Outdoor education provider fined £1m
PGL Travel Limited has been prosecuted by Waverley Borough Council and ordered to pay £1 million plus costs after two children sustained significant injuries at an organised residential stay at the company’s Adventure Centre near Hindhead, Surrey.
The company pleaded guilty to offences under Section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at Guildford Magistrates Court in June, and were sentenced at Staines Magistrates Court on 2 October 2023, when the fine of £1 million plus costs of £18,006 and a victim surcharge of £181, were imposed.
The offences related to accidents which took place on the 26 May 2021 and 21 October 2021, both involving children attending school organised residential stays at PGL Marchants Hill Adventure Centre near Hindhead, Surrey. The two children sustained significant injuries to their fingers following entrapment in door hinges at the centre’s accommodation blocks.
The court heard that PGL Travel Limited, which describes itself as “the UK’s leading outdoor education provider”, had been monitoring similar incidents since 2009, and that 520 children across all its sites had sustained finger entrapment in door injuries, some resulting in significant injury and amputation. Despite this, the business failed to voluntarily install finger guards to protect children staying at the Marchants Hill Hindhead based centre until officers from Waverley Borough Council’s Environmental Health (Food and Safety) Team issued them with Prohibition Notices requiring them to do so.
Councillor Tony Fairclough, Waverley Borough Council’s Executive Portfolio Holder for Enforcement and Regulatory Services, said: “The council takes breaches of health and safety legislation very seriously; this is a significant fine for a local authority prosecution and it is testament to the sterling work of our Environmental Health and Legal teams. No parent expects to send their child on a school residential trip, and for them to return injured. The children involved should have been enjoying their first independent holiday without parents but were badly wounded and traumatised by their injuries, which required hospitalisation and surgery.
“It is vitally important that businesses protect the health, safety and welfare of visitors to their business premises. They can do this by undertaking a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of work activities at their premises and implementing control measures in a timely fashion.”
This is valid as of 9th October 2023.
Sign-up to the Barbour Monthly Newsletter
Get the latest Health, Safety and Environmental news and information – sign up for updates from Barbour EHS.
What you’ll get:
- Free downloads including Directors’ Briefings, legislation updates, webinars, risk assessments and more
- VIP invites to events
- Important industry news and updates
- Invitations to hot topic webinars hosted by Barbour
- Industry partner information
Single-use plastics ban – in force
From 1 October 2023, businesses in England must no longer supply, sell or offer certain single-use plastic items in England.
The single-use plastic ban follows on from the existing plastic ban on microbeads in 2018 and single use plastic straws in 2020. In Scotland, there is already a single use plastic ban that came into force in June 2022.
From 1 October, any business in England that relies on single use plastic products in any form must comply with the ban. The ban includes:
- Online and over-the-counter sales and supply.
- Items from new and existing stock.
- All types of single-use plastic, including biodegradable, compostable and recycled.
- Items wholly or partly made from plastic, including coating or lining.
“Single use” means the item is meant to be used only once for its original purpose.
If a business continues to supply banned single-use plastics after 1 October, it could be fined. Local authorities will carry out inspections to ensure the rules are being followed.
There are some exemptions to the ban, depending on the item.
Businesses can still supply single-use plastic plates, bowls, and trays if either of the following apply:
- It is supplying them to another business.
- The items are packaging (pre-filled or filled at the point of sale).
A business must not supply ready-to-consume food and drink in polystyrene containers. This includes in polystyrene cups. Polystyrene means expanded and extruded polystyrene. However, a business may still supply food or drink in polystyrene containers if it needs further preparation before it is consumed. For example, further preparation could mean:
- adding water
- microwaving
- toasting.
There are no exemptions to the ban on cutlery and balloon sticks.
This is valid as of 2nd October 2023.
Sign-up to the Barbour Monthly Newsletter
Get the latest Health, Safety and Environmental news and information – sign up for updates from Barbour EHS.
What you’ll get:
- Free downloads including Directors’ Briefings, legislation updates, webinars, risk assessments and more
- VIP invites to events
- Important industry news and updates
- Invitations to hot topic webinars hosted by Barbour
- Industry partner information
Construction firm fined £700,000 after worker crushed to death
A construction company has been fined £700,000 over safety failings after one of its employees was crushed by a dumper truck.
John Cameron, 61, from Tyne and Wear, was working for BAM Nuttall during the building of an electricity sub-station at Blackhillock, near Keith in Moray. He died after his legs became trapped under a passing truck.
Inverness Sheriff Court was told how he had been fitting a new blade to a specialist saw when the accident happened. Fiscal depute Gavin Callaghan told Sheriff Gary Aitken there was a safe place where Mr Cameron could have carried out his work, but it was not clearly designated.
Mr Callaghan said: “Mr Cameron was left to his own devices. What he did and where he did it was not safe but that is no criticism of Mr Cameron. No-one from BAM challenged him and there had been no risk planning.
“It is not suggested that BAM had a cavalier attitude towards health and safety and it is tragic that an oversight has such terrible consequences.”
BAM Nuttall admitted failing to make a suitable risk assessment in the task of repair and replacement of equipment on site and the risk of vehicles and pedestrians coming into contact with each other.
It also failed to provide a system of work that could be carried out safely and which segregated persons from vehicles.
Murdo MacLeod, QC for BAM Nuttall, said there had been a last-minute design change to the area where Mr Cameron was working and admitted no arrangements had been made for a risk assessment at such short notice.
He said: “The company recognise that it was unacceptable that he should have been left to his own devices and greater care should have been taken to secure that area. The company has left no stone unturned since the accident and new zonal working systems have been introduced.”
Mr MacLeod added: “The company want to formally record its sincere regret to the family as Mr Cameron was an experienced, highly valued and popular employee.”
Passing sentence, Sheriff Aitken recorded his condolences to family members in court and added: “No-one ever thinks that a loved one going to work won’t come home.”
He said it was not the court’s function to try and put a value on a person’s life but to punish a company in the only way it could by a fine.
This is valid as of 17th June 2021.
Do you understand the Fire and Building Safety Bills?
If not, then our webinar is perfect for you. Our expert speakers discuss in detail what these bills mean for you and your business and how you can be best prepared for them.
Construction firm fined after workers exposed to asbestos
A construction company has been fined after workers were exposed to asbestos whilst refurbishing a flat in St John’s Wood, Westminster.
Between 14 May and 31 August 2018, ASAI Construction Ltd, the Principal Contractor for the project, failed to obtain a Refurbishment and Demolition asbestos survey prior to commencing work on site.
During the project ASAI Construction Ltd was made aware by a subcontractor that there was asbestos containing material (ACM) within the flat, however the company allowed work to continue and failed to ensure that the ACMs were removed safely. As a result, several people were exposed to asbestos fibres over a prolonged period.
Investigating, the HSE found that ASAI Construction Ltd failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent the people working on site being exposed to asbestos.
ASAI Construction Ltd of Harrowdene Road, Wembley pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company has been fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,837.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Owen Rowley said: “There are currently more than 5,000 asbestos-related deaths each year in the UK. Any asbestos on site should be identified before refurbishment or demolition work takes place and suitable steps must be taken to control the risk of exposure.
“In this case ASAI Construction Ltd’s failure to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos was compounded by their lack of response when concerns were raised regarding its presence on site.”
This is valid as of 21st May 2021.
A construction company has been fined after workers were exposed to asbestos whilst refurbishing a flat in St John’s Wood, Westminster. Between 14 May and 31 August 2018, ASAI Construction Ltd, the Principal Contractor for the project, failed to obtain a Refurbishment and Demolition asbestos survey prior to commencing work on site. During the project ASAI Construction Ltd was made aware by a subcontractor that there was asbestos containing material (ACM) within the flat, however the company allowed work to continue and failed to ensure that the ACMs were removed safely. As a result, several people were exposed to asbestos fibres over a prolonged period. Investigating, the HSE found that ASAI Construction Ltd failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent the people working on site being exposed to asbestos. ASAI Construction Ltd of Harrowdene Road, Wembley pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company has been fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,837. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Owen Rowley said: “There are currently more than 5,000 asbestos-related deaths each year in the UK. Any asbestos on site should be identified before refurbishment or demolition work takes place and suitable steps must be taken to control the risk of exposure. “In this case ASAI Construction Ltd’s failure to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos was compounded by their lack of response when concerns were raised regarding its presence on site.” This is valid as of 21st May 2021.
£1.5 million following ORR prosecution after death of employee
Tyne Wear Metro operator, Nexus, has been fined £1.5 million after pleading guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974., for failing to ensure the safety of staff.
The fine follows the death of a Nexus employee at the company’s South Gosforth depot in July 2014.
John Bell died while working at height carrying out maintenance work on high voltage overhead cables. He was electrocuted after contacting a wire he believed to be isolated from the power supply, but, due to the incorrect installation of equipment, it was in fact live.
In its investigation, industry regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) found safety critical procedures were ignored and some continued for a substantial period after Mr Bell’s death.
This included:
- failures to allow work to be carried out without the appropriate instructions for staff to prevent injury
- work being undertaken without the required safety critical permits
- serious inadequacies in policy documents covering ‘live line working’, which failed to include a requirement for staff to test all electrical wires before carrying out work.
ORR found lessons were not learned over a number of years and problems persisted despite the death of Mr Bell, putting people at risk for a substantial period thereafter.
Ian Prosser CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Railways at ORR, said: “Nexus’ working practices were poor and continued so for a long time. This meant Nexus did not have the right measures in place to assess whether the Metro was being maintained safely.
“It is a fundamental safety requirement to test electrical equipment before any work takes place, but the failure to review and monitor safety critical systems meant that lessons were not learned.
“This sadly contributed to the events which caused the death of Mr Bell. Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Mr Bell and I hope this result brings them some peace.”
Nexus agreed the failures involved were a significant cause of the death of Mr Bell.
In his remarks, His Honour Judge Spragg said the case was an avoidable tragedy of a much loved man and that Nexus should have prevented such a state of affairs from arising and continuing.
Nexus were fined £1.5 million and ordered to pay £172,390.98 in costs at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court on 23 April.
This is valid as of 8th May 2021.
Download the Legal Registers Directors Briefing
If you are looking to draft your legal registers and want to ensure everything is correct then download our director's briefing on legal registers to ensure you set them correctly.
Cameron House Hotel – Fatal Accident Inquiry Decision
(Scotland)
Following a thorough investigation and criminal prosecution leading to the conviction of two parties Crown Counsel, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, have decided not to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths of Richard Dyson and Simon Midgley at Cameron House Hotel in December 2017.
The multi-agency investigation carried out by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), West Dunbartonshire Council and Police Scotland was overseen by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
These investigations led to criminal prosecutions in which Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Limited and Christopher O’Malley admitted responsibility for the fatal fire.
The purpose of a Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death and to establish what lessons can be learned for the future in order to minimise the risk of future deaths in similar circumstances.
Crown Counsel are satisfied that the reasons for this tragedy have been established and that the circumstances of the deaths were publicly identified during the prosecution process. The sheriff’s sentencing statements from these cases are published and provide an account of the events of the fire and the failings which were admitted.
In addition, Crown Counsel note that SFRS will engage with the accommodation sector to highlight the investigation and the tragic outcomes from the incident at the Cameron House Hotel and that this approach will be shared with UK Fire and Rescue Services to inform best practice.
In light of these judicial findings and safety review, and the detailed understanding available to SFRS of the events around the fire, Crown Counsel concluded that the public interest would not be further served by an FAI as the purpose of such an inquiry has already been met.
Alistair Duncan, head of the Health and Safety Investigation Unit of COPFS, said: “COPFS appreciates the impact the fire has had on the families and friends of Mr Dyson and Mr Midgley and many other people who were at the hotel that night.
“The nearest relatives of those who lost their lives have been provided with detailed reasons for the decision not to hold an FAI and our thoughts are with them at this time.”
This is valid as of 4th May 2021.
Do you understand the Fire and Building Safety Bills?
If not, then our webinar is perfect for you. Our expert speakers discuss in detail what these bills mean for you and your business and how you can be best prepared for them.
Scotland’s roadmap out of lockdown
The reopening of Scotland’s economy – including shops, bars, restaurants, gyms and hairdressers – is expected to start in the last week of April, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced last week.
There would be a “progressive easing” of restrictions before then, with four people from two households allowed to meet outdoors from 15 March. All primary and more secondary school pupils could return from that date. It is hoped to lift the stay at home restriction on 5 April.
There is likely to be a gap of at least three weeks between each easing of restrictions to assess the impact of changes, and to check that it is safe to proceed further using the six conditions for safe easing set out by the World Health Organisation.
Four phases
Phase 1: (commenced 22 February) early learning and childcare and schools open for Primary 1-3 pupils and senior phase pupils for essential practical work. Limited increase in the provision for vulnerable children. Care homes opening to facilitate meaningful contact between relatives/ friends and residents.
Phase 2: (unlikely before 15 March) – more school reopening – Non-contact outdoor group sports for 12-17 year olds. Socialising rules eased, to allow outdoor meetings of 4 people from 2 households.
Phase 3: (at least three weeks later – possibly 5 April) stay-at-Home requirement removed. Third and final phase of schools reopening if required. Places of worship can open on a restricted numbers basis. Essential retailers list expanded slightly and click-and-collect resumes for non-essential retail.
Phase 4: (possibly 26 April) limited other easing within Level 4, including permitting non-essential work in people’s homes. Return to variable Levels approach. This will enable the graduated opening up of economic and social activity.
The six conditions for safe easing set out by the World Health Organisation are:
- COVID-19 transmission is under control
- sufficient health systems and public health capabilities are in place
- outbreak risks are minimised in vulnerable settings
- workplace preventative measures are established
- risk of imported cases are managed
- communities are fully engaged.
This is valid as of 3rd March 2021.
How to support your employee's mental health during COVID-19
The "New Normal" has been a hard adjustment for us all and forced us into new situations. If you notice that some of your employees are struggling but don't know where to start, then watch our free webinar. Our speakers will provide you with some key action points that you can use that not only help in the short-term but will be beneficial in the future.
Environment Bill delayed again
The Environment Bill, which was due to return to Parliament on 26 January, has been delayed again. Defra has said the latest delay is due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
After a brief return to Parliament in November 2020, the Bill was put on hold once again in December 2020.
The Bill was finally due to return to Parliament last week for the report stage however the Government took it off the agenda and confirmed that it will be rolled over into the next Parliamentary session.
Green groups and trade bodies, while sympathetic to the challenges facing the department, are concerned that the delay sends the wrong message in the year of COP26. There are also concerns about the UK’s ability to deliver against the aims of related policy packages, like the Agriculture Bill and 25-Year Environment Plan, without the Environment Bill as a foundation.
Simon Alcock, head of public affairs at ClientEarth, said: “The Prime Minister promised the Environment Bill would be a flagship bill of this Parliament yet the Government has completely failed to get it through this session. As the UK prepares to host COP 26, this is deeply embarrassing and undermines its credibility.
“Rather than taking the opportunity to legislate to better protect the environment and people’s health, the Government is once again delaying any progress.
“This delay means a further extended period in which the Government and public authorities are not being adequately held to account over their compliance with environmental law. That will be almost a whole year of the Government avoiding any proper scrutiny.
“The quality of the air that we breathe, the water we drink and the nature we enjoy will all be put at risk because of this incompetent and frustrating delay.”
This is valid as of 2nd February 2021.
Are you prepared for the "ground-breaking" environment act in 2021?
If not, then we can help! We identify some of the key planned environmental changes in 2021 including the following:
- The Environment Bill: Is this the “ground-breaking” legislation the Government has promised?
- UK REACH: the new regime for chemicals regulation
- Carbon law: the return of UK ETS and the growing focus on carbon reporting
- Air quality, water quality and waste management: a new approach post Brexit?
What you’ll get: 
