Risk, Health and Safety Information

Health and Safety in the news this week

Speeding fines to rise from 24 April 2017 – what could this mean for you?

Following a review by magistrates, new rules for applying fines and penalties to drivers caught speeding will apply from 24 April 2017.

Over 100,000 speeding fines are regularly issued each year, which nets HM Treasury millions of pounds in fines and potentially resulting in bans for dangerous drivers.  The review by magistrates means that fines for the worst offenders will increase by 50%.  This follows the approach taken by the authorities in respect of mobile phone use while driving whereby penalties for that offence doubled to £200 fine and six points.

The increase in speeding fines is not so straightforward – currently the maximum fine for breaking the speed limit is £1000, or £2500 on the motorway.  The maximum of £2500 will stay the same, but there will be speeding bands which means that more offenders will be handed fines to the highest level.

Speed Limit (mph)	Recorded Speed (mph)
	Band C	Band B	Band A
20	41 and above	31-41	21-30
30	51 and above	41-50	31-40
40	66 and above	56-65	41-55
50	76 and above	66-75	51-65
60	91 and above	81-90	61-80
70	101 and above	91-100	71-90
Points/ disqualification	Disqualify 7 to 56 days Or 6 points	Disqualify 7 to 28 days Or 4 to 6 points	3 points

Under the new rules, fines for Band C offenders will start at 150 per cent of the offender’s weekly income.  They could still also be banned from driving for up to 56 days or get six points on their licence. 

The current minimum fine of £100 and three points will still remain according to the website www.gov.uk, and law abiding citizens with a clean licence may still be able to avoid points by attending a speed awareness course.  This opportunity will not be extended to previous offenders though, who will see further points added to their current total.

HSE prosecution round up:

Manchester Hostel owners sentenced over asbestos failings

Two family run companies have been fined after admitting health and safety failings at a site in Manchester, where they were carrying out a basement conversion.

Manchester Crown Court heard how Hatters Taverns Limited had appointed sister company Hatters Hostel Limited as the main contractor for the basement conversion beneath a hostel at 50 Newton Street, Manchester.

The project involved the full strip out and refurbishment of the basement, a former restaurant unit, into a bar venue.

An unannounced visit by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was conducted to inspect the ongoing refurbishment works. During the visit it was discovered there had been no asbestos survey carried out before tradesmen started stripping out the majority of the space.

Hatters Taverns Limited of 50 Newton Street Manchester pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(3) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was fined £10,000.

Hatters Hostel Limited of 56-60 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was fined £24,000 and ordered to pay the combined costs for both defendants of £10,232.50.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Matt Greenly said after the case:

“Both Hatters Hostel and Hatters Taverns have failed in their duty to protect their workers, subcontractors and visitors to this site from harm. Asbestos related diseases are currently untreatable and claim the lives of an estimated 4000 people per year in the UK.

The requirement to have a suitable asbestos survey is clear and well known throughout the construction industry. Only by knowing if asbestos is present in any building before works commence can a contractor ensure that people working on their site are not exposed to these deadly fibres.

The cost of an asbestos survey is not great but the potential legacy facing anyone who worked on this site is immeasurable. Exposure to asbestos fibres can potentially cause life shortening diseases in the long term and Hatters Hostel Limited and Hatters Taverns Limited should have taken more care to protect workers from totally preventable exposure. This case sends a clear message to any company that it does not pay to ignore well known risks on site.”