Central London building collapse

Hundreds of people were cleared from an area of Central London and at least one person was injured after a building collapsed at a construction site last week.

Emergency services were called to Serle Street and Portugal Street in Holborn after witnesses reported hearing a "massive crash" and seeing plumes of dust.  The 6-storey building has been under demolition and part of the buildings structure, as well as the scaffolding around it, had collapsed.

A 56-year-old man was treated at the scene before being taken to hospital with serious head and hip injuries after the incident on 20 April 2015.

Around 200 people were cleared from the area and an air ambulance was seen arriving at nearby Lincoln's Inn Fields.

A spokesperson for London Fire Brigade, said: "When the first crews arrived they found the building, which was under refurbishment, had collapsed between the fifth and second floors.  Firefighters gave first aid to an injured man on site until ambulance crews arrived and also helped police put safety cordons in place and to evacuate people from the immediate area."

Construction client in court after concerns raised over work at height

Mark Hewitt, a construction client from Birmingham, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £1,255 in costs for failing to properly plan or manage construction work.

HSE inspected the site after a member of the public raised concerns over work taking place next to a public pavement. During the inspection it was clear there was a risk of materials falling from the first floor level onto the pavement and the street, and there were no fall prevention measures in place to protect workers on the site.

HSE Inspector Chris Gregory said:

“As the client for the work, Mr Hewitt should have ensured the appropriate measures were in place in order to plan, manage and monitor the project. He was informed of his duties by his advisors, but failed to act.    

Mr Hewitt had a duty to ensure that the safety of those working on site and those members of the public, passing by, were not put at risk, he failed on both counts”

Mark Hewitt of Manor Lane in Halesowen, being a client as defined by the Construction (Management and Design) Regulations 2007, was found guilty of breaching Regulation 9(1) of said regulations.

Firm firmed after worker’s roof fall causes ‘life-threatening’ injuries

Lockheed Martin UK Ampthill Limited was fined £10,000 (and ordered to pay more than £7,300 in costs) after admitting a breach of Work at Height Regulations.

Appearing at Luton Magistrates’ Court, the manufacturing company pleaded guilty in relation to its role in an incident in January 2012, when a contractor fell from a roof.

The man was working on the roof at its site in Ampthill, Bedfordshire where he fell through a skylight and suffered injuries that needed emergency life-saving treatment.

The company must also pay a £120 victim surcharge.

Builders sentenced over scaffold fall

A building firm was fined £11,000 with costs of £7,729 after a site manager dismantled scaffolding and later fell from it.

At Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard Abridge Developments Limited of Epping Upland, Essex, failed to plan, manage and monitor the construction work.

The company was found guilty of breaching Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) 2007 Regulation 22.

Fatality at construction site leads to fine

Mark Hammond was fined £12,500 after a 21 year old worker was electrocuted whilst carrying out works in the communication room in a basement on a construction site.

Hammond, of Church Gresley, Swandicote, Derbyshire, the director of Hamtech (UK) Electrical Services Limited, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to breaching Section 3 (1) of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The defence was ordered to pay the prosecution costs of almost £50,000.

This prosecution arose out of an investigation into a fatal incident at the construction site at Great Peter Street, London on 6 July 2011.

 

CDM changes made simpler... Key changes of the new CDM Regulations 2015

Construction sites are one of the most hazardous working environments in the UK. Workers are exposed to many dangers on a daily basis that could result in injury or even death. The CDM (Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 aim to reduce the risks on constructions sites and make them safer for everyone by assigning roles and responsibilities to all involved.

1. All projects must have:

- Workers with the right skills, knowledge, training and experience

- Contractors providing appropriate supervision, instruction and information

- A written construction phase plan

 2. Project where more than one contractor is involved (domestic or non-domestic) must have 1 above plus:
 
- Principal designer and principal contractor must be appointed
 
- A health and safety file

 3. If work is scheduled to:

- last longer than 30 working days and 

- have more than 20 workers working simultaneously at any point in the project

- OR exceeds 500 person days then…

All of 1 and 2 above plus:

- Client must notify project to HSE 

CDM 2015 began 6th April 2015. For projects that started before then, transitional arrangements apply.

When do the construction CDM regulations apply? The CDM Regulations apply to all construction projects where people are at work.
 

What is the definition of ‘construction work’? ‘Construction work’ is extensive and includes most building, civil engineering or engineering construction work including demolition, new-builds, refurbishments etc.

What are ‘notifiable’ projects?

A project is notifiable to HSE (the Health and Safety Executive or Inspector) if:

• the construction phase lasts longer than 30 working days AND will have more than 20 workers working SIMULTANEOULSY at any point in the project; OR
• if the project exceeds 500 person days. Notification is via the F10 Form.

Clients are organisations or individuals for whom a construction project is carried out and they must make suitable arrangements for managing a project.

Domestic clients are people who have construction work carried out on their own home, or home of a family member not done as part of a business. Their duties are normally transferred to the contractor, on a single contractor project; or the principal contractor on larger projects.

Designers are those who prepare or modify designs for a building, product or system relating to construction work. They must try to eliminate, reduce or control foreseeable risks that may arise.

Principal designers are designers appointed by the client in projects involving more than one contractor. They must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety in the pre-construction phase and prepare and provide relevant information to other duty-holders.

Principal contractors are contractors appointed by the client to coordinate the construction phase of a project where it involves more than one contractor. They must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety in the construction phase of a project.

Contractors are those who do the actual construction work and can be either an individual or a company. They must plan, manage, coordinate and monitor work under their control so it is safe.

Workers are the people who work for or under the control of contractors on sites. They must:

• be consulted about matters which affect their health, safety and welfare;
• take care of their own health and safety and others who may be affected by their actions;
• report anything they see which may endanger either their own or others’ health and safety;
• co-operate with the employer, fellow workers, contractors and other duty-holders.

 

 

What are the Principles of Prevention in relation to CDM 2015?

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (referred to as the CDM regulations) also require duty holders to use these principles to direct their approach to identifying and implementing precautions which are necessary to control risks associated with a project.

The principles of prevention are outlined in both sets of regulations, and involve a series of best practice principles, ordered to form a best practice approach to risk management - the most effective being to avoid risk. For those risks that cannot be avoided each of the other principles of prevention should be applied where appropriate, to reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable to do so. The health and safety principles of prevention are as follows:

(a) Avoiding risks
Where possible you should avoid risks all together. Obviously, it is impossible to avoid all risks in the workplace, but those that can be avoided should be. This is the most important principle – the safest risk is the one you don’t take.

(b) Evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided

Risks that cannot be avoided should be evaluated through a risk assessment to determine the safest method of work.

(c) Combating the risks at source
Combating the risk at source is better than managing the risk through warnings or PPE. For example a slippery surface should be treated or replaced as opposed to putting up a warning sign.

(d) Adapting the work to the individual
Especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health

(e) Adapting to technical progress
Technologic advancement involves solutions to existing problems. When new equipment is developed you should take advantage of any opportunities to make your working processes safer.

(f) Replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
If you cannot remove a risk entirely, you may be able to replace it with another less dangerous method to get the work done. For example, you may be able to substitute a toxic substance for one that is less hazardous, or work from height could be carried out from fixed scaffolding rather than a ladder.

(g) Developing a coherent overall prevention policy
This policy should cover technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment.

(h) Giving collective protective measures priority
Collective protective measures should be given priority over individual protective measures. Collective measures give the greatest benefit to protecting the whole workplace, it is important to consider how preventative measures will work together and ensure they are compatible.

(i) Giving appropriate instructions to employees
Any control measures you introduce are no use if your workforce do not comply with them, understand them or even know about them. Communication is vital to ensure the successful implementation of health and safety measures to protect everybody.

If you are a duty holder under CDM and need help please call and ask to Speak to Rob Anderson or David Hutchinson on 0333 577 0248.

 

Steel firm sentenced over worker’s death

A steel company has been sentenced after a catalogue of safety failings led to a 42-year-old worker being killed when he was knocked off his lorry and then crushed by a three-tonnes load of steel tubes. 

Father-of-three Robert Ismay, from Thirsk, was delivering two bundles of 7.5-metre-long tubes to Daver Steels Ltd’s premises when the incident happened on 6 December 2012. 

Sheffield Crown Court heard from the HSE what should have been a straightforward unloading operation was beset by errors and failings that left Mr Ismay fatal injuries. 

Mr Ismay, a visiting delivery driver, had parked his lorry on the road opposite the site. No checks were made by Daver Steels to see what was to be offloaded or how the load was positioned. 

A trained but inexperienced forklift truck driver was then told to lift the steel tubes, but the forks’ reach was too short so when they were raised, the bundles fell off and struck Mr Ismay. He was pushed off the trailer onto the pavement and was hit and fatally wounded by the bundles of steel tubes as they crashed down behind him. 

The HSE investigation found Daver Steels: 

·         Had not assessed the risks involved with loading and unloading so had no safe system of work in place

·         Had not provided instructions or sufficient training to staff

·         Failed to provide direction to workers, leaving them to develop their own practices including choosing how they offloaded, what equipment to use and where offloading took place 

The court was told an inspection by Daver Steels of what was being delivered would have shown the only safe way to unload was to use a crane, which the company had, and to put the truck in the loading bay rather than leaving it on the busy road outside. 

Instead there was no planning of the task and no communication between the site and the delivery driver. Road users were also put at risk when the forklift blocked part of the road during the failed unloading attempt, the forks had an insufficient reach, and Mr Ismay was allowed to remain on the back of the lorry. 

HSE told the court that Mr Ismay’s death could have been avoided if simple planning and suitable instructions had been in place to control the risks. 

Daver Steels Ltd, of Petre Street, Sheffield, was fined £62,000 and ordered to pay £38,000 in costs after admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. 

After the sentencing, HSE inspector Chris Gallagher said: “Unfortunately, this type of incident is not unique or new. What happened to Robert Ismay was a tragedy that has had devastating consequences for his wife, children and wider family. 

“There was a series of safety failings by Daver Steels in this case. Key was its failure to put in place adequate control measures, which includes the provision of suitable instructions to employees and visiting workers so such tasks could be completed safely. 

“Daver Steels should have taken responsibility for the driver’s safety and the delivery and unloading operation. Companies that receive deliveries to their premises have a duty to ensure that any unloading operation is carried out in a safe manner.” 

 

Narrow escape for victims of “incompetent” brothers

Two brothers were jailed for safety failures after a building collapse left three injured, up to 20 people temporarily homeless, and nearby properties evacuated. 

Naveed and Rizwan Hussain were prosecuted by the HSE at Sheffield Crown Court following the collapse of a three-storey terrace in Brook Hill on 23 March 2013. 

Two residents and a builder suffered minor injuries and the immediate area had to be evacuated when the front of the property and the flats on the two upper floors caved in. 

 HSE told the court it was ‘remarkable’ that no one had been killed given the extent of the collapse. The property, formerly Butler’s Balti House, was so dangerous after the incident it had to be demolished by Sheffield Council. 

The court heard the two ‘incompetent’ brothers had destabilised the structure of the building while refurbishing the basement. HSE’s investigation found the central wall between 192 and 194 Brook Hill had collapsed due to the Hussains’ poorly-planned and badly-managed refurbishment project. 

The construction work by the Hussains involved lowering the floor in the basement and removing a number of internal walls. While that was underway, the central wall was undermined, causing it to collapse. In turn, the floors of the flats above and the front wall caved in, injuring three people.

 HSE said the Hussain brothers were not competent to carry out the work and were responsible for a number of safety failings – crucially they had no controls in place to support the building while it was being modified. 

The court heard Naveed Hussain had been the recipient of enforcement notices from HSE on a previous building job relating to failures to plan the work properly. 

Rizwan Hussain, 39, of Rutland Road, Sheffield, was given a 12 month custodial sentence and a fine of £42,000 with £40,000 in costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, a breach of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 and a breach of the two  Prohibition Notices issued on 15 May 2013. 

Naveed Hussain, 33, Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield, was given a 12 month custodial sentence and fined £40,000 with £60,000 to pay in costs after admitting a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and a separate breach of the same Construction Regulations. 

After the hearing, HSE principal construction inspector Dave Redman said: “All three people injured in this avoidable incident were fortunate not to have been killed. One was saved by a table that had fallen across his body and shielded him from falling debris. 

“But their narrow escapes owed more to luck than judgement on the part of the defendants, Rizwan and Naveed Hussain. Both acted incompetently in dealing with the project and fell woefully below acceptable standards.  

“When carrying out major building alterations it is imperative that skilled structural engineers are employed to advice on the temporary supports needed. It is equally important that competent contractors are then used to ensure that those supports are correctly used for the duration of the work. 

“The risks associated with this type of project are well-known in the construction industry and they are significant.  Where competent people are not used and inadequate controls are employed there is always a risk of a catastrophic collapse and multiple fatalities.”     

His Honour Judge Murphy, sentencing, remarked: “”It was little short of a miracle that more people were not seriously injured or killed. This was a very serious incident “caused by your arrogance and greed. 

“A statement needs to be made to people undertaking such projects” in relation to the importance of health and safety. The public would be appalled at anything less than a custodial sentence.” 

 

Plumber fined for sub-standard boiler installation

A plumber has been fined £250 after installed an oil fired boiler at a property that had the potential to cause death from CO poisoning. 

Nigel Grinnell, 48, from The Willows, Malswick, Gloucestershire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act after Cheltenham Magistrates’ heard the boiler was installed in a compartment with inadequate ventilation and an unsuitable material, flue liner, linking the boiler into the chimney. 

No problems were noticed for around six months until the householder came home to find the house full of smoke and fumes. The flexible flue liner had dipped to form a moisture trap. This had become full of water which had fully or partially blocked the flue. These conditions led to incomplete combustion and the spillage of products of combustion including carbon monoxide. 

 

Myth Buster - Nappies not to be disposed of in sanitary bins

Issue

At a local party venue, a woman saw a poster in the ladies toilet stating "Due to Health and Safety Law please do not put nappies in the sanitary bins. Please use the nappy bins provided".

Panel opinion

This is not a health and safety issue at all. The notice should simply ask people to use the correct bins provided and possibly explain that this is because nappies take up too much capacity in the restricted sanitary bins. There is no reason at all to call on good old "elf n safety" to strengthen their case.

 

 

One in two basement sites in top London boroughs fails safety inspections

Almost half of domestic basement projects across three London boroughs failed unannounced safety checks during a two-day initiative, figures reveal.

The inspection initiative undertaken by the HSE, saw a team of inspectors visit 127 sites across Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and parts of Westminster.

Enforcement action was taken at 62 of those sites – an overall rate of 48% – with 44 Prohibition Notices served requiring dangerous practices to stop with immediate effect, 12 Improvement Notices served requiring safety improvements to be made and 63 Notifications of Contravention served identifying material breaches.

In a similar inspection drive last year the overall enforcement rate across 107 sites was one in three, or 36 per cent.

At two projects, conditions were so dangerous that inspectors were forced to close the sites. More than two thirds of the Prohibition Notices served dealt with the risk of workers falling from height, either into unguarded excavations or through unprotected floor openings, as well as unshored excavations. Inadequate welfare provision accounted for half of the Improvement Notices.

James Hickman, lead HSE Inspector for the Construction Division in the City and South West London, said:

“These enforcement figures reflect the rapidly-increasing number of companies entering the basement industry to meet the current high demand for basement living space in London. Those new to basement construction work are often unaware of the risks associated with the technically challenging nature of the work or of the standards required to ensure the safety of their workforce.

“The overall picture is similar to other targeted inspections of basement work in London where we identified the same kind of problems relating to unsafe work at height and excavations, and poor welfare facilities.

“That suggests the message isn’t getting through, or that there is complacency towards health and safety across this sector of the construction industry. But that is only partly the case.

“As well as serious safety contraventions, we also found examples of better standards, often at sites managed by companies who are known to HSE, some of whom have previously received enforcement notices requiring improvements to be made.

“It illustrates that lessons have been learned, and we hope the latest failings that required action will have a similar impact with contractors new to the basement industry.”

Domestic basement projects are technically-challenging and carry substantial risks. Common issues found during the inspections were:

• Work not properly planned
• Failure to appoint a competent temporary works engineer to design suitable propping to support excavations and existing structures
• Poor or absent welfare facilities for workers
• Basic precautions missing, such as edge protection to prevent falls from height, especially into excavations
• Unguarded conveyor belts

Firm in court for unsafe refurbishment work

A construction company has been fined for unsafe refurbishment work that exposed workers to the risk of serious injuries.

Inspectors from the HSE established that safety standards were woefully lacking at a property undergoing an extensive overhaul in Newton Avenue, Acton, between July 2013 to January 2014.

A basement was excavated without any form of propping or temporary works to provide vital support, and later in the project the risk of falls from height was also found to be poorly managed.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that FN Property Limited also failed to hold any valid Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance for its workforce, which is a legal requirement to support workers in the event of an incident occurring.

HSE twice served Prohibition Notices to stop work linked to the refurbishment during visits in January 2014 to prevent the risk of falls from height.

The first visit followed a complaint from workers at the site about unsafe excavations where there was a serious risk of collapse.

FN Property Limited, of Askew Road, Shepherd’s Bush, W12, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay a further £1,213 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Pete Collingwood commented:

“The dangers posed by unsupported excavations are well known in the construction industry, and it should have been abundantly clear that the provision and use of shoring was a basic necessity.

“Later in the project measures in place to protect against falls from height were found to be inadequate on two separate visits to site. To compound this, the contractor had no Employers Liability Insurance in the event of an accident occurring.

“Every employer should ensure that workers have the basic right to work in a safe environment. FN Property Ltd fell some way short in this regard.”

Kent boys’ school fined over pupil’s head injuries

The governors of a boys’ school have been prosecuted after a 14-year-old pupil was severely injured when he was hit by a shot put thrown by another boy.

The incident happened during a routine multi-sport PE lesson at The Judd School in Tonbridge on 20 June 2014. The pupil had left a triple jump area and was standing on the edge of the shot put landing zone to check a friend’s throw when he was struck on the back of his head by a shot.

The pupil suffered life-threatening injuries and needed emergency brain surgery on a fractured skull. He has now returned to school but his injury has resulted in a permanent indentation at the base of his skull.

The HSE investigated and identified the school had not adopted measures in its own risk assessment and PE guidance on multi-event lessons had not been followed.

Sevenoaks Magistrates were told that there were 24 boys in the lesson, divided into six groups and taking part in hurdles, long jump, triple jump, javelin, discus and shot put. It was a lesson format used regularly at The Judd School and the pupils had participated in similar lessons in previous years.

The six sports were spread across the field but the end of the landing zone for the shot put was only about three metres from the end of the triple jump sand pit, where the 14-year-old was competing.

When the whistle blew to mark the end of the session, he left the triple jump and went to the shot put to see how far his friend had thrown. At the same time, another pupil was completing his throw, turning as he did so he was facing away from the zone.

The shot hit the pupil on the back of the head, causing a severely fractured skull and internal swelling. He was in hospital for nearly a month but was able to return to school the following term.

The court heard the teenager is no longer able to take part in some contact sports and may suffer longer-term issues.

HSE found the school had carried out a risk assessment for PE lessons. However, although it had referenced the guidance by the Association for Physical Education, it did not follow their recommendation that such lessons be restricted to a maximum of four sports with only one to be a throwing event.

The school’s inclusion of six sports with three throwing events, had significantly increased the risks to pupils, as had the proximity of the triple jump pit to the shot put landing zone.

The Governing Body of The Judd School, Tonbridge, Kent, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,375 in costs after admitting a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Magistrates agreed with HSE that the safety breach had been ‘substantial’

After the hearing, HSE inspector Kevin Golding said:

“By not adopting the measures identified in their own risk assessment, The Judd School put pupils at serious risk leading to a 14-year-old boy being struck by a shot put and suffering life-threatening injuries. It was a horrifying incident for him and his family and, of course, the rest of the pupils and the school itself.

“While he is thankfully back at school, he will have to live with the consequences of the incident for the rest of his life.

“It is vitally important that schools review their risk assessments for all PE lessons, but in particular for multi-sports lessons, to check that they are safe.”

Leeds trader’s suspended jail sentence over asbestos exposure

A trader has been given a suspended jail sentence after exposing a household and workers to potentially dangerous levels of asbestos fibres.

Clive Raper, 49, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, took on a job to remove asbestos insulating board from the garage of a couple’s home despite the fact that he did not hold the legal licence required to carry out the specialist work.

He hired a couple of workers to help him but totally failed to take any of the vital safety measures needed, or implement the tight controls imposed by law, to protect workers, local people and the environment when working with the material.

The HSE prosecuted Mr Raper for safety breaches at Leeds Magistrates’ Court after investigating the incident in July 2011.

The court was told Mr Raper accepted the job from the couple knowing full well he did not have the necessary licence to do the work. He then took on a couple of labourers to help him, neither of whom held licences.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and asbestos-containing materials will release fibres into the air when damaged or disturbed. If inhaled, they can lead to serious and fatal disease, often years down the line.

Mr Raper had not used any of the standard control measures that licensed operators employ, such as a protective enclosure, full-face respiratory equipment, negative pressure units and specialist vacuums.

The poor standards employed by Mr Raper meant that asbestos debris and residue was left, compounding the risk to the homeowners of exposure.

The homeowner was so concerned with how Mr Raper had left the garage he contacted Leeds City Council. They identified a suitable contractor who went to the home and carried out an environmental clean of the property, at added cost to the homeowner. The council also reported the matter to HSE

Clive Raper, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, of Fawcett Gardens, Leeds (previously Summerfield Drive, Bramley), was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay a contribution of £260 toward costs after admitting a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and a separate breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Yeadon said:

“It is appalling that a trader who is fully familiar with the restrictions governing asbestos wilfully ignores them and puts a household and the workers he has hired in danger. It would appear that he has put profit ahead of the health and wellbeing of others, and in this case quite bafflingly, he put his own health at risk as well.

“We were unable to identify the two workers involved as Mr Raper could not provide their full names or contact details. We do think, however, that they were probably both exposed to asbestos fibres above the action level.

“This kind of work must be carried out by competent people with the necessary licence to do so.”

Materials company prosecuted for worker’s crush injury

A global materials company has been fined after a maintenance engineer’s hand was crushed at its factory.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard that the 40-year-old worker from Stourbridge was removing chocks from the bed of a plate saw when the incident happened at ThyssenKrupp (Materials) UK Ltd’s site in Tyseley on 9 July 2014.

The chocks had been used to prop a pressure beam while maintenance work was carried out but as soon as the chocks were removed, the beam fell on to the employee’s hand. He was off work for more than three months but has since returned to the company.

A HSE investigation found the company, a subsidiary of the ThyssenKrupp group, had failed to provide workers with adequate information, instruction and training or appropriately manage the site maintenance programme.

ThyssenKrupp (Materials) UK Ltd, of Cox’s Lane, Cradley Heath, West Midlands, was fined £10,000 with £940.50 costs after admitting a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Cooper said:

“ThyssenKrupp Materials should have spent time working out a safe working methods for all maintenance tasks, especially those which were routine. There were no written risk assessments or safe systems of work in place.

“The company should also have made sure that the engineers were given the necessary training on the machines and the information they needed to operate them. Instead, they were given nothing and expected to learn as they went along.

“Since the incident the firm has brought in service engineers to do the most intricate maintenance work and arranged for those engineers to give the employees training on the machines. Had they done this before, a worker could have been spared a painful injury.”

Waste recycling firm prosecuted over worker’s crush injuries

A waste recycling firm has been fined after a worker suffered severe crush injuries in an unsafe machine.

The 22-year-old, who has asked not to be named, was clearing a blockage from a cardboard baler at Bakers Waste Services Ltd’s Enderby site on 27 January 2014 when his left leg became trapped between the static framework and moving bed.

It took firefighters three hours to free him. He was in hospital for four weeks and underwent three operations to insert metal rods and screws between his knee and ankle. He also required skin and muscle grafts, and in some places the bones in his leg were so severely damaged they are now missing.

A HSE investigation found the company had failed to maintain guards and other protective devices on the baler. Although guards were present they did not close properly meaning interlocking devices and the electrical control circuit of the machine were not properly activated.

Leicester Magistrates’ Court heard that while the worker was clearing the blockage he inadvertently activated the baler as there was also no safe system of work for safely isolating the power supply.

Bakers Waste Services Ltd, of Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,577 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Berian Price said:

“The incident was entirely preventable. Bakers Waste Services fell below the standards expected of a competent employer, standards which are well publicised and accepted within the industry. The safety devices on the baler had been defective for a period of time yet it took an horrific incident before they took action to remedy the problem.

“Incidents arising from dangerous parts of machinery are unfortunately commonplace despite freely available guidance. Around 12 people a year are killed and a further 40,000 injured due to incidents involving machinery.”