Risk, Health and Safety Information

A reminder on safe working practices this week…

 

 

HSE Prosecutions round-up: 

Builder in court over absence of welfare facilities

A building contractor, Phillip Affleck, has been fined for serious health breaches and lack of welfare facilities on one of his building sites.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that the HSE received a complaint from a member of the public in May 2014 about the conditions on the site where work was being carried out to convert a disused NHS premises.

The HSE investigation found access to the construction site was restricted and had a lack of both health and safety provisions and welfare facilities. Workers were entering the building via ladders and planks. Work was stopped whilst Mr Affleck arranged for scaffolding to be erected to make access to the building safe.

Dust from sandblasting activities was found to be affecting other workers on the site and inadequate protection had been provided. Workers were expected to carry out tasks such as groundworks and bricklaying but were unable to wash their hands to remove any contamination.

An Improvement Notice requiring the provision of sanitary, washing and rest facilities was issued.

On Friday 18 September 2015, Mr Affleck of Legh Street, Golborne pleaded guilty to breaches of Regulation 22 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 7 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. He was fined a total £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,495. 

Building contractor sentenced over multiple safety failings

A builder has been sentenced after pleading guilty to multiple health and safety issues at a site in Altrincham where he was carrying out a shop conversion into three apartments.

Peter Lawrence was running the building works at a shop on Kingsway in Altrincham.  The project involved the full strip out and refurbishment of the ground floor shop and two upper floors to convert into three apartments.

Mr Lawrence was in control of all construction works and acted as builder and project manager employing numerous trades and labourers on site throughout the refurbishment.

The site first came to HSE’s attention in November 2013 following a complaint about possible asbestos disturbance on site.  Between this visit and April 2014 a number of HSE inspectors visited the site to investigate safety concerns and deal with the risks presented by Mr Lawrence’s work. A number of issues were identified during the visit including unsafe work at height, unsafe scaffolding, issues relating to asbestos, fire safety failings, unsafe electric supply, a lack of welfare facilities and safety equipment.

The HSE inspectors served three Prohibition Notices and four Improvement Notices, along with two Notifications of Contravention during the three site visits.

On 18 September 2015, Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that some of the issues had been satisfactorily dealt with by Mr Lawrence following HSE’s intervention but that he had failed to comply with two Improvement Notices regarding fire safety on site.

Mr Lawrence was charged with two counts of failing to comply with an Improvement Notice, one count of failing to provide adequate firefighting and fire alarm equipment on site and one count of failing to plan, manage and monitor construction work so that it was carried out in a safe manner.

Mr Peter Lawrence of Kingsway, Altrincham pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates Court to breaching Regulations 13(2) and 41(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and two breaches of Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £8,000 with £4,802 costs and a victim surcharge of £120.
 

Scaffolder’s serious safety failings captured on film

A scaffolder has been prosecuted after he repeatedly allowed unsafe work at height to be carried out on a busy London street.

Greg Pearson, from Enfield, trading as ‘Pearsons Scaffolding’, was prosecuted by the HSE after a member of the public raised concerns about scaffolding work being carried out on Tavistock Street in central London.

She was so concerned for the safety of passers-by and workers on the fifteen metre high scaffold that three separate complaints including photographs and videos were passed to HSE.

HSE visited the site twice and found the incomplete scaffold to be poorly erected and unsafe work practices were putting workers at risk. No measures had been taken to prevent any falling scaffolding equipment hitting members of the public below.

HSE served a Prohibition Notice ordering work to be stopped until the scaffold was made safe, but Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that Pearson ignored this and other warnings, carrying on regardless.

The court also heard Pearson failed to respond when required to produce documents for inspection during the investigation, hindering the HSE’s efforts to ensure future work was carried out safely at other sites. Pearsons Scaffolding’s involvement at the site only ended when a second Prohibition Notice was served and the project’s Principal Contractor decided to take on another scaffolder to complete the work.

Greg Pearson, 33, of South Street, Enfield, pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (6(3), 10(1)) and was given two suspended prison sentences of 10 weeks to run concurrently, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £80. 

HSE Myth Busters:

Buses cannot stop at certain bus stops because of health and safety

Issue

A bus company claimed their bus could not stop at certain stops along a diversion route because of health and safety issues.

Panel opinion

This is a clear case of health and safety being used as an excuse when the reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with health and safety.  The bus company recognised this and will encourage their staff to give proper explanations in future, not just the catch-all ‘health and safety’.

TV Company cites health and safety as reason for different camera angles

Issue

A TV company responded to viewer complaints regarding camera angles during broadcast of football match, citing ‘health and safety on the gantry’.

Panel opinion

Our enquiries have discovered that the upper gantry normally used for television cameras was found to be unsafe to use during preparations for the broadcast. Alternative positions were investigated and the cameras were moved to a lower gantry. Whilst the coverage of the game was not of the quality that viewers would normally expect, it was appropriate to use safety as the reason. The good news is that the safety issues are being rectified so future coverage will not be affected, and full marks to the TV crew in the meantime for finding an alternative place to site the camera even if it was not of normal quality.