HSE | Fitzpatrick Fabrications Ltd, a sheet metal fabrication company in Lancashire, has been fined £48,000 after an employee lost part of his right thumb and suffered a crush injury to his hand during a manual handling task.

On 24 October 2024, at around 11:30am, Mr Todd Marshall, a welder/fabricator, was working at the Fitzpatrick Fabrications factory at Malvern Mill, Nelson. The job involved welding and fabricating large pieces of stainless steel to form a finished hopper.

The hopper consisted of five component parts, which needed to be welded together. When each side of the hopper was welded, it needed to be lifted and repositioned so the next side could be welded.

Mr Marshall was carrying out this task on his own, holding the larger side of the 133kg hopper in the air while the smaller side rested on a desk. The hopper slipped on the smooth desk and came down onto his hand, causing a crush injury and partial loss of his right thumb.

The HSE’s investigation found that the company had not conducted a risk assessment for the task and no safe system of work was in place. As a result, workers had not been given clear instructions on how to perform the task safely.

Upon further investigation, HSE found that a near-identical incident had occurred in the days leading up to this one.

In a statement, Mr Marshall said: “Things I used to do without thinking are now hard for me. I need two hands to do something as simple as pick up small things. I struggle fastening buttons or zips. I was an amateur boxer before my injury. Boxing was my whole life. It wasn’t just a pastime or hobby. I think I could have gone further with it, but now I’ll never know.”

Fitzpatrick Fabrications Ltd, of Malvern Mill, Waterford Street, Nelson, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The company was fined £48,000 and ordered to pay £10,089 in costs.

HSE Inspector Derek McLauchlan said: “This was a wholly preventable incident which has had a profound and long-lasting impact on Todd Marshall’s life, made more shocking by the fact a near-identical incident had taken place just days before.

“Businesses should always give thought to the safest way to undertake manual handling operations; this means carrying out a robust assessment of the risks, and considering tools such as the Manual Handling Assessment Chart (MAC Tool) to help plan the task.

“The company failed in its duty to properly plan this task, and the fine imposed should serve as a clear reminder to everyone that HSE will hold to account those who fail to keep their workers safe.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Tom Ledden-Rocks and paralegal officer Stephen Grabe.

FIA | J&R Real Estate and its sole director, Jagmit Singh Ahudja, have been found guilty of offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Order) following a prosecution brought by East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service on behalf of East Sussex Fire Authority.

The prosecution followed an investigation by East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service into fire safety arrangements at premises in York Gardens, Hastings, which form part of Queens Arcade.

During the investigation, an authorised fire safety inspector exercised powers under Article 27 of the Fire Safety Order. These powers allow inspectors to enter and inspect premises, make enquiries and request relevant information and documentation where necessary to enforce fire safety legislation.

Brighton and Hove Magistrates’ Court heard that Ahudja, the sole director of J&R Real Estate, which owns the freehold of the premises, failed to provide information and documents requested by an authorised inspector, without reasonable excuse.

Following the investigation, both J&R Real Estate and Ahudja were charged with offences under Articles 32(2)(e) and 32(8) of the Order.

The case highlights the importance of understanding and complying with legal obligations under the Order.

Responsible Persons, including building owners, employers and others with control of premises, must ensure they understand their duties and take appropriate steps to maintain fire safety. This includes implementing suitable fire safety arrangements and cooperating with authorised fire safety inspectors carrying out their statutory responsibilities.

Failure to comply with these requirements can result in enforcement action and criminal prosecution.

Both J&R Real Estate and Ahudja have been found guilty of the offences. Sentencing will take place on 8 November.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service | Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) has successfully prosecuted a landlord and his company after serious fire safety failings were identified at two residential properties, placing occupants at significant risk.

Jamie Carter and JC Land Investments Limited were sentenced following convictions for multiple breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Mr Carter pleaded guilty to 11 offences and JC Land Investments Limited pleaded guilty to nine offences relating to fire safety failures at Belgrave Chapel, Darwen, and Victoria Hall, Bacup.

Fire safety officers from Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service inspected Victoria Hall in October 2021 and identified significant fire safety deficiencies. An Enforcement Notice was subsequently issued. Four weeks later, a Prohibition Notice was issued at Belgrave Chapel after further serious safety concerns were identified.

Both premises were occupied at the time of inspection, with deficiencies that could have prevented residents from escaping quickly and safely in the event of a fire.

The offences included failures to:

  • Take adequate fire safety precautions to protect tenants.
  • Carry out suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments.
  • Provide and maintain appropriate fire detection and alarm systems.
  • Ensure occupants could evacuate the premises safely.
  • Maintain effective fire evacuation procedures.
  • Comply with Enforcement and Prohibition Notices.
  • Implement effective fire safety management arrangements.

Examples of the deficiencies identified by fire safety officers included obstructed escape routes, damaged fire doors, missing fire-resisting glazing, inadequate fire detection measures and fire alarm systems that were either switched off or without power.

As a result of the investigation, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service prosecuted both Mr Carter and JC Land Investments Limited for failing to comply with the Fire Safety Order and the associated enforcement action taken by the Service.

Mr Carter entered guilty pleas in August 2025 and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. He was also fined £8,652 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £156.

JC Land Investments Limited was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £190.

In addition, Mr Carter and JC Land Investments Limited were ordered to pay a combined total of £37,293.70 in costs to Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service.

Ian Armistead, Group Manager for Protection at Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, said: “Mr Jamie Carter, as the responsible person for these premises and sole director of JC Land Investments, has a legal obligation to ensure that those using the premises are provided with a safe environment. We hope this prosecution reinforces the importance of maintaining properties in accordance with fire safety legislation and the standards required by law.

“As part of our ongoing commitment to making Lancashire safer, our fire safety enforcement teams continue to identify and address premises that present significant fire safety risks. We hope this case, which has resulted in a substantial sentence, sends a strong message that fire safety must remain a priority at all times. In this instance, inadequate fire safety measures and poor management had the potential to lead to serious injury or loss of life, leaving us with no alternative but to pursue enforcement action.

“Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service remains committed to working with those who are willing to address fire safety concerns, and businesses can be confident that we will continue to provide support to help them meet the requirements of the Fire Safety Order.

“We would encourage responsible persons with fire safety responsibilities to review their fire safety arrangements and ensure they comply with all relevant regulations. Advice and guidance on meeting legal responsibilities can be found in the Business Safety section of our website.”

HSE | An Oxfordshire-based construction company has been fined £120,000 after a carpenter died when he fell through an unsafe first floor while carrying out refurbishment work.

W G Carter Limited, of Appleton, was sentenced following the death of 59-year-old Richard “Felix” Roper, who fell from height while working at a domestic property in Gloucestershire.

Mr Roper, a father of two, had been carrying out work on the first floor of Manor Barn House, Nether Westcote, on 30 August 2022, where extensive repairs were being undertaken to replace rotten floor joists and floorboards.

He had been tasked with replacing damaged floor joists while other workers removed sections of flooring in the same area. Large parts of the first-floor structure had been stripped back, leaving open gaps between joists. In addition, some joists were either missing altogether or had not been secured.

It was while working in these conditions, Mr Roper fell from the first floor to the concrete ground floor below. He sustained severe head injuries and died in hospital the following day.

A joint investigation by the HSE and Gloucestershire Police found that the work at height had not been properly planned, appropriately supervised, or carried out safely. The investigation identified several serious failings. Workers, including Mr Roper, were able to access areas of the first floor where flooring and structural supports had been removed, despite there being insufficient measures in place to prevent falls. At the same time, other workers were continuing to remove floorboards, creating and increasing the risk of falling from height.

Following the incident, HSE served a Prohibition Notice, stopping further work at height until adequate safety measures had been introduced.

The investigation found that W G Carter Limited had failed to adequately plan the work and implement suitable measures to prevent workers from falling. After the incident, the company adopted a safer method of working, installing floor joists from below using appropriate work-at-height equipment and preventing access to the first floor while the work was being undertaken.

W G Carter Limited, of 81A Eaton Road, Appleton, Oxfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,247.

HSE principal inspector James Lucas said: “Due to the failings of this company, a man lost his life.

“Every year, workers are killed or suffer life-changing injuries because work at height has not been properly planned or suitable safeguards have not been put in place. Had appropriate controls been in place, Felix’s death could have been prevented.”

“Our thoughts remain with Felix’s family. He was a valued colleague and a much-loved father of two who lost his life in circumstances that should never have arisen.”

The prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Gemma Zakrzewski, enforcement advocate Rowena Goodwin and paralegal officer Hannah Snelling.

HSE | A sole trader has been sentenced after his stepson was fatally electrocuted while working on a domestic property in Chester.

Daniel Watton, 50, trading as Inside Out Painters and Decorators Property Maintenance, was given a suspended jail sentence in relation to the death of trainee painter Connor Lambert. The 24-year-old, from Market Drayton, died after coming into contact with electricity, when a ladder was being moved near overhead power lines. He had been working at the house in Farndon on 29 July 2024 when the incident occurred.

The HSE’s investigation found that Connor had been moving a fully extended ladder with a colleague at the gable end of the property. During this process, the ladder either came into contact with an overhead power line or came close enough for an electrical arc to form. While Connor was killed, his colleague suffered burns to his hands, feet, and stomach.

The investigation also found the work at height had not been properly planned, supervised, or carried out safely. The selected equipment and methods of work were unsuitable for the task and the risks associated with working near overhead power lines had not been adequately assessed or controlled. Additionally, the investigation identified issues in relation to the training and competence of those carrying out the work.

The original plan of work involved using a tower scaffold and ladders to paint the exterior of the property, including an area with a glass canopy; however, this approach was neither suitable nor safe. In practice, the work deviated from this plan, with ladders used throughout. This method was approved by Daniel Watton, but was also unsuitable and unsafe as demonstrated by the fatal incident.

Daniel Watton, of Bean Bank, Wollerton, Market Drayton, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was sentenced to 16 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £10,645 in costs.

Connor had been expecting his first child with partner Megan McCann at the time, and she described him as having the ‘cheekiest grin’ and being someone who loved family life. She said: “Connor was amazing. He had the cheekiest grin and would light up any room he was in – he was so funny. He was a caring person who always put everyone else first. He was very ambitious and he was an avid Arsenal fan. He went to loads of matches with my father and brother. He was a happy person who loved family life.

“We had been trying for our own family for three years and he was over the moon when we found out I was pregnant.He never missed a midwife appointment and was elated when we found out we were having a baby girl. We had been on the phone talking the morning he died – I had just taken delivery of a moses basket and I was heavily pregnant at 32 weeks.

“But within minutes I got another phone call to say there had been accident and Connor was dead. I never thought I would have buried the love of my life and then given birth to our daughter 23 days later.She knows daddy is in the sky and at night he shines as a star – I’m making sure she knows who Connor is, but at some point I will have to explain to her what happened. I will never get over Connor’s death – I still feel angry, numb and feel a massive part of my world has gone.”

HSE inspector Keeley Eves said: “This tragic incident meant a father never got to meet and hold his baby daughter. The fact it could and should have been prevented with proper planning and control measures, makes it all the more stark.

“Work at height and work near overhead power lines are both high-risk activities. Employers must ensure that suitable equipment is selected, risks are fully assessed, and workers are adequately trained and supervised. The very lives of those workers depend on these decisions.

“Our thoughts remain with all of Connor’s loved ones.”

HSE | Transport for London (TfL) has been convicted and fined £2 million after a 74-year-old woman was struck by a bus and killed while using a pedestrian crossing at Walthamstow Bus Station.

Mrs Grace Mecaley was walking home after shopping on Walthamstow High Street on 15 December 2023 when she was struck by a double-decker bus.

At around 5pm, Mrs Mecaley was crossing the road from Rose Bank Villas at an authorised pedestrian crossing. She was around two-thirds of the way across when a number 212 bus rounded the corner and struck her. Mrs Mecaley suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The HSE’s investigation found that TfL had failed to ensure pedestrians and vehicles could circulate safely at the bus station.

The crossing was positioned at the apex of a bend, where buses turned into the station. Its position and the angle at which buses approached meant drivers could turn towards the crossing without a clear view of its full length.

The ‘red carpet’ crossing was intended to give pedestrians priority. However, the layout created ambiguity over right of way and increased the risk of a collision.

TfL’s failure to manage the risks at the crossing persisted for years, according to the HSE. Despite a pedestrian being struck by a bus in similar circumstances in April 2022, TfL failed to risk assess the crossing. CCTV footage also captured five near misses in the two days before Mrs Mecaley was killed.

HSE’s investigation also found TfL had failed to adequately monitor bus drivers operating at the station.

Transport for London (TfL) of 5 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace Health, Safety, and Welfare Regulations 1992.

TfL was fined £2 million and ordered to pay £5,081 in costs.

Speaking at Westminster Magistrates’ Court HSE Inspector Laurence Goodacre said: “Our deepest sympathies remain with Grace’s family who are represented here by her son. Grace was a vibrant member of her community and her loss will be deeply felt.

“Grace was simply walking home after shopping when she was struck and killed while using an authorised pedestrian crossing.

“TfL had a responsibility to keep pedestrians safe, but its failings meant Grace never made it home.

“Grace died just days before Christmas and her family will continue to feel that loss particularly deeply at what should be a happy time of year.

“I hope [this] sentence provides them with some measure of comfort, knowing that those responsible for her death have been held to account.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement Lawyers Rebecca Schwartz and Jon Mack and paralegal officer Thomas Smith.

HSE | Gill Aggregates Limited, which operates a site in Dagenham, East London, has been fined £24,000 after one of its workers was drawn into machinery and suffered fatal crush injuries.

Manjit Kumar, 34, was working as a production operative for Gill Aggregates Limited at its East London Aggregate Depot in Halyard Street, Dagenham, on 24 June 2020, when the incident occurred. He was operating a bag flattening conveyor system forming part of a larger piece of machinery.

Mr Kumar was drawn into the compression conveyor through an opening in the guarding. His colleagues raised the alarm and stopped the machine, and the guarding had to be dismantled so that he could be retrieved. The crush injuries were so significant that he died in hospital a few days later.

The HSE’s investigation found that the company, which provides pre-packed and loose aggregates and haulage services to builders’ merchants and the construction industry, had failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of the machinery. Although a fixed guard was fitted around the compression conveyors, it contained an opening measuring approximately 600mm wide by 335mm high, which allowed access to the dangerous moving parts. Following the incident, further guarding was installed to prevent access to the compression conveyors.

Gill Aggregates Ltd, of Botany Marsh, Lower Road, Northfleet, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £24,000 and ordered to pay a contribution towards costs of £43,000.

HSE Inspector Adepeju Sogadgi said: “This was a tragic incident that resulted in Manjit losing his life.

“The risks associated with dangerous moving machinery are well known. Employers must ensure that effective measures are in place to prevent workers from gaining access to dangerous parts.

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Edward Parton, supported by paralegal Anushka Lulith.

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s increasingly becoming a workplace health and safety challenge that organisations across the world and all sectors need to address.

From rising temperatures and heat stress to flooding, air quality concerns and business disruption, climate-related risks are affecting how organisations protect their people, manage operations and plan for the future.

During our recent webinar with IOSH, Climate Change and its Impact on Health & Safety, attendees submitted more than 70 questions – providing valuable insight into the issues currently occupying the minds of health and safety professionals, employers and dutyholders.

While the discussion covered a broad range of topics, several clear themes emerged.

How is climate change affecting workplace health and safety?

Climate change is creating both new and increased risks for organisations, including:

    • Heat stress and thermal discomfort

    • More frequent extreme weather events

    • Flooding and disruption to operations

    • Air pollution, dust and wildfire smoke exposure

    • Increased risks for outdoor workers

    • Challenges associated with ageing buildings and infrastructure

    • Greater expectations around resilience planning and risk management

The webinar questions demonstrated that organisations have largely moved beyond asking whether climate change affects health and safety. Instead, they are now focused on understanding what practical steps they need to take to protect workers and prepare for future expectations.

Will the UK introduce a maximum workplace temperature?

The most common theme raised by attendees was workplace temperature regulation.

Questions covered:

    • Whether the UK is likely to introduce a maximum workplace temperature

    • Whether any future limits would apply indoors, outdoors or both

    • The practicalities of temperature limits in warehouses, factories and construction environments

    • Implications for employers and dutyholders

    • The role of HSE guidance and consultations

This reflects a growing awareness that hotter summers and more frequent heatwaves are creating new workplace challenges.

Many attendees recognised that a fixed temperature limit may be relatively straightforward in office environments but significantly more difficult to apply in workplaces such as construction sites, transport operations, utility infrastructure, schools, manufacturing facilities and warehouses.

The strong interest in this topic shows that organisations are actively monitoring potential regulatory developments and considering what future compliance requirements could mean for their operations.

How can employers protect workers from heat stress?

Alongside questions about regulation, attendees were keen to understand what organisations can do today to reduce heat-related risks.

Common areas of interest included:

    • Hydration strategies

    • Additional rest breaks

    • Workplace cooling measures

    • Ventilation improvements

    • Building thermal comfort

    • Worker health monitoring

    • Flexible working arrangements

    • Vehicle air conditioning

    • Air filtration technologies

Heat stress is increasingly being viewed as a workplace risk that requires proactive management rather than reactive intervention.

Many organisations are already reviewing how working practices may need to evolve during periods of extreme heat, particularly where workers are exposed for prolonged periods or have limited access to cooled environments.

Practical controls such as altered shift patterns, improved access to drinking water, shaded rest areas and increased worker awareness are becoming increasingly important considerations.

Which workers are most at risk from climate change?

Several questions focused on workers who face particularly challenging operating conditions.

Industries represented included:

    • Construction

    • Utilities

    • Waste and recycling

    • Transport

    • Emergency services

    • Renewables

    • Hazardous materials management

    • Education

A recurring concern was how organisations can protect workers when exposure to heat cannot easily be avoided.

Examples included:

    • Construction workers operating outdoors

    • Ambulance crews working in vehicles and public spaces

    • Waste and recycling operatives

    • Utility workers maintaining critical infrastructure

    • Asbestos removal teams required to wear PPE and RPE

For many organisations, the challenge is balancing operational demands with the need to protect workers from increasingly frequent periods of extreme heat.

How should organisations adapt buildings and infrastructure?

While temperature-related risks dominated the discussion, many attendees were thinking more strategically about climate resilience.

Questions covered:

    • Older buildings and ageing estates

    • Solar shading and passive cooling

    • Flood resilience

    • Extreme rainfall events

    • Dust suppression challenges

    • Long-term infrastructure planning

    • Landlord responsibilities

This reflects a broader shift in thinking from short-term response measures towards long-term adaptation.

As climate-related events become more frequent, organisations are increasingly considering how workplace design, facilities management and business continuity plans can improve resilience and reduce disruption.

For many health and safety professionals, this requires closer collaboration with facilities, estates, procurement and leadership teams to ensure climate-related risks are considered across organisational planning processes.

What are an employer’s legal responsibilities for climate-related risks?

Many attendees sought clarification on legal duties and potential future liabilities.

Questions included:

    • Employer obligations

    • Dutyholder responsibilities

    • Landlord accountability

    • HSE expectations

    • Compensation claims

    • Enforcement activity

    • Future consultations and guidance

As climate-related risks become more prominent, organisations want greater clarity around what constitutes reasonable and proportionate risk management.

There is growing recognition that climate hazards should be assessed and managed in the same way as other workplace risks, particularly where there is foreseeable potential for harm to workers.

What do the climate change updates to ISO standards mean?

Several attendees were interested in the implications of recent climate-related updates to ISO management system standards.

Questions referenced:

    • ISO 45001

    • ISO 14001

    • ISO 9001

The key area of interest was how climate-related risks should be incorporated into existing management systems and organisational risk management processes.

For many organisations, climate change is moving from being a sustainability issue to becoming an operational, strategic and health and safety consideration that influences decision-making across multiple business functions.

Are we focusing too much on heat?

While heat stress dominated the discussion, attendees recognised that climate change presents a much broader range of workplace risks.

Questions were raised about:

    • Flash flooding

    • Air quality and haze events

    • Wildfires

    • Dust exposure

    • Water shortages

    • Severe weather warnings

    • Winter working conditions

    • Glacier-related events and international impacts

This suggests organisations are increasingly looking at climate change through a holistic risk management lens rather than focusing solely on temperature.

Future planning will need to consider a range of climate-related threats that may affect worker safety, operational resilience and business continuity.

Frequently Asked Questions about climate change and workplace safety

Is there a maximum workplace temperature in the UK?

Currently, there is no legally defined maximum workplace temperature in UK legislation. However, employers have a duty to assess and control risks arising from excessive heat and ensure workers’ health, safety and welfare.

Will a maximum workplace temperature be introduced?

This remains a subject of ongoing discussion within the health and safety profession. Interest from employers, trade unions and professional bodies continues to grow as hotter weather becomes more common.

How can employers reduce heat stress?

Potential controls include:

    • Providing shade and cooling areas

    • Increasing access to drinking water

    • Improving ventilation

    • Adjusting work schedules

    • Increasing rest breaks

    • Monitoring workers for signs of heat-related illness

    • Reviewing PPE requirements where appropriate

Which workers may be most vulnerable?

Risk levels will vary depending on the work being undertaken, but higher-risk groups may include:

    • Outdoor workers

    • Construction workers

    • Utilities workers

    • Waste and recycling operatives

    • Transport workers

    • Emergency responders

    • Workers required to wear extensive PPE

What can organisations do now?

The questions raised during the webinar reveal a clear shift in priorities.

Health and safety professionals have moved beyond seeking awareness of climate-related risks and want practical guidance on implementation, compliance and resilience.

Now is a good time for organisations to review:

    • Climate-related workplace risk assessments

    • Arrangements for outdoor and vulnerable workers

    • Heat stress management procedures

    • Emergency response and business continuity plans

    • Building resilience and facilities management strategies

    • ISO management system requirements and climate-related considerations

As climate-related risks continue to evolve, organisations that begin planning now will be better placed to protect their people, maintain operational resilience and respond to future regulatory expectations.

Missed the webinar? Watch the on-demand recording to hear IOSH’s Ruth Wilkinson discuss the practical health and safety implications of climate change, the controls organisations can implement today, and the developments shaping the future of workplace risk management.

HSE | A waste and recycling company in the West Midlands has been fined after a man described as ‘thoughtful and kind’ was killed while discharging a fire extinguisher.

Craig Pearson, 37, a father-of-four from Dudley, was working for Fire Protection Recycling Limited, at its site in Oldbury when the incident happened on 7 March 2023.

He had been processing powder fire extinguishers which were at the end of their serviceable life. While working on a cartridge type fire extinguisher, it had a sudden release of pressure and exploded, striking him in the head. After the incident, the fire extinguisher was found embedded in the ceiling of the workroom.

Craig was treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for his injuries, but despite the efforts of medical staff, sadly died the next day, on 8 March.

An investigation by the HSE found that Fire Protection Recycling Limited failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees while at work and while they were recycling these types of fire extinguishers.

The company had failed to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and their systems of work for processing these types of fire extinguishers were not suitable. They did not have proper storage arrangements for old extinguishers waiting for processing, and there wasn’t a suitable restraint system for containing fire extinguishers when they were being discharged, to prevent them ejecting dangerous parts.

Fire Protection Recycling Limited, of Pearsall Drive, Oldbury, West Midlands, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £17,034.25 in costs.

HSE inspector Heather Campbell said: “Our thoughts today are with the family of Craig Pearson, a young dad of four.

“He should have returned home safely to his family at the end of his working day but because of the failings of Fire Protection Recycling Limited, he did not.

“I hope the verdict handed down leaves companies in no doubt that we will not hesitate to take action against those that fail to protect their employees.”

Craig leaves behind his fiancée Rachelle, siblings John and Cheryl, and his four children. His fiancé Rachelle said: “Craig was bubbly, Mr funny and adventurous. There was never a day where we didn’t laugh. He was thoughtful, kind and always thought about my needs and was helpful to others.

“I often sit and wonder what life would be like if Craig was here now. Would we be married? What would we be doing together? I take each day as it comes. I try my best to keep life as normal as possible and do my best to ensure my children are happy.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Lynne Thomas.

HSE | A domestic house builder in Sowerby Bridge has been fined after a labourer sustained serious spinal injuries when he fell one storey onto concrete through a stairwell opening.

It was only his second week on the job when Mr Joseph Tuck, 24, a father of one, stepped backwards and fell through an opening intended for a staircase that had not yet been installed. He was working as a temporary labourer for a scaffolding company in January 2024 at a site of four new domestic dwellings being constructed by Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd.

The stairwell opening had not been securely covered (previous loose scaffold boards had been removed) and the open edges were not protected. There were no alternative means of accessing the sub-floor and West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue and the HART team had to rescue Mr. Tuck who had fallen unconscious. He sustained serious spinal injuries which prevented him from working for months after the incident and has not returned to a physical job since.

The HSE’s investigation found that Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd had failed to put adequate measures in place to prevent falls from height, resulting in Mr Tuck falling through an unprotected stairwell opening and suffering life-changing injuries.

Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd formerly of 1 Bretton Place, Otley Road, Guiseley, Leeds LS20 8FL was found guilty on three charges.They failed to properly plan and appropriately supervise work at height and to take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent a fall.The company was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £9,284.05 in costs.

HSE Inspector Louise Redgrove said: “Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of death in the construction industry, accounting for around a quarter of all fatal injuries to workers each year.

“This was a wholly avoidable incident caused by basic failures in planning and supervision. The stairwell opening was not adequately protected, and simple measures such as securing the scaffold boards or installing edge protection would have prevented Mr Tuck from falling and sustaining serious spinal injuries.

“This fine should serve as a clear reminder to the construction industry that both the courts and HSE take breaches of health and safety law extremely seriously.

“HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action where employers fail to take the necessary steps to protect workers from harm.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Henrietta Ruthven.

Consolidated Login

Comprehensive Login