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.

HSE | Two companies have been fined a combined £1.3 million after a window unit fell from the 26th floor of a luxury development in London, killing a coach driver on his break as he walked below.

Two of the companies involved in the design of the bespoke windows in the Corniche development on the capital’s Albert Embankment (with one weighing 130kg) falling 300 feet to the ground below, killing the 53-year-old father and grandfather instantly.

The incident happened at around 10.30am on 2 October 2018. Mick Ferris had been on a break and was just returning to his coach, which was parked up nearby.

St James Limited, part of the Berkeley Group, had been the developer of the Corniche, a three tower luxury development near Vauxhall Bridge, as well as the Principal Contractor and Principal Designer. Lindner Prater Limited was a specialist company engaged by St James to design the penthouse windows.

Series of failures

At an early stage of the design process, the windows had been changed from opening inwards to opening outwards, meaning if they detached, they would fall onto a pedestrian area.However, they were never effectively risk assessed.

The safety of the windows relied on the performance of a single restrictor, held in by a single screw, and none of the fittings had been confirmed by their manufacturers to be suitable for the bespoke curved penthouse windows.

In August 2017, more than a year before the fatal incident, a window left open in windy conditions fell from the same penthouses during construction, nearly hitting two workers. St James Limited led an internal review into the 2017 near miss, but records obtained by the HSE showed key noted areas of concern were not followed up effectively.

It was only after the second incident in 2018 and Mr Ferris’ death, that the windows were redesigned to open inward and the public walking below the penthouses were no longer at risk if a window was left open.

Sentence

After a five week trial, both St James Limited, of Berkeley House, 19 Portsmouth Road, Cobham and Lindner Prater Limited of 45 London Road, Reigate, were found guilty found guilty to contravening Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974.

At sentencing, St James was fined £1million and ordered to pay costs of £125,000 and Lindner Prater Limited was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £125,000.

HSE lead inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers said: “Two companies – widely seen as leaders in their fields failed to respond to an obvious risk, and tragically this cost the life of a man simply going about his day. Both times a window fell, the wind speeds were not unusually high.

“Even after a window had fallen in 2017, luckily just missing workers below, sufficient attention was not given to assessing the risk of the windows detaching and falling if left open in windy conditions. Too much reliance was placed on adding a small sign to the windows, in effect hoping the residents would not forget to close windows.”

“The construction industry should pay attention to this tragic case. Principal designers need to pay careful attention to clarifying exactly what services architects, designers, and consultants will provide, and then effectively monitor their performance to ensure related risks are identified and coordinate necessary improvements.

“The investigation assessed the involvement of multiple companies, thousands of documents, and highly complex technical evidence. This was followed by the wait for a Trial.

“We are grateful for Mr Ferris’ family’s understanding throughout and hope this outcome brings them some closure.”

Mick’s wife Rachel described his death as being ‘so sudden’ and ‘out of the blue: “It has made it so much worse to get used to,” she said.

“Mick was just minding his own business. One minute there, one minute gone. The thought this could have happened to anybody is always with me. It could have been a child.

“The fact this could have been prevented, I just can’t explain. If somebody had done something differently – anything – it would have changed our lives.

“I know it wasn’t just one person, but one person could have changed this. One person could have asked ‘can’t we do this better?’.

“What those companies did killed my husband. This has changed our lives. It has changed my whole outlook on everything. My life has changed forever.

“We were due to fly to the Maldives the Saturday after Mick died to celebrate our anniversary. We had half-packed suitcases in our house. It was a bucket list place for Mick and he never got to go there. We never got to go there.

“He was also a great dad and grandad – when his kids needed him, he was there. He loved driving coaches, having followed in his own Dad’s footsteps as a professional driver. Four hundred people attended his funeral – there was even a coach with his name on it. He is missed by so many it is unbelievable.”

The HSE’s investigation was carried out by HM Inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers and HM Principal Inspector James Goldfinch, and the prosecution brought by Counsel Gordon Menzies and Doug Scott, HSE Senior Enforcement Lawyer James Towey, and paralegal officer Gabrielle O’Sullivan.

HSE | A spring and stampings manufacturing company has been fined £40,000 after an employee fractured twelve ribs during a lifting operation in Worcestershire.

The 36-year-old employee suffered multiple rib fractures while working at Micro Spring and Presswork Company Limited when the incident occurred on 24 June 2024.

He had been assisting with the lifting of a newly purchased pillar drill using a forklift truck at the company’s site on Enfield Industrial Estate, Redditch.

The pillar drill, which weighed approximately 500kg, became unstable during the operation and fell, striking the employee and causing serious injuries.

The HSE’s investigation found that Micro Spring and Presswork Company Limited had failed to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks associated with the lifting operation.

The investigation also found that the company had failed to ensure the lifting operation was properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner.

Micro Spring and Presswork Company Limited, of Enfield Industrial Estate, Redditch, Worcestershire, 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 £5,032 in costs.

HSE inspector Charlie Rowe said: “This was a serious incident which has resulted in significant injury and was entirely preventable.

“Employers should always ensure lifting operations are properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised, and carried out in a safe manner. This firm’s failure to do so has had dramatic consequences.

“HSE has produced a wealth of guidance to assist employers in keeping people safe, but where companies fall short we will not hesitate to take action.”

The prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Julian White and supported by paralegal officer Farhat Basir.

HSE | A fish processing company has been fined £451,500 after a supervisor suffered multiple fractures and two collapsed lungs when he became entangled in a palletiser machine at its Lerwick plant.

Pelagia Shetland Limited, of Point of Scattland, Gremista, Lerwick, pleaded guilty to health and safety failings following the incident.

On 10 October 2024, Curtis New, a 41-year-old forklift supervisor was called to clear a blockage and, finding an interlocking safety gate difficult to open, removed a panel and entered the machine area. As he walked along the stationary conveyor to reach the blockage, he triggered a sensor which restarted the machine, and he was struck repeatedly by its pushers before a colleague hit an emergency stop button.

Mr New was treated at the scene by first aiders before being airlifted to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, where he spent 10 days in intensive care and a further 10 days in a high dependency unit. He suffered eight fractured ribs, a pelvis fractured in five places, a fractured clavicle and scapula, and two collapsed lungs. He was later transferred to Gilbert Bain Hospital for rehabilitation and has since said he does not wish to return to his role.

Investigating, HSE inspectors found that perimeter safety fencing around the machine, designed to isolate its power supply whenever the interlocking safety gate was opened, had become insecure after a panel was damaged.

The gate had been struck by a forklift truck in early 2024, damaging its locking mechanism and making it difficult to open. Rather than use the gate, two senior staff, including Mr New, had taken to removing the loose panel to clear frequent blockages in the machine, without isolating the power first.

Pelagia Shetland reported the incident to the HSE on the day it happened and following an investigation, the company reinstated its perimeter fencing so that the gate is now the only means of accessing the machine. They also updated safety practices to make clear that staff must never bypass safety barriers, on pain of disciplinary action.

Pelagia Shetland Limited, of Point of Scattland, Gremista, Lerwick, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 11 (1) and (2) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £420,000 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £31,500.

HSE inspector Matty Spiers said: “This was a wholly avoidable incident that left a man with life-threatening injuries, and it happened because a basic, well-understood safety control was allowed to fail.

“Interlocking guards exist for one reason: to stop people reaching dangerous machinery while it’s still live. When that gate was damaged, it should have been repaired properly and its integrity restored immediately, not left in a state where a determined employee could simply lift out a panel and walk into a hazardous area.

“Curtis New is fortunate to be alive. He suffered catastrophic injuries carrying out a task that should never have been possible without the machine being isolated first.

“Employers have a legal duty to make sure guarding and interlock systems are properly maintained, and that any weakness is identified and corrected without delay. This isn’t a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise, it’s what stands between a workforce and a serious, life-changing injury.”

HSE | A scrap metal recycling company has been fined after two members of the public were injured when a large pile of scrap metal collapsed onto them at its site in Scunthorpe.

PPS Metal Recycling Ltd pleaded guilty after failing to protect members of the public from risks at its site.

On 6 February 2025, a father and son were unloading scrap metal when a 360-degree excavator fitted with a grab attachment was operating nearby. As the machine removed material from a large stockpile of scrap metal a part of the pile collapsed, causing heavy pieces of scrap to fall onto the two. Both were taken to hospital following the incident and one sustained a broken leg.

The HSE’s investigation found that the excavator had been operating in close proximity to members of the public for around 20 minutes before the incident. The company had failed to put suitable controls in place to prevent members of the public from being exposed to the risks created by moving machinery and unstable stockpiles.

The HSE also identified that this incident followed an earlier near miss on 27 January 2025, when the rotating cab of the same excavator struck the side of a member of the public’s vehicle as they unloaded scrap. Although no one was harmed during the earlier incident, the underlying failures were the same.

Following the incident, the HSE served a Prohibition Notice preventing the excavator from operating close to pedestrians. The company subsequently introduced a separate area for public unloading, installed signage, implemented a supervised unloading system and developed a traffic management plan incorporating barriered walkways.

PPS Metal Recycling Ltd was sentenced after previously pleading guilty at a hearing on 30 July 2026 to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,181.

HSE Inspector Joe Fitzgerald, who led the investigation, said: “These two members of the public were fortunate not to have been even more seriously injured or killed.

“This incident was entirely avoidable. Members of the public should not have been exposed to the risks created by heavy machinery and unstable stockpiles.

“Employers must ensure effective arrangements are in place to segregate pedestrians from workplace transport and mobile plant. Had suitable controls been implemented, this incident and the earlier near miss would not have occurred.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by enforcement lawyer Iain Jordan, paralegal officer Henrietta Ruthven, and advocacy was undertaken by enforcement lawyer Arfaq Nabi.

HSE | A clinical waste disposal company has been fined £300,000 after one of its workers severed his arm from the elbow down while unblocking machinery in Swindon.

The man – who was 42 at the time – had been working his usual night shift at Tradebe Healthcare National Limited’s site on Elgin Industrial Estate on 4 February 2022. He had been working alongside a colleague when he attempted to clear an obstruction on an autoclave machine. His left arm was trapped and crushed by the door, severing it from the elbow down.

He was rushed to hospital where doctors spent six hours saving his arm. He has since had three major surgeries to restore the use of his hand, though he now suffers from very limited movement.

Part of his treatment has involved skin grafts taken from the thigh of his left leg as well as veins from his left and right legs transplanted into the arm. He still suffers from constant pain and struggles to complete many everyday tasks independently.

Autoclave machines are pressure vessels with lids or doors and are used in a variety of processes whereby products are placed inside and subjected to greater than atmospheric pressure and elevated temperatures. A rotoclave is a type of autoclave that rotates during operation. On this particular site, it was used for high temperature sterilisation of waste.

The machine was surrounded by an enclosure which included an access gate at its rear. The man had used this unsecured rear gate to walk into the enclosure to reach in to remove the debris. His colleague was unable to see the employee and due to miscommunication, mistakenly resumed operation of the machine.

The HSE’s investigation revealed multiple failings by the company, including:

  • Not having sufficient measures in place to prevent their employees from being at risk when clearing blockages.
  • Employees being exposed to risk, specifically in relation to the failure to properly isolate the machine before cleaning.
  • Employees not being provided with sufficient information and instruction about how to use and how to clean the machine safely.
  • The investigation also found that training provided to employees was inadequate and that employees were not suitably supervised.

Tradebe Healthcare National Limited of Atlas House Third Avenue, Globe Park, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,710.

HSE inspector Emma Preston said: “This was a harrowing incident made more tragic by the fact that events of this kind are all-too foreseeable.

“Accidents which happen when cleaning and maintaining machinery often result in life-changing injuries, which is why companies need to make sure they have robust lock-off procedures, effective guarding, and that all sources of power are fully isolated before work begins.

“The man affected by this incident faces a long road to recovery and we hope today’s outcome provides him a measure of justice.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Chloe Ward and supported by paralegal officer Farhat Basir.

Consolidated Login

Comprehensive Login