Risk, Health and Safety Information

Double prosecution after worker’s fatal fall

A roofer and a national timber supplier have been sentenced for serious safety breaches after a labourer plunged more than eight metres to his death at a site in North London.

Andrew Ward, 44, from South East London, was fatally injured on 22 May 2012 when he fell through a fragile roof at Howarth Timber’s site in Bruce Grove. At the time, he was working for roofer and builder Paul Hardy, trading as Hardy Construction.

The HSE prosecuted both Leeds-based Howarth Timber and Paul Hardy, from Kent, after an investigation exposed dangerous failings in the planning and execution of the work.

Southwark Crown Court heard that Howarth Timber had hired Paul Hardy to fix a leaking cement roof at the site. However, the company failed to check Mr Hardy’s competence before work began or properly assessed the risks associated with the job.

Paul Hardy didn’t plan the work adequately and failed to provide a risk assessment or method statement detailing how he would carry it out. Instead of making sure there was safe access to the roof, he provided an incorrectly-erected tower scaffold and an untied ladder. He also failed to provide a suitable working platform, covering or guardrails despite the work being carried out near a fragile roof.

Paul Hardy was sentenced to four months in prison suspended for 12 months and fined £3,000 with £11,756 in full costs after admitting breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Howarth Timber Building Supplies was fined £93,750 and ordered to pay full costs of £12,580 for a breach Section 3(1) of the same Act. Both parties had pleaded guilty at earlier hearings.

Investigating HSE inspector Chris Tilley said:

“Falls through fragile roofs are sadly all too common but this tragic incident could have been avoided if adequate checks had been carried out on the contractor’s competence, the work been planned properly and carried out with the correct equipment.

“The dangers of working at height are well-known in the construction industry and guidance is widely available. The work here should ideally have been undertaken without the need to directly access the roof, for example by using a Mobile Elevated Working Platform, or, if that is not possible, with safety measures to minimise the risk of falling such as or netting, crawling boards and fall arrest harnesses.

“Falls from height continue to be the most common cause of fatality to workers and accounted for 29% of deaths reported to HSE in 2013/14 – meaning that 19 workers lost their lives in falls that were avoidable.”
 

Home builder in court for platform collapse

A national home builder has been fined for safety failings after a bricklayer was badly injured in a three metre fall when a temporary platform collapsed.

Daniel Kersey, 64, from Royal Wootton Bassett, fractured vertebrae and sustained deep cuts and bruising in the incident at the Mitford Fields development in Reading on 5 August 2013.

He was working on a platform over a stairwell that was loaded with almost 70 concrete blocks. They crashed to the floor below with him when it gave way.

Newcastle-based Bellway Homes Ltd was sentenced after an investigation by the HSE identified concerns with the management of temporary works at the site.

Reading Crown Court heard that Mr Kersey was working on the last of 64 Bellway properties at Mitford Fields, and that the platform and methods used were consistent with others across the new build development.

However, HSE inspectors established that the platform wasn’t built to an approved design or checked for stability prior to being used. It was structurally unsound and the weight of the blocks combined with Mr Kersey was too much, causing it to fail.

The bricklayer was unable to work for several weeks as a result of his injuries and has been left with regular back pains. He is also unable to lift heavy weights since the fall.

The court was told it was the second time that HSE has prosecuted Bellway Homes for failings with temporary works. The company was also fined in April 2014 following an incident in December 2012 where a sub-contractor fell through a stairwell when a temporary handrail gave way at a site in Shiremoor, North Tyneside.

Bellway Homes Ltd, of Dudley Lane, Seaton Burn, Newcastle, was fined a total of £35,000 and ordered to pay a further £14,520 in costs after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to two separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Dominic Goacher commented:

“The need to plan, manage and monitor temporary works on construction sites is well documented, yet despite this, and the earlier prosecution, Bellway Homes failed to implement an effective system for monitoring platforms and the like throughout the lifetime of the Mitford Fields site.

“Bellway Homes is the fourth largest house builder in the UK and it would be expected the company has enough knowledge and experience to have been able to put proper controls in place.

“Mr Kersey was left in considerable pain as a result of the fall, but could easily have been killed, either by the impact or the concrete blocks as they rained down around him.”
 

Contractor in court after section of roof fell on worker

A construction contractor has been fined for serious safety failings after part of a roof fell on a worker during demolition.

Peter Mullen, then 68, suffered severe injuries in the incident on 21 February 2013 as he helped demolish a chalet at Turnberry Holiday Park in Girvan.

Ayrshire Sheriff Court was told that Mr Mullen, an employee of John Gordon Black, trading as J B Black Construction Services, was tasked with two other employees to demolish a single story timber framed chalet which had been the park’s former reception.

On the day of the incident, under the instruction of John Gordon Black, Peter Mullen along with two colleagues started demolishing the chalet. They used hand tools and did not have or use any props or supports for the task. They removed the doors and windows as well as a wall at the rear of the chalet.

Later that day Peter Mullen was in front of the chalet, picking up waste from the ground and taking it to a skip while his colleagues were standing nearby. As Mr Mullen walked towards the skip, the front roof section of the chalet fell suddenly forward over the remaining part of the front wall of the chalet, which also collapsed beneath it. The two colleagues ran to the rear of the building and jumped out of the way of the collapsing roof, which had slid forward 2.5 metres. The collapsed roof section, weighing around 600kg, came to rest on top of Mr Mullen trapping him there.

Several people including tree fellers who were on site came to help lift the roof off Mr Mullen who was taken to hospital with ten broken ribs, a broken left shoulder blade, a collapsed lung, a tear in his spleen and severely bruised kidneys. He spent four months in hospital and still suffers pain as a result of his injuries.

An investigation by the HSE found that John Gordon Black had failed to assess the risk of the chalet having an unplanned structural collapse before the demolition work began and subsequently failed to plan the work properly.

There was also no written arrangement for carrying out the demolition work, as required under Regulation 29 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for this type of work and there was no exclusion zone around the demolition area meaning the workers had to work within the footprint of the building and on top of the roof as they were demolishing it, clearly exposing them to risks to their safety.

The partially collapsed chalet was ultimately demolished using a long reach excavator, without the need to have workers or others exposed to risk during the demolition.

John Gordon Black, trading as J B Black Construction Services, of Bairdsmill, Crosshill, Maybole, was fined £2,660 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE inspector Moira Jennings said:

“This was an entirely avoidable incident. The risks associated with demolition activity are well known and long standing. Demolition, dismantling and structural alteration are high risk activities which require careful planning and execution by contractors who are competent in the full range of demolition techniques.

“In this case, demolition using hand tools meant workers were unnecessarily exposed to the risk of structural collapse. It would have been safer to use a long reach excavator, which was subsequently brought in to complete the demolition following the incident.

“Ultimately, the system of work planned by John Gordon Black was unsafe, resulting in severe injuries which still affect Mr Mullen today.”

 Fuel firm fined £20,000

A fuel supply business has been sentenced after one of its workers was injured after being struck by a vehicle in a works yard.

D A Roberts Fuels Ltd of Grindley Brook, Whitchurch, Shropshire, pleaded guilty to safety failings after the incident at the premises in 19 February 2014.

Shropshire Magistrates’ Court heard the employee was tasked with clearing out the drains in the yard shared with an adjacent business. As he was kneeling to clean out a drain he was struck by an approaching vehicle, driven by the employee of the adjacent company, and suffering injuries including a bone fracture to the neck.

DA Roberts Fuels Ltd was fined £20,000 with costs of £2,989 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The HSE, prosecuting, told the court the defendant had not provided a safe system of work, as there were no barriers to segregate the work area, no signage was used to warn people of the work and no consideration had been given to performing the work when vehicles were not moving.
 
Health & Safety Myth Busters:

DIY Store unable to give customer product advice
Issue
The enquirer was in a DIY store and asked for some advice on which spotlights to buy as her electrician had given her a connection block size and she wanted to know where to look for the connection box. She also wanted some general advice on what the difference was between various spotlights on the shelf. The store assistant said he could not give any advice due to health and safety because if he did and then the enquirer relied on it and something went wrong he would be liable.
Panel opinion
Nothing in health and safety at work regulations prevents shop assistants providing product information. This company has a general policy that staff do not give detailed advice on matters that they feel are technical in nature unless they are trained to do so – but they do employ an electrician part-time in store to do this. Instead of explaining this policy or involving the electrician, the assistant gave the less than illuminating excuse of ‘health and safety’

Current users of a gym need to undertake a fee paying induction programme

Issue
Enquirer lives in an apartment block that has its own gym. A new fitness firm has taken over the running of the gym and has sent a legal document to all owners and residents stating that it is a requirement under health and safety regulations that all users of the facility have to undertake the firm’s fee paying induction programme or they are not allowed to use the gym. When the enquirer challenged the "requirements" he was told it was designed to protect them from being sued.
Panel opinion
"Health and safety regulations" do not require users to undertake induction training on gym equipment. While it is useful for new users, insisting that existing customers pay for induction training on equipment they are already familiar with is excessive. This appears to be about a fear of being sued rather than a decision based on real health and safety risks. The company should be honest about the reasons for insisting on the training rather than using "health and safety regulations" as an excuse.