extendable tools from ground level to remove the need to climb a ladder
installing cables at ground level
lowering a lighting mast to ground level
ground level assembly of edge protection
If you cannot avoid working at height by the above measures, then you should put in place measures to prevent a fall.
Can you prevent a fall from occurring?
Falls can be prevented by taking measures such as (i) using an existing place of work that is already safe, e.g. a non-fragile roof with a permanent perimeter guardrail or, if not, using work equipment to prevent people from falling.
Some practical examples of collective protection when using an existing place of work such as a concrete flat roof with existing edge protection, or guarded mezzanine floor, or plant or machinery with fixed guard rails around it.
Some practical examples of collective protection using work equipment to prevent a fall:
mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs) such as scissor lifts
tower scaffolds
scaffolds
An example of personal protection using work equipment to prevent a fall would be using a work restraint (travel restriction) system that prevents a worker getting into a fall position.
Can you minimise the distance and or consequences of a fall?
If the risk of a person falling remains, you must take sufficient measures to minimise the distance and/or consequences of a fall. Practical examples of collective protection using work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall include safety nets and soft-landing systems, e.g. air bags, installed close to the level of the work.
An example of personal protection used to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall would be industrial rope access, e.g. working on a building façade, or a fall arrest system using a high anchor point.
Can I use ladders when working at height?
For tasks of low risk and short duration, ladders and stepladders can be a sensible and practical option. However, ladders should not automatically be your first choice. If your risk assessment determines it is correct to use a ladder, you should further minimise the risk by making sure workers:
use the right type of ladder for the job
are competent (you can provide adequate training and/or supervision to help)
use the equipment provided safely and follow a safe system of work
are fully aware of the risks and measures to help control them
There are simple, sensible precautions you should take to stay safe when using portable leaning ladders and stepladders in the workplace. Employers must make sure that workers use the right type of ladder and that they know how to use it safely.
Netting to prevent falls
When to use a ladder at work
Ladders can be used for work at height when an assessment of the risk for carrying out a task has shown that using equipment that offers a higher level of fall protection is not justified. This is 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 use of a ladder is acceptable – employers must have first considered 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 you use 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 can be secured (where it is reasonably practicable to do so).
Know how to use a ladder safely when working at height
To use a ladder, workers must be competent or, if they are being trained, they should be working under the supervision of a competent person. Competence can be demonstrated through a combination of training, practical and theoretical knowledge, and experience. In addition, training should be appropriate for the task, and this includes knowing:
how to assess the risks of using a ladder for a particular task
when it is right to use a ladder (and when it is not)
which type of ladder to use and how to use it
How to check your ladder is safe before you use it
Employers must have procedures in place to ensure that before using a ladder, employees have access to user instructions from the manufacturer in case they need to refer to them and that workers always carry out a ‘pre-use’ check to spot any obvious visual defects to make sure the ladder is safe to use.
A pre-use check should be carried out:
by the person using the ladder
at the beginning of the working day
after something has changed, e.g., a ladder has been dropped or moved from a dirty area to a clean area (check the state or condition of the feet)
The check should include:
the stiles – make sure they are not bent or damaged, as the ladder could buckle or collapse
the feet – if they are missing, worn or damaged the ladder could slip. Also check the ladder feet when moving from soft/dirty ground (e.g. dug soil, loose sand/stone, a dirty workshop) to a smooth, solid surface (e.g. paving slabs), to make sure the actual feet and not the dirt (e.g. soil, chippings or embedded stones) are making contact with the ground
the rungs – if they are bent, worn, missing or loose, the ladder could fail
any locking mechanism – does the mechanism work properly? Are components or fixings bent, worn or damaged? If so, the ladder could collapse. Ensure any locking bars are fully engaged
the stepladder platform – if it is split or buckled, the ladder could become unstable or collapse
the steps or treads on stepladders – if they are contaminated, they could be slippery; if the fixings are loose on the steps, they could collapse
If employees identify any of the above defects, they should not use the ladders and should report the faults to the person in charge of the work.
Types of ladder and how to use them safely
Ultimate safety guide to working at height: Leaning ladders
When using a leaning ladder to carry out a task:
Only carry light materials and tools – read the manufacturer’s labels on the ladder and assess the risks
Do not overreach – make sure your belt buckle (or navel) stays within the stiles
Make sure the ladder is long enough or high enough for the task
Do not overload the ladder – consider your weight and the equipment or materials you are carrying before working at height
Check the pictogram or label on the ladder for any advisory information
To help make sure the ladder angle is at the safest position to work from- you should use the 1-in-4 rule. This is where the ladder should be one space or unit of measurement out for every four spaces or units up (a 75° angle)
Always grip the ladder and face the ladder rungs while climbing or descending – do not slide down the stiles
Do not try to move or extend the ladder while standing on the rungs
Do not work off the top three rungs. Try to make sure that the ladder extends at least 1 metre or three rungs above where you are working
Do not stand ladders on movable objects, such as pallets, bricks, lift trucks, tower scaffolds, excavator buckets, vans or mobile elevating work platforms
Avoid holding items when climbing (consider using a tool belt)
Do not work within 6 m horizontally of any overhead power line, unless it has been made dead or it is protected with insulation. Use a non-conductive ladder (e.g. fibreglass or timber) for any electrical work
Maintain three points of contact when climbing and wherever possible at the work position.
Where you cannot maintain a handhold, other than for a brief period (e.g. to hold a nail while starting to knock it in, start a screw etc), you will need to take other measures to prevent a fall or mitigate the consequences if one happened
Secure the ladder (e.g. by tying the ladder to prevent it from slipping either outwards or sideways) and have a strong upper resting point (i.e. do not rest it against weak upper surfaces such as glazing or plastic gutters)
Consider using an effective stability device (a device which, if used correctly, prevents the ladder from slipping, some types of ladders come with these)
Ultimate safety guide to working at height: Telescopic ladders
Telescopic ladders are a variation of leaning ladders but remember that they do not all work in the same way. They should always be used, stored and transported with care and kept clean. In addition to following this guidance, it is important you read and follow the user instructions provided by the manufacturer.
Before every use – in addition to the normal ladder checks – make sure they are operating correctly and that the mechanisms that lock each section are working properly.
Always follow the user instructions regarding the opening and closing procedure. Be aware of the potential for trapping fingers between the closing sections. Remember some of the important parts are inside where they cannot be seen. If you are in any doubt, do not use them.
Ultimate safety guide to working at height: Stepladders
Our ultimate safety guide to working at height would not be complete without mentioning stepladders. When using a stepladder to carry out a task:
Check all four stepladder feet are in contact with the ground and the steps are level
Only carry light materials and tools
Do not overreach
Do not stand and work on the top three steps (including a step forming the very top of the stepladder) unless there is a suitable handhold
Ensure any locking devices are engaged
Try to position the stepladder to face the work activity and not side on. However, there are occasions when a risk assessment may show it is safer to work side on, e.g. in a retail stock room when you cannot engage the stepladder locks to work face on because of space restraints in narrow aisles, but you can fully lock it to work side on
Try to avoid work that imposes a side loading, such as side-on drilling through solid materials (e.g. bricks or concrete)
Where side loadings cannot be avoided, you should prevent the steps from tipping over, e.g., by tying the steps. Otherwise, use a more suitable type of access equipment
Maintain three points of contact at the working position. This means two feet and one hand, or when both hands need to be free for a brief period, two feet and the body supported by the stepladder.
When deciding whether it is safe to carry out a particular task on a stepladder where you cannot maintain a handhold (e.g. to put a box on a shelf, hang wallpaper, or install a smoke detector on a ceiling), the decision needs to be justified, taking into account:
the height of the task
whether a handhold is still available to steady yourself before and after the task
whether it is light work
whether it avoids side loading
whether it avoids overreaching
whether the stepladder can be tied (e.g. when side-on working)
Ultimate safety guide to working at height: Combination and multi-purpose ladders
Combination and multi-purpose ladders can be used as stepladders, a variation of stepladders or leaning ladders. Combination ladders are sometimes referred to as ‘A’ frame ladders and these types of ladders can be used in a variety of different configurations. You should:
check to ensure that any locking mechanism is properly engaged before use
always recheck the locking mechanism if the setup of the ladder is changed
on three-part combination ladders, never extend the top section (the section extending above the A frame) beyond the limit marked on the ladder and specified in the user manual
Where ladders should be used
As a guide, only use a ladder:
on firm ground
on level ground – refer to the manufacturer’s pictograms on the side of the ladder. Use proprietary levelling devices, not ad-hoc packing such as bricks, blocks, timbers etc
on clean, solid surfaces (paving slabs, floors etc). These need to be clean (no oil, moss or leaf litter) and free of loose material (sand, packaging materials etc) so the feet can grip. Shiny floor surfaces can be slippery even without contamination
where it will not be struck by vehicles (protect the area using suitable barriers or cones)
where it will not be pushed over by other hazards such as doors or windows, i.e., secure the doors (not fire exits) and windows where possible
where the general public are prevented from using it, walking underneath it or being at risk because they are too near (use barriers, cones or, as a last resort, a person standing guard at the base)
where it has been secured
Securing ladders and ladders used for access
There are various options available for securing ladders:
Tie the ladder to a suitable point, making sure both stiles are tied
Where this is not practical, secure the ladder with an effective ladder stability device
If this is not possible, securely wedge the ladder (e.g. wedge the stiles against a wall)
If you cannot achieve any of these options, foot the ladder – footing is the last resort.
Ladders used for access
In general:
Ladders used to access another level should be tied and extend at least 1 m above the landing point to provide a secure handhold
At ladder access points, a self-closing gate is recommended
Stepladders should not be used to access another level unless they have been specifically designed for this.
Inspecting the condition of ladders
An important element in our ultimate safety guide for working at height is inspections. Employers need to make sure that any ladder or stepladder is both suitable for the work task and in a safe condition before use. As a guide, only use ladders or stepladders that:
have no visible defects – they should have a pre-use check each working day
have an up-to-date record of the detailed visual inspections carried out regularly by a competent person. These should be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Ladders that are part of a scaffold system still have to be inspected every seven days as part of the scaffold inspection requirements
are suitable for the intended use, i.e. are strong and robust enough for the job
have been maintained and stored in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions
A detailed visual inspection is similar to pre-use checks, in that it is used to spot defects and can be done on site by a competent employee. Pre-use checks make sure that a ladder is safe to use and are for the immediate benefit of the ladder user. These checks do not need to be recorded. Any problems or issues should be reported to a manager.
Detailed visual inspections are the responsibility of the employer. They should be carried out at fixed intervals and recorded. Records of these inspections provide a snapshot of the state of the ladders over time. When doing an inspection, look for:
damaged or worn ladder feet
twisted, bent or dented stiles
cracked, worn, bent or loose rungs
missing or damaged tie rods
cracked or damaged welded joints, loose rivets or damaged stays
Pre-use checks and inspections of ladder stability devices and other accessories should be performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Consider any trends in defect reporting which may suggest that they ladders are not being maintained or are not suitable for the work task being conducted.
While BS2037 and BS1129 have been withdrawn, ladders originally made to these standards prior to their withdrawal may still be used (subject to following user instructions and guidance on safe use).
Conclusion
The success to any working at height activity is in the planning. As an employer you should ensure that all working at height tasks are carefully planned, use the correct equipment and that workers are competent to carry out the activity. This ultimate safety guide to working at height should help you plan for such work activities and, if you require advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A lack of safe systems of work resulted in a cargo handling company being fined after the employee was fatally crushed at a container park in Portsmouth.
On 25 August 2017, Mr Mieczyslaw Tadeusz Siwak, a 34-year-old father-of-one, was working for Portico Shipping Limited (formerly MMD (Shipping Services) Limited) on the night shift in the container park. His job was to connect refrigerated container units to electrical supplies, which his colleague had lifted into position for him using a container stacker vehicle. It was during one of these manoeuvres that Mr Siwak was fatally crushed between two containers.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the company routinely failed to provide adequate supervision of operatives and drivers working on the night shift to ensure safe systems of work were followed. This included failure to use safe walkways to segregate pedestrians from vehicles and the safe operation of container stackers by driving with shipping containers in the raised position to allow visibility.
Portico Shipping Limited of Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, Hampshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court the company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,631.61.
“Safe systems of work should be in place on sites with moving vehicles to prevent pedestrians coming into contact with traffic or moving machinery. When moving containers by container stacker, the load should be transported as low as possible whilst maintaining full line of sight.
“Supervisors must be given the necessary instruction and training to implement the safe systems of work and manage hazards during operation processes.
“This tragic incident was entirely preventable had the correct safety management procedures and supervision been in place at the site.”
HSE inspector Rebecca Lumb
Safe Systems of Work
A formal management system or framework can help you manage health and safety and ensure that you have safe systems of work in place – the decision whether to use a recognised management system is up to employers and it is not a requirement of the HSE. Examples include:
National and international standards such as:
ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements with guidance for use
BS EN ISO 9001:2015 Quality management system
in-house standards, procedures or codes
sector-specific frameworks such as the:
Energy Institute’s High-level framework for process safety management
Chemical Industries Association’s Responsible Care framework
Although the language and methodology vary, the key actions can usually be traced back to Plan, Do, Check, Act methodology.
Is a certified management system right for your business?
HSE Position on ISO 45001
ISO 45001 is an international standard for health and safety at work developed by national and international standards committees independent of government. Introduced in March 2018, it replaced the current standard (BS OHSAS 18001) which will be withdrawn. Businesses had a three-year period to move from the old standard to the new one.
Businesses are not required by law to implement ISO 45001 or other similar management standards, but they can help provide a structured framework for ensuring a safe and healthy workplace.
If your organisation is small or low-risk, you will probably be able to demonstrate effective risk management without a formal management system. A simpler and less bureaucratic approach may be more appropriate such as that outlined in HSE’s guidance on health and safety made simple.
Implementing ISO 45001 may help your organisation demonstrate compliance with health and safety law. But, in some respects, it goes beyond what the law requires, so consider carefully whether to adopt it.
If your organisation already has a developed health and safety management structure, or you are familiar with other management standards, it may be straightforward for you to adopt ISO 45001. However, if your organisation is small, with less formal management processes, you may find it difficult to interpret what the standard asks for or gauge what proportionate implementation looks like. This may particularly be the case if you are adopting management standards to meet supply chain requirements of customers or contracting bodies.
The HSE has expressed concern about the practical implementation of the standard, including audit and certification, and whether it can be easily tailored to work effectively for organisations of all sizes and levels of complexity in a way that’s in proportion to the risks they must control.
Contracting bodies and customers should therefore ask themselves whether the supplier really needs certification to 45001, or whether they can demonstrate competence in managing health and safety using other means.
Compliance with health and safety law
HSE inspectors continue to rely on a wide range of evidence and observations when assessing an organisation’s compliance with health and safety law, not just whether they claim to meet the ISO 45001 standard or not. The HSE’s guide on managing for health and safety (HSG 65) may help your organisation as it provides a clear process-based approach to risk management. However, adopting a formalised management system approach, whether HSG65 or ISO 45001, may not be the most appropriate model for your businesses, particularly if it is small or low-risk.
Certification
Your organisation can apply the standard to your activities (in full, or in part) to help provide evidence of good health and safety management, and improvements made, without getting certification. However, you can only claim to conform to the standard if it is implemented fully.
Audit
To implement ISO 45001 in a proportionate way, auditors or certifiers should understand that it needs to be (i) tailored to an organisation’s size and level of complexity, and (ii) in proportion to the risks. You should ensure that any auditor or certifier you use has evidence that they are competent to a recognised standard. The certification body should be accredited by either the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for ISO 45001 or an equivalent accretion body that is member of the European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF).
Documentation
Businesses should try to keep health and safety documents functional and concise, with the emphasis on their effectiveness rather than sheer volume of paperwork. Focusing too much on the formal documentation of a health and safety management system will distract you from addressing the human elements of its implementation – the focus becomes the process of the system itself rather than actually controlling risks.
Attitudes and behaviours
Effectively managing for health and safety and having safe systems of work is not just about having a management or safety management system. The success of whatever process or system is in place still hinges on the attitudes and behaviours of people in the organisation (this is sometimes referred to as the ‘safety culture’).
The HSE has published Are you doing what you need to do? Which provides examples of what positive health and safety attitudes and behaviours will look like in the workplace. On the other hand, the examples provided of ‘What it looks like when done badly or not at all’ could indicate underlying cultural issues which employers should address.
Our health, safety and environmental consultants have experience in implementing management systems into client operations including ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001. If your business needs advice and support with your management system, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
