Glen Farrow UK Ltd undertook the installation of a liquid LPG bottle filling system at the food preparation company during January and February 2018. An inspection by the LPG supplier on 13 February 2018 found numerous defects in the installation which put the safety of workers at the factory at risk.
A HSE investigation found that the company took on work that they did not have the competencies for. They failed to plan the work adequately and to specify the correct materials and design for the installation. The engineer they sent was not competent to work on a liquid LPG installation of this sort. When asked to quote for this work, Glen Farrow UK Ltd should have realised that it was outside of their competence and subcontracted the work to a company with expertise in liquid LPG installations.
Glen Farrow UK Ltd of Glendum Close, Pinchbeck, Spalding pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. They were fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,131.60.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles, said: “Gas engineers must understand that certain tasks are not part of their normal functions and should only be done by competent contractors.”
This is valid as of 8th February 2022.
What you’ll get: On 22 May 2017, roofer Marius Andrus was completing snagging work on a replacement roof. The worker had accessed a part of the old roof made of fragile asbestos cement sheets, which gave way. He fell through the sheets to the ground below sustaining fatal injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that the area accessed did not have safety nets fitted and that the employer failed to take reasonably practicable measures to reduce the risk to those working on the roof.
AJM Services (Midlands) Ltd of Llanfihangel, Llanfyllin, Powys pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £51,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andy McGrory said: “This was a tragic incident, which resulted in a needless loss of life and could have easily been avoided by properly planning the work and ensuring appropriate safeguards were in place.
“Those in control of work at height have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working, which should include providing clear and comprehensive information for their workers and ensuring that they are adequately supervised.”
Owners of the building Pearsons Glass of Maddrell Street, Liverpool pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 3, at an earlier hearing and were sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court in February 2021. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,656
This is valid as of 7th February 2022.
The 65-year-old resident of Orchard Care Home in Tullibody, Clackmannanshire was on a specialist diet of minced and moist food after a severe stroke and vascular dementia left her at risk of choking.
However, on 7 August 2019, she was given a piece of jam doughnut as a snack from the tea trolley, which she choked on. Despite the efforts of care home staff and paramedics to remove the food, the resident died.
HC-One Limited, who run the care home, pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Section 3(1) and Section 33(1)(a) and were fined £640,000.
The resident was on a minced and moist diet since being assessed as having a high risk of choking on 2 December 2018. Bread products are not suitable for this modified diet as they cannot be mashed small enough.
Prior to her death, the resident had frequently been given sandwiches from the snack trolley, repeatedly putting her at risk.
Main meals at the home were prepared by the kitchen and labelled with each resident’s name. However, the snack trolley did not have information on modified diets or food suitability. Staff in charge of the trolley had also not had sufficient training on modified diets.
HC-One Limited have since made changes at the home to ensure the snack trolley has suitable food for all residents. Training has also taken place.
Alistair Duncan, Head of the Health and Safety Investigation Unit of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, said: “The death of this vulnerable care home resident could have been prevented if suitable training and procedures were in place.
“HC-One Limited left all residents at risk by failing to ensure modified diets were adhered to and staff had the relevant knowledge to keep those in their care safe. This prosecution should reiterate the need for all care homes to protect their residents and remind them they will be held accountable if they fail to do so.
“Our thoughts are with the family of the resident at what must be a difficult time for them.”
This is valid as of 1st February 2022.
What you’ll get: The company was visited by the HSE in March 2018 following a concern received from an employee. During that visit it was found that there were multiple health and safety breaches, resulting in the company being issued with Improvement Notices.
The HSE’s investigation found that there were systemic failings to recognise the risk of hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) or to take appropriate action to control exposure. Of particular concern were accounts from employees of pain and tingling in their fingers, hands and arms and that there were no limits on their use of vibrating tools such as angle grinders.
MTL Advanced Limited of Grange Lane, Rotherham, South Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £14,061 in costs.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Laura Hunter said: “Work activities involving vibrating tools should be properly assessed so that appropriate controls can be implemented to avoid exposing employees to harm.
“Employees suffering from HAVS can experience difficulty in carrying out tasks in the workplace involving fine or manipulative work and are less able to work in cold conditions. Sadly, these effects can be permanent and life changing.”
This is valid as of 31st January 2022.
What you’ll get: On 5 June 2018, Northumbrian Water Limited had contracted JW Colpitts and Co Limited to connect a 1.5-tonne water valve in a confined chamber at Kielder Reservoir, Northumberland. The valve was suspended from a lorry mounted crane when it swung across the chamber and struck the worker. He sustained an open compound fracture of his tibia and fibula and was airlifted to hospital.
Investigating, the HSE found that both companies had failed to risk assess the work and the additional hazards introduced by a change in the scope of work. They failed to implement suitable safety measures and safe systems of work; and provide adequate supervision to the workers.
Northumbrian Water Limited of Northumbria House, Abbey Road, Pity Me, Durham pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £365,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,360.69 and a victim surcharge of £120.00.
JW Colpitts and Co Limited of John Anderson House, Coniston Road, Blyth Riverside Industrial Estate, Blyth pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 etc. They were fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £17,452.22 and a victim surcharge of £120.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Clare Maltby said: “Companies must understand that work activities involving confined spaces, work at height and lifting operations must be subject to a robust risk assessment. Furthermore, risk assessments should be reviewed if the scope of work changes and additional hazards are introduced.
“Companies must also ensure that they have suitable safety control measures and safe systems of work in place to address the identified risks. Appropriate arrangements should be in place to supervise and monitor work.”
This is valid as of 24th January 2022.
The company was fined for health and safety failings relating to the removal of asbestos during refurbishment work at an industrial unit in Ballybrakes Business Park, Ballymoney.
Oriental Developments Limited pleaded guilty to three separate health and safety offences at Antrim Crown Court and was fined £15,000.
The HSENI investigation followed a complaint of unsafe work practices, alleging worker exposure to asbestos during construction work at the Ballymoney industrial unit in October 2018. The investigation found that refurbishment of the unit had commenced before any assessment was made as to the presence of asbestos in the building. A prohibition notice was subsequently served by an HSENI Inspector, prohibiting any further work from continuing.
Following the analysis of samples taken by HSENI Inspectors, asbestos containing materials were confirmed to be present throughout the unit. None of the tradespersons that were working on site had been advised that asbestos containing materials were present before construction work commenced.
Of significance, the investigation also found that previous enforcement action had been taken by HSENI Inspectors against Oriental Developments Limited in respect of assessing and managing asbestos at the same location.
Speaking after sentencing, HSENI Inspector Julian Richmond said: “Employers have a legal duty to manage any work involving asbestos, including maintenance, which may result in harmful asbestos fibres being released and worker health being put at risk.
“In this case, the company failed to plan how the work would be carried out safely, to minimise the risk of spread of asbestos fragments and fibres. These risks could easily have been avoided by acting on the findings of the asbestos survey and carrying out correct control measures and safe working practices”
Northern Ireland statistics show that in 2019, asbestos related disease accounted for some 63 deaths where asbestosis or mesothelioma were recorded as the primary or secondary cause of death. Preventing exposure to asbestos is essential to reduce the incidence of asbestos related disease in the future.
This is valid as of 20th January 2022.
What you’ll get: Of people with self-reported long COVID, 21% (270,000 people) first had (or suspected they had) coronavirus (COVID-19) less than 12 weeks previously.
Those who first had (or suspected they had) COVID-19 at least 12 weeks previously made up 70% (892,000 people), and 40% (506,000 people) first had (or suspected they had) COVID-19 at least one year previously.
Those in teaching and education also showed greater prevalence of self-reported long COVID. This represents the biggest month-on-month increase out of all employment sectors.
Of the proportion of people with self-reported long COVID whose symptoms adversely affected their day-to-day activities, 20% reported their ability to undertake day-to-day activities had been “limited a lot”.
Fatigue continued to be the most commonly reported symptom, applying to 51% of those with self-reported long COVID. This was followed by 37% with loss of smell, 36% with shortness of breath and 28% who had difficulty in concentrating. The proportions amount to more than 100% because some people have experienced more than one symptom.
As a proportion of the UK population, prevalence of self-reported long COVID was greatest in people aged 35 to 69 years, females, people living in more deprived areas, those working in health care and social care, and those with another activity-limiting health condition or disability.
This is valid as of 11th January 2022.
What you’ll get: On 2 August 2018, a groundworker was preparing the ground to install a post to carry an Automatic Number Plate Recognition Camera (ANPRC), at Twyford near Reading, Berkshire.
Initially, the worker dug by hand, however, due to the ground conditions and numerous hedgerow roots he started to use an 110V mechanical electric breaker.
The incident occurred when the groundworker struck a power cable supplying an adjacent British Telecommunications building. The voltage of the cable was 415v, causing the ground worker to receive an electric shock that caused burns to one hand and to his opposite arm.
The HSE found that site plans for buried cables had not been consulted and a cable avoidance tool had not been used to locate buried services in advance of carrying out the work. In addition, there was a lack of properly trained labour and supervision in place for the excavation works.
The principal contractor on site had failed to plan, manage and monitor the excavation works and also failed to provide adequate supervision for the ANPR installation project.
CLC Contractors Limited (the Principal Contractor), of Unit 2 Northbrook Industrial Estate, Vincent Avenue, Southampton, SO16 6PB pleaded guilty to breaching 13 (1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and were fined £400,000.00 and ordered to pay costs of £5,300.00.
Paul Gale, Company Director of PAG Building Services Ltd of 2 Moore Crescent, Netley Abbey, Southampton, Hampshire pleaded guilty to Section 37(1) Health and Safety Work Act 1974.
Due to the seriousness of the offence, the case was referred to Aylesbury Crown Court for sentencing. Paul Gale was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, and 150 hour of community service. The HSE was awarded costs of £7,200.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector John Caboche commented: “Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of working. In this instance, readily available buried service records were not consulted, and a cable avoidance tool was not provided to the groundworks team. Utilising these simple steps would have prevented this serious incident.”
This is valid as of 8th January 2022.
What you’ll get: The regulator is asking that businesses properly plan, organise, manage, and monitor their work and use competent people to avoid incidents and ill health amongst their workers and the public.
It is reminding companies that the safer they are, the more efficient they are. Good health and safety management increases the likelihood of contracts coming in on time and within budget with fewer added costs, and often to a higher quality, it says.
In the past year, the HSE says it has dealt with prosecutions involving severe injuries and fatalities as a result of poorly planned demolition work. This has included:
• a contractor who suffered serious injuries when a single-story roof he was demolishing by hand, collapsed at a construction site in Cobham, Surrey.
• a 64-year-old man who was killed when a garage wall at a garden in Hampshire collapsed on him during demolition, after a contractor who was operating a digger failed to put an exclusion zone in place whilst carrying out the work.
• a 21-year-old employee who was killed whilst dismantling a redundant grain drying tunnel at a farm in Kent when a farming partnership failed to ensure the integrity of the structure during the dismantling process.
• an employee who sustained injuries to his shoulder, and a fractured heel and ankle when he was hit by falling debris from a garage wall in Clitheroe that was being demolished in an unsafe manner.
• a contractor who was prosecuted for disturbing asbestos and damaging underground cables during demolition works at a site in Blackburn, causing severe disruption to services.
• the operator of a cherry picker who sustained life-changing injuries when he became trapped during a demolition operation at a site in Greater Manchester. A HSE investigation found the vehicle he was operating was not suitable for the task and had not been fitted with propriety devices to avoid the likelihood of operators being crushed.
The HSE has reminded contractors that it is crucial to complete a survey ahead of demolition work including structural investigation and appraisal, which considers the age of the structure, type of construction, history of the building including alterations and design codes used to avoid an uncontrolled collapse. Specific consideration should also be given to the effect of additional weight of demolition machinery and debris on suspended floors; and the risks to nearby buildings and structures.
The HSE’s head of construction Sarah Jardine said: “Structural instability can be a problem in buildings that are old, decayed, poorly maintained, and in newer buildings that have been badly designed and constructed or abused in use. Even sound structures can become unstable because of a lack of planning of construction and demolition work.”
She added: “It is easy to get it wrong even on small, straightforward structures, which makes it even more important to put the planning in place when it comes to demolishing large, complex structures. Demolishing these types of structures is a particularly hazardous activity and doing it safely is highly complicated and technical, so relevant expertise is vital. These jobs require careful planning and execution by contractors who are competent in the full range of demolition techniques and have access to designers and engineers with the right knowledge, skills, and experience in this area.”
A systematic approach to demolition projects should be a team effort, says the HSE. Clients must appoint professionals who have the relevant skills, knowledge, experience, organisational capability, and who are adequately resourced.
Clients, with the help of the principal designer must provide essential pre-construction information to the relevant designers and engineers. This should include a range of surveys and reports to check for presence of asbestos, structural stability, and the location of above and below ground live services.
The regulator goes on to advise that it is the principal designer’s responsibility to plan, manage, monitor, and coordinate health and safety issues in the pre-construction phase to ensure principal contractors are provided with relevant information to enable them to put safety measures in place. Once the demolition work has begun it is the principal contractor’s responsibility to plan, manage and monitor the demolition activities and coordinate work to ensure that it is carried out without risks to health and safety. While site managers must ensure workers are supervised and are following safe working practice.
Sarah Jardine concludes: “Incidents caused by poor planning and risk management can have substantial human costs that are felt for many years by the victims and their families.
“In addition to the impact on people’s lives, incidents can also lead to substantial remediation costs, higher insurance premiums, and, if HSE investigates, court fines and prison sentences, which will inevitably impact reputations.
“As well as being morally right, it is simply common sense and good business to ensure rigorous planning, organising, managing and monitoring of the whole project.”
This is valid as of 6th January 2022.
What you’ll get: On 15th November 2015, there was an uncontrolled release of around 15 tonnes of LPG through a valve near to the main roadway used by LPG road tankers visiting Esso Petroleum Company’s refinery in Fawley, Hampshire.
The leak went undetected for around four hours before being discovered by an employee on his way home. It took a further hour to establish the source of the leak, with on-site emergency personnel having to enter the area to reset the valve.
An investigation by the HSE found that the leak occurred because LPG was put through the pipe work at too a high a pressure for the valve. There was no process in place to detect the discrepancy in the flow in the pipe and the company had failed to take all measures necessary to prevent a major incident.
Esso Petroleum Company Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) 2015 and was fined £500,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Jonathan Halewood said: “The measures required to prevent incidents should be proportionate to the risks. Where companies handle large quantities of substances that can cause major incidents, such as LPG, they are required to have layers of protection in place to prevent incidents.
“In this incident, a number of those layers either failed or were not in place resulting in a significant leak. Even though there was no fire or injury on this occasion, there was potential for a major incident. The prosecution has been brought to highlight the importance of maintaining the layers of protection and preventing this kind of major leak.”
This is valid as of 16th December 2021.
What you’ll get: Concerns had been raised regarding the health and safety standards at the construction site of the former Tobacco Warehouse, Stanley Dock, Liverpool, being renovated by Abercorn Construction Limited. A site inspection found the welfare cabin used by employees to be in poor condition, containing exposed live wires and damaged electrical sockets, a mouldy dishwasher and an accumulation of rubbish both inside and outside the cabin with the potential to attract vermin.
A general site inspection found numerous uncontrolled high risks such as a damaged cable on a 400v transformer, insufficient fire alarms, a lack of fire extinguishers and signage indicating emergency routes and multiple examples of unprotected edges and openings exposing workers to risk of a fall from height. There was also inadequate pedestrian and vehicle segregation, poor order, poor lighting and the risk of exposure to live electrical conductors.
The HSE investigation found the company had failed to effectively plan, manage and monitor the works which had resulted in these health and safety issues arising on site. These risks had already been highlighted to the company in previous written enforcement. Despite compliance being achieved, poor standards had been allowed to develop again.
Abercorn Construction Limited of 50 Bedford Street, Belfast pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £77,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,025.52.
After the hearing, HSE inspector John Padfield commented: “This type of proactive prosecution will highlight to the industry that HSE will not hesitate to prosecute companies for repeated breaches of the law.
“Good management of health and safety on site is crucial to the successful delivery of a construction project and principal contractors have an important role in managing the risks of construction work and providing strong leadership to ensure standards are understood and followed”.
This is valid as of 15th December 2021.
What you’ll get: The UK is committed to a robust regulatory system for the control of chemicals which ensures the UK’s high levels of environment protection, underpinned by the Environment Act. UK REACH is the government’s regulatory tool for achieving this – ensuring companies that put chemicals on the market understand and manage the risks they might pose.
This regulatory system has been in place since the UK left the European Union, and chemical businesses operating within Great Britain should have already provided initial information under the UK REACH transitional provisions.
Whilst this initial information has already been provided, the government will consult on extending the deadlines for providing the full registration data. Alongside this, the government will engage with industry and other stakeholders to explore whether there are opportunities to reduce the need for industry to replicate existing EU REACH data by placing a greater emphasis on understanding how chemicals are used in GB.
The consultation will take place in 2022 and more details will follow after discussions with stakeholders.
A Defra spokesperson said: “Now we have left the EU, we are able to review our legislation to see whether we can deliver more effective and efficient outcomes for both the environment and businesses.
“We will continue to work closely with industry and other interested stakeholders to understand their concerns and discuss how these might be addressed, while ensuring our high levels of protection of human health and the environment.”
This is valid as of 14th December 2021.
What you’ll get: Free downloads, advance notice of webinars, product updates and perks – all straight to your inbox.