A Town Council have a sign saying "Please do not feed the gulls in the interests of health and safety"
Issue
A Town Council have a sign saying "Please do not feed the gulls. In the interests of health and safety please do not encourage these birds. They may look pretty but can be very aggressive & could easily hurt people, especially small children. Thank you for your co-operation."Panel decision
Whilst this is not an occupational safety and health issue, the council are taking reasonable steps to engage the public and deter people from feeding seagulls in the interests of public safety and health. They scavenge food from a number of sources which may present public health risks and can be aggressive. The panel does not consider this notice to be an unreasonable use of the term "health and safety" because it did not imply there was any form of regulation in place.Banners taken from football supporters for health and safety reasons
Issue
In a Telegraph newspaper article about Daniel Levy, Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Football club, and run of poor results, it stated that "An increasing number of Spurs supporters are turning on Levy and there were claims on social media that fans had 'Levy Out' banners taken off them by club stewards at the game against Stoke City on Sunday. Anybody wishing to take a banner inside White Hart Lane must get the prior approval of the club for health and safety reasons."Panel decision
The club does have a rule in place that requires all banners (not just those about an unpopular 'chairman'!) to be notified in advance and this is for fire safety reasons. Given the challenges of crowd management at football matches this is an entirely reasonable rule to have in place.Managing Agent says a garden pond has to be fenced in
Issue
A residents association for a residential development of 75 dwellings has been told by their new managing agent that they must fence in the feature garden pond in the middle of the parkland grounds due to health and safety. The development has been like this for 25 years.Panel decision
There is no legal requirement for ponds and open water to be fenced off and the panel is unanimous in regarding this as an over the top and disproportionate approach being suggested by the site management. Fencing may appear to be a "solution" but could easily create different risks. A rethink is required here.Shopfitting firm fined for Oxford Street hoarding collapse
- Shoppers were crushed when a large hoarding collapsed in the heart of Oxford Street less than 24 hours after it had been erected, a court has heard.
Four people were injured, three seriously, in the incident on 7 March 2012. They included 25 year-old Charlotte Hammond, from Romford, who sustained an open fracture of her right ankle that required extensive surgery.
The hoarding, which was some 3.6m high and weighed nearly a tonne, had been put up the previous day by Wiltshire-based Oracle Interiors Ltd to fence off a clothing store that was being refurbished.
The shopfitting firm was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious flaws with the temporary structure.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard the hoarding was held in place by a single timber brace. As such it was inherently weak and wasn’t designed or installed to sufficiently withstand gusts of wind or knocks from passing shoppers, both of which should have been factored in.
An estimated 20 people were trapped by the hoarding when it came down, although most managed to escape unharmed as emergency crews and fellow passers-by rushed to help.
Injuries sustained by the other victims, none of whom want to be identified, included broken bones in the back and crushed nerves in an arm.
Oracle Interiors Ltd, of Lysander Way, Salisbury, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £13,069 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Wendy Garnett commented:
“The law clearly states that all temporary structures, including hoardings, should be properly designed, and so installed as to withstand any foreseeable loads imposed on them.
“That clearly wasn’t the case on this occasion and innocent shoppers were subjected to a frightening and, for some, hugely traumatic ordeal that had a long-term impact.
“Charlotte and others could easily have been killed by the hoarding and they were completely unaware that it posed a risk – not only to them, but to the tens of thousands of people who walked along Oxford Street that busy afternoon.
“Oracle Interiors Ltd could and should have done more to prevent the collapse.”
The hoarding, which was some 3.6m high and weighed nearly a tonne, had been put up the previous day by Wiltshire-based Oracle Interiors Ltd to fence off a clothing store that was being refurbished.
The shopfitting firm was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious flaws with the temporary structure.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard the hoarding was held in place by a single timber brace. As such it was inherently weak and wasn’t designed or installed to sufficiently withstand gusts of wind or knocks from passing shoppers, both of which should have been factored in.
An estimated 20 people were trapped by the hoarding when it came down, although most managed to escape unharmed as emergency crews and fellow passers-by rushed to help.
Injuries sustained by the other victims, none of whom want to be identified, included broken bones in the back and crushed nerves in an arm.
Oracle Interiors Ltd, of Lysander Way, Salisbury, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £13,069 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Wendy Garnett commented:
“The law clearly states that all temporary structures, including hoardings, should be properly designed, and so installed as to withstand any foreseeable loads imposed on them.
“That clearly wasn’t the case on this occasion and innocent shoppers were subjected to a frightening and, for some, hugely traumatic ordeal that had a long-term impact.
“Charlotte and others could easily have been killed by the hoarding and they were completely unaware that it posed a risk – not only to them, but to the tens of thousands of people who walked along Oxford Street that busy afternoon.
“Oracle Interiors Ltd could and should have done more to prevent the collapse.”
Consett firm prosecuted after trainee injured
- A Consett firm has been fined after a worker was injured when he became trapped between the basket of a cherrypicker and a steel rail during a construction project in Newcastle.
The 20-year-old, from Consett, who does not want to be named, was working as a trainee steel erector for Crossgill Construction Ltd when the incident happened on 21 February 2013.
He had been helping to install cladding rails to a building extension at a site, in Walker Riverside, when he became trapped between a rail in the basket of the cherrypicker he was operating and one of the newly-installed rails.
He broke his jaw in three places, suffered a severe cut all the way through the right side of his cheek as well as other cuts to the face and a bruised shoulder. He was in hospital for two days following the incident.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Crossgill Construction Ltd for safety failings after investigating the incident.
Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the trainee, working with another steel erector, had just installed a fifth rail when the bottom of the basket of his cherrypicker became lodged on the steel rail below. It then came loose, causing it to shoot upwards, trapping him between the basket rail and the newly-installed steel rail above.
HSE found that Crossgill Construction Ltd had failed to properly plan and manage the risks from erecting the cladding rails.
The court was told the steelwork had been stored on the ground outside the main frame of the extension, which prevented both workers from positioning their cherrypickers outside the frame.
The rails were also raised into position by being lifted, unsecured, on the basket of one of the cherrypickers, and then rested, again unsecured, onto cleats on the steel frame. The workers then had to move their cherrypickers into a position that enabled them to bolt the rails into place.
The company had failed to consider the risks of workers being trapped or crushed between the basket of the cherrypickers and other objects and had failed to identify measures to avoid that risk as a result.
Crossgill Construction Ltd, of Front Street, Castleside, Consett, was fined £6,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was also ordered to pay £865.30 costs.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Andrea Robbins said:
“This incident could easily have been prevented if both cherrypickers had been positioned outside the frame of the extension.
“Instead a young worker was badly injured and could have been killed because Crossgill Construction Ltd failed to plan and manage the work to ensure it was carried out safely.
“When used safely, mobile elevated work platforms, or cherrypickers, can significantly reduce the risk of injuries from falls from height, but in recent years there has been a significant number of incidents in which workers have been crushed against fixtures or other obstacles, including several fatalities.
“Extra care therefore needs to be taken if such equipment is used to manoeuvre through several layers of steelwork as there is a risk of the operator being trapped should the boom or basket strike the frame.”
He had been helping to install cladding rails to a building extension at a site, in Walker Riverside, when he became trapped between a rail in the basket of the cherrypicker he was operating and one of the newly-installed rails.
He broke his jaw in three places, suffered a severe cut all the way through the right side of his cheek as well as other cuts to the face and a bruised shoulder. He was in hospital for two days following the incident.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Crossgill Construction Ltd for safety failings after investigating the incident.
Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the trainee, working with another steel erector, had just installed a fifth rail when the bottom of the basket of his cherrypicker became lodged on the steel rail below. It then came loose, causing it to shoot upwards, trapping him between the basket rail and the newly-installed steel rail above.
HSE found that Crossgill Construction Ltd had failed to properly plan and manage the risks from erecting the cladding rails.
The court was told the steelwork had been stored on the ground outside the main frame of the extension, which prevented both workers from positioning their cherrypickers outside the frame.
The rails were also raised into position by being lifted, unsecured, on the basket of one of the cherrypickers, and then rested, again unsecured, onto cleats on the steel frame. The workers then had to move their cherrypickers into a position that enabled them to bolt the rails into place.
The company had failed to consider the risks of workers being trapped or crushed between the basket of the cherrypickers and other objects and had failed to identify measures to avoid that risk as a result.
Crossgill Construction Ltd, of Front Street, Castleside, Consett, was fined £6,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was also ordered to pay £865.30 costs.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Andrea Robbins said:
“This incident could easily have been prevented if both cherrypickers had been positioned outside the frame of the extension.
“Instead a young worker was badly injured and could have been killed because Crossgill Construction Ltd failed to plan and manage the work to ensure it was carried out safely.
“When used safely, mobile elevated work platforms, or cherrypickers, can significantly reduce the risk of injuries from falls from height, but in recent years there has been a significant number of incidents in which workers have been crushed against fixtures or other obstacles, including several fatalities.
“Extra care therefore needs to be taken if such equipment is used to manoeuvre through several layers of steelwork as there is a risk of the operator being trapped should the boom or basket strike the frame.”
Four prosecuted after roof fall death
- A developer, scaffolding company, its director and a roofer have been sentenced after a worker fell around seven metres to his death in Staffordshire.
Stafford Crown Court heard that, on 29 December 2010, experienced roofer Phillip Lonergan was installing the roof on a new warehouse being built by E2 Developments Ltd on land at Cotton Lane, Fauld, Tutbury.
He was standing on the edge of the roof when he slipped and fell through a gap of more than 50 centimetres between two scaffolding rails erected to form temporary edge protection.
Mr Lonergan, 36, of Burton-on-Trent, died in hospital the same day from head injuries.
An HSE investigation found that the edge protection had been provided by Nottinghamshire-based Albion Tower and Scaffold Ltd. The company’s director, Lee Cotterill, who had no formal qualifications as a scaffolder, had overall control of the design, planning and construction of the edge protection and personally signed it off as being safe.
The edge protection was in the form of two scaffolding guardrails running around the roof edge, which were attached to horizontal scaffolding tubes. However, British Standards only allow a minimum of two guardrails to be in place when the angle of the roof is ten degrees or less. The roof Mr Lonergan was working on had a pitch of 20 degrees.
Roofer Peter Allum was approached by E2 to install the roof panels and he, in turn, offered a number of roofers the work, including Mr Lonergan. He was supplied with the roof plans showing the 20-degree angle in October 2010 but failed to deal with the risks posed by the inadequate edge protection.
The investigation also found E2 Developments was not aware of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 which required the company, as the client, to notify HSE of the work and appoint a competent scheme co-ordinator and principal contractor.
E2 Developments Ltd, of Hopley Road, Anslow, Burton-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 14(1), 14(2) and 22 of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2007 and was fined a total of £66,000 with costs of £13,200.
Peter Allum, 41, of Beamhill Road, Burton-on-Trent, admitted breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,500 with £1,500 costs.
Lee Cotterill, 53, of Marple Drive, Aston-on-Trent, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay costs of £4,000.
Albion Tower and Scaffold (East Midlands) Ltd, of Common Lane, Watnall, Nottinghamshire, was fined £53,000 and ordered to pay £15,500 in costs after pleading guilty to the same offence.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Lindsay Hope said:
“Each defendant failed to ensure Mr Lonergan and other roofers could work safely. In each case their failure was a significant cause of Mr Lonergan’s death.
“The temporary edge protection should have had a third guardrail to reduce the space for a person to slide through. It should also have had netting around the edge, or toe boards. No such safety measures were in place. The edge protection was therefore inadequate to reduce the risk of serious harm – something that should have been obvious to both Albion and its director Lee Cotterill.
“E2 was provided with architects’ plans showing the roof was at a 20-degree pitch but failed to plan, manage or monitor the work in order to eliminate the risk of a fall. One of the directors had never heard of the regulations the company should have been working to. It was therefore very difficult for the company to discharge its duties under those Regulations if directors were ignorant of them.
“Peter Allum was aware of the obvious risk of harm posed by the inadequate rails, but did nothing about it. As an experienced roofer he could, and should, have tackled the issue.”
Firms fined after worker suffers multiple injuries
- Two companies have been fined after a lorry driver suffered multiple injuries whilst loading his lorry.
Leicester Crown Court were told that on the 26 October 2010, railway engine wheels weighing more than 2.5 tonnes each were being loaded onto the back of a lorry driven by Mark Furborough, at Brush Electrical Machines Ltd in Meadow Lane, Loughborough.
A fork lift truck was being used to load the wheels and was being driven by an employee of Brush Electrical Machines Ltd. It was fitted with a lifting beam manufactured by Keenhandle Ltd. Halfway through the lifting operation, the beam became detached from the fork lift truck and struck Mr Furborough.
Mr Furborough who was 44 years old at the time, suffered two broken bones in his left leg, a torn ligament, a broken left wrist and a broken rib. He was off work for nine months and is no longer able to work as a lorry driver.
An investigation by the HSE found that Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was loading the wheels using an unsafe system of work and inappropriate equipment.
The investigation also found that Keenhandle Ltd, as supplier of the lifting beam, should have provided information and instruction to Brush Electrical Machines Ltd in its intended and safe operation, so that it would not be misused.
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd, of Arden Road, Alcester, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.
Keenhandle Ltd, of Loughborough Road, Quorn, Leicestershire, was found guilty at a trial in Leicester Crown Court in June of this year of a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was fined £67,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,500. Keenhandle Ltd was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000
After the hearing HSE inspector David Lefever said:
“This incident was entirely preventable”.
“Keenhandle Ltd failed to give the other company adequate instructions on how the equipment that they manufactured should be used and failed to assess the foreseeable risks posed by the use of the equipment”.
“Brush Electrical Machines Ltd failed to utilise a safe system of work, something which they could easily have done”.
“The failings by both companies resulted in a man suffering painful injuries which has cost him his job as a lorry driver.”
A fork lift truck was being used to load the wheels and was being driven by an employee of Brush Electrical Machines Ltd. It was fitted with a lifting beam manufactured by Keenhandle Ltd. Halfway through the lifting operation, the beam became detached from the fork lift truck and struck Mr Furborough.
Mr Furborough who was 44 years old at the time, suffered two broken bones in his left leg, a torn ligament, a broken left wrist and a broken rib. He was off work for nine months and is no longer able to work as a lorry driver.
An investigation by the HSE found that Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was loading the wheels using an unsafe system of work and inappropriate equipment.
The investigation also found that Keenhandle Ltd, as supplier of the lifting beam, should have provided information and instruction to Brush Electrical Machines Ltd in its intended and safe operation, so that it would not be misused.
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd, of Arden Road, Alcester, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.
Keenhandle Ltd, of Loughborough Road, Quorn, Leicestershire, was found guilty at a trial in Leicester Crown Court in June of this year of a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to protect people not in their employment.
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd was fined £67,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,500. Keenhandle Ltd was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,000
After the hearing HSE inspector David Lefever said:
“This incident was entirely preventable”.
“Keenhandle Ltd failed to give the other company adequate instructions on how the equipment that they manufactured should be used and failed to assess the foreseeable risks posed by the use of the equipment”.
“Brush Electrical Machines Ltd failed to utilise a safe system of work, something which they could easily have done”.
“The failings by both companies resulted in a man suffering painful injuries which has cost him his job as a lorry driver.”
Firm in court over dangerous saws
- A Tameside gate manufacturer has been fined £10,000 after it ignored a formal warning about installing guards on two circular saws.
Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after it continued to expose its workforce to danger by operating the saws for one month after being ordered to take them out of use at its workshop on the Greenside Trading Estate in Droylsden.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that two inspectors had spotted the unprotected saws during an unannounced visit to the site on 14 April 2014. They issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws not to be used until guards had been fitted.
When HSE inspectors returned to the site a month later, they found the saws still in use and no attempt had been made by the firm to fit guards.
Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd, of Greenside Lane in Droylsden, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £729 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sarah Taylor said:
“When we first visited the factory in April, we were immediately concerned by two of the saws which were not guarded and could easily have resulted in an employee losing a finger.
“We therefore issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws to be taken out of use but the company failed to take any action until we returned to the site one month later, despite it being a legal requirement.
“The firm has since subcontracted its wood cutting work to an outside firm so the saws are not needed. If it had done this when we first served the notice, or fitted guards to the saws, then it would have avoided having to pay a court fine.”
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that two inspectors had spotted the unprotected saws during an unannounced visit to the site on 14 April 2014. They issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws not to be used until guards had been fitted.
When HSE inspectors returned to the site a month later, they found the saws still in use and no attempt had been made by the firm to fit guards.
Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd, of Greenside Lane in Droylsden, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £729 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sarah Taylor said:
“When we first visited the factory in April, we were immediately concerned by two of the saws which were not guarded and could easily have resulted in an employee losing a finger.
“We therefore issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws to be taken out of use but the company failed to take any action until we returned to the site one month later, despite it being a legal requirement.
“The firm has since subcontracted its wood cutting work to an outside firm so the saws are not needed. If it had done this when we first served the notice, or fitted guards to the saws, then it would have avoided having to pay a court fine.”
Firm fined after worker blinded in one eye
- An Edinburgh firm has been prosecuted for safety failings after a worker was severely injured and left blind in one eye when he was struck by a piece of high tensile wire.
Declan Shipcott, 20, of Alexandria, was working for Viridor Enviroscot Ltd at its Materials Recycling facility in Bargeddie, Glasgow, when the incident happened on 24 September 2012.
Airdrie Sheriff Court heard that Mr Shipcott was helping two colleagues clear a blockage on a baler machine, which had a wire tie mechanism to bind bales of waste material. The blockage was preventing the strapping wire from wrapping around the bale.
After 30 minutes they had been unable to clear the blockage and so cut the wire. The remaining wire was within a “recoil” box, which had a button to release any tension still in the wire.
Mr Shipcott opened the box to find that the wire had become knotted and, unable to undo the knot, he used wire cutters to cut it free. At that point a piece of wire flicked out and struck him on the face and left eye. He was not wearing any eye protection at the time.
He was rushed to hospital and underwent emergency surgery to repair a cut to the cornea of his left eye and had to undergo further surgery the following month to remove the damaged lens and re-attach his retina.
This was only partially successful and he is now blind in his left eye, although he can see light, and has been told his vision will not improve due to the extent of the damage.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that although there was a risk assessment for replacing the wire in the machine, there was nothing referring to cutting the wire, although the fact that wire cutters were available at the machine acknowledged that sometimes wire had to be cut.
The court heard there was no safe system of work for those involved in cutting high tensile wire and that the company had also failed to distribute and ensure the use of personal protective equipment, such as safety glasses.
The company reviewed its risk assessments following the incident and employees now wear a full face visor when working at the baler.
Viridor Enviroscot Ltd, of Edinburgh Quay, Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, was fined £165,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE inspector Aileen Jardine said:
“This incident could have easily been avoided if Viridor Enviroscot Ltd had carried out a risk assessment for the task, which would have identified the safety measures required to reduce any risks.
“The simple act of donning eye protection before working with high tensile wire may well have prevented this incident taking place. Instead, his employer’s failings led to an incident which has had real life changing consequences for this young man.”
Airdrie Sheriff Court heard that Mr Shipcott was helping two colleagues clear a blockage on a baler machine, which had a wire tie mechanism to bind bales of waste material. The blockage was preventing the strapping wire from wrapping around the bale.
After 30 minutes they had been unable to clear the blockage and so cut the wire. The remaining wire was within a “recoil” box, which had a button to release any tension still in the wire.
Mr Shipcott opened the box to find that the wire had become knotted and, unable to undo the knot, he used wire cutters to cut it free. At that point a piece of wire flicked out and struck him on the face and left eye. He was not wearing any eye protection at the time.
He was rushed to hospital and underwent emergency surgery to repair a cut to the cornea of his left eye and had to undergo further surgery the following month to remove the damaged lens and re-attach his retina.
This was only partially successful and he is now blind in his left eye, although he can see light, and has been told his vision will not improve due to the extent of the damage.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that although there was a risk assessment for replacing the wire in the machine, there was nothing referring to cutting the wire, although the fact that wire cutters were available at the machine acknowledged that sometimes wire had to be cut.
The court heard there was no safe system of work for those involved in cutting high tensile wire and that the company had also failed to distribute and ensure the use of personal protective equipment, such as safety glasses.
The company reviewed its risk assessments following the incident and employees now wear a full face visor when working at the baler.
Viridor Enviroscot Ltd, of Edinburgh Quay, Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, was fined £165,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE inspector Aileen Jardine said:
“This incident could have easily been avoided if Viridor Enviroscot Ltd had carried out a risk assessment for the task, which would have identified the safety measures required to reduce any risks.
“The simple act of donning eye protection before working with high tensile wire may well have prevented this incident taking place. Instead, his employer’s failings led to an incident which has had real life changing consequences for this young man.”
No comments:
Post a Comment