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.”