Friday, 28 April 2017


Health and Safety in the news this week

Today is World Day for Safety and Health at Work
– 28th April 2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) marks its World Day for Safety and Health at Work on or around 28th April each year. World Day is an international campaign to promote safe, healthy and decent work around the globe.

The UK is a founding member of the ILO, and a number of events will be taking place around the world to recognise World Day for Safety and Health.  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) gives its full support to the day.

The ILO have reported that their global estimates revealed that every day 6,300 people die due to workplace accidents or work-related illnesses that can be prevented. In particular, they have highlighted an issue in the Philippines, which has a relatively young workforce who work mainly in sectors which are considered as hazardous, such as agriculture, manufacturing and construction.  Young workers suffer higher work-related injury than older workers as they enter the labour force and half of these accidents happen during the first six months of their job starting.

The young workers have organised a flash-mob demonstration to mark World Day for Safety and Health, and a number of small talks, toolbox talks and discussions to help build a culture of prevention.  This is just one example of events being held to raise awareness.

If you would like to find out more about ILO and their events, visit http://www.ilo.org/safework/lang--en/index.htm

Friday, 21 April 2017


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.”

Monday, 27 March 2017


Legislation Update
Mobile phones


 Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal. It has been since 2003. From 1 March, the penalties for holding and using your phone while driving increased. It’s now 6 points and £200.

It is not illegal to use hands free, but any time a driver’s attention is not on the road can be dangerous.
The facts

  • Drivers using a hands-free or handheld mobile phone are slower at recognising and reacting to hazards.
  • Research shows:
    • You are four times more likely to be in a crash if you use your phone.
    • Your reaction times are two times slower if you text and drive than if you drink drive, and this increases to three times if you use a handheld phone.
  • Even careful drivers can be distracted by a call or text – and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.
The law

  • It's illegal to use a handheld mobile when driving. This includes using your phone to follow a map, read a text or check social media. This applies even if you’re stopped at traffic lights or queuing in traffic.
  • It is also illegal to use a handheld phone or similar device when supervising a learner driver.
  • You can only use a handheld phone if you are safely parked or need to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it’s unsafe or impractical to stop.
  • If you’re caught using a handheld phone while driving, you’ll get 6 penalty points on your licence and a fine of £200. Points on your licence will result in higher insurance costs.
  • If you get just 6 points in the first two years after passing your test, you will lose your licence.
  • Using hands free (e.g. for navigation) is not illegal. However, if this distracts you and affects your ability to drive safely, you can still be prosecuted by the police.
THINK! Advice

·         Put your phone away before driving so you won’t be tempted to use it. Make the glove compartment the phone compartment.

·         Don't call other people when they're driving.

·         Use hands free devices responsibly.

THINK! Road safety campaign is run by the Department for Transport

Source: think.direct.gov.uk

Health and Safety Guidance
How Many First Aiders Do We Need?

Suggested Numbers of first aiders to be available at all times people are at work























 

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

From as little as £25+VAT per course per person. 

RHSS E Learning is fast, efficient and interactive!

email us now for a free trial or a quotation tracey@rhssltd.co.uk
















E-Learning Currently Available

Health and Safety Training
·         Asbestos Awareness
·         Contractors Safety Procedures
·         CPR Essentials
·         Drivewize Training
·         Ebola Virus and Disease
·         Electrical Safety
·         ErgoWize (DSE)
·         Evacuation Procedures
·         Fire Safety Essentials
·         Fire Wardens
·         Food Safety Essentials
·         Hazardous Substances (COSHH)
·         Health and Safety Induction
·         Homeworking Policy
·         Legionella
·         Lone Working Essentials
·         Managing Health and Safety
·         Manual Handling
·         Movie Makers Driver Training
·         Pandemic Procedures
·         Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
·         Risk Assessment
·         Safeguarding
·         Slips, Trips and Falls
·         Social Media Policy
·         Working at Height

HR Courses
·         Alcohol and Drug Awareness Policy
·         Anti Bribery and Corruption
·         Bullying and Harassment Policy
·         Data Protection
·         Disciplinary Policy
·         Equality and Diversity Policy
·         Grievance Policy
·         Internet User Policy
·         New and Expectant Mothers Policy
·         Resource Efficiency
·         Stress Essentials

Assessments
·         DriveWize Assessment
·         ErgoWize (DSE) Assessment
·         Expectant Mothers Risk Assessment
·         Homeworker Safety Risk Assessment
·         Lone Worker Risk Assessment

·         New Mothers Risk Assessment

Tuesday, 28 February 2017


Health and Safety in the news this week
Southwark pleads guilty over Lakanal House fire

A London council has pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking fire safety regulations over a blaze in a 14-storey tower block that killed six people.
Southwark council admitted it failed to address fire risks at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south-east London, in the years leading up to the UK’s worst ever tower block fire on 3 July 2009.

The fire, which an inquest previously found had started in a television in a ninth-floor flat, spread through the 1958-built block of 98 maisonettes with a ferocity that baffled firefighters and terrified residents. 
Those who died had been told to stay in their homes by 999 operators, who believed fire safety measures would be sufficient to prevent flames and smoke from reaching them.
London Fire Brigade, which is responsible for enforcing fire safety laws, originally brought 22 charges against Southwark, but in a hearing at Southwark Crown Court, the council agreed instead to plead guilty to four charges on a revised indictment.

Outlining the case against Southwark, Stephen Walsh QC, representing the fire brigade, said:
“It was a serious fire from about four o’clock in the afternoon on that warm day. It started in a piece of electrical equipment in a bedroom in a flat on the ninth floor.

Tragically, six people, including three children, died on the 10th and 11th floors. But it’s of great importance that I make the point that this prosecution is concerned with the risks that existed prior to the fire, because that’s what the fire safety order is concerned with.”
Dave Lewis of the Sceaux Gardens Tenants and Residents Association, who lives in Marie Curie House, an identical block opposite Lakanal House, said:

“It was a very tragic day back in 2009; three children, one 20 days old, lost their lives.
I think it’s appropriate for the London Fire Brigade to bring this case against Southwark council. I think Southwark ... have put a lot of time, energy and money into improving fire safety in high-rise [blocks] and beyond there.

However, I think this case is needed because the message needs to go out to landlords, social or otherwise, that they have responsibilities that can’t be ignored.”
Dan Daly, London Fire Brigade’s assistant commissioner for fire safety, said their advice in the event of a similar incident remains the same:

“If buildings are built and maintained correctly, walls, floors and doors in flats and maisonettes give you protection from fire – a minimum of 30 to 60 minutes – so, if there is a fire elsewhere in the building but not inside your home you’re safer staying in your flat unless heat or smoke is affecting you. Stay put and call 999.
If you leave your flat you could be rushing into choking smoke, the fire itself or firefighters using equipment to bring the fire under control in another part of the building.”

A Southwark spokeswoman said the council accepted responsibility for the fire and had spent £62m on fire risk assessment programmes since.
Source: Construction Manager News

HSE prosecution round up:
Steel worker suffers life threatening injuries

A Canvey Island engineering firm was sentenced today for health and safety breaches after a worker suffered life-changing injuries.
Southend-on-Sea Magistrates’ Court heard that on 10 June 2015 Felix Trefas, 27, a welder for F. Brazil Reinforcements Ltd, was making large steel reinforcing cages which were moved by overhead travelling cranes.

When one of these cranes broke down, a colleague asked Mr Trefas to climb more than an estimated six metres up the crane supports to re-set the controls. While Mr Trefas was resetting the faulty crane, his left leg was crushed when he came into contact with another overhead crane. His leg was later amputated below the knee.
The District Judge heard the overhead cranes were poorly maintained so that workers regularly had to work at height to re-set them and during the night shift this often involved workers climbing the crane support column

Summing up he said this “horrific accident should never have happened” and that the company “should have had systems in place” to identify that unsafe access to the cranes was regularly occurring.

The court also heard the toilet and washing facilities for workers were in an extremely poor and dirty condition despite having been the subject of previous enforcement action by HSE.
F. Brazil Reinforcements Ltd of Romainville Way, Charfleets Industrial Estate, Canvey Island pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and to two separate breaches of Regulation 4 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

It was fined £277,000 in relation to the Section 3(1) charge, a single penalty of £5,000 in relation to the two breaches of Regulation 4, and ordered to pay £11,904 costs and £120 victim surcharge.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Matthews commented:

“It is essential that lifting equipment is properly maintained and that safe systems of work are in place for work at height. Employers have a duty to ensure that welfare facilities are kept clean.

Felix is incredibly lucky that he was not killed in this incident but he has suffered permanent life-changing injuries. This preventable workplace accident has changed the life of a previously fit and hard-working young man irrevocably.” 

Employer prosecuted after employee falls from roof
A self-employed businessman has been prosecuted after his employee fell from the flat roof of a building and died from his injuries.

Manchester Crown Court heard how, on 22 December 2013, father of two, Jason Fogarty, a casual employee of Roy Hardaker (trading as 9 to 5 Roofing), was working on a flat roof replacement project. He was working alongside Hardaker.
The roof replacement was complete and the men were installing cladding and flashing around the top of the building to seal the edges of the roof. Mr. Fogarty was holding the cladding sheets in position from a ladder footed by his colleague, while Hardaker secured the sheets and the flashing from the roof.

Mr. Fogarty climbed up onto the roof and subsequently fell from the edge and was pronounced dead at the scene. The reason for him climbing to the roof was not discovered.

A joint investigation carried out by Greater Manchester Police and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the work was not properly planned in order to ensure it could be carried out safely. As a result, there were no measures in place, such as scaffold edge protection, to prevent falls from the edges of the roof.

HSE inspector Laura Moran said after the hearing:
“The dangers associated with working at height are well known.

Mr. Hardaker is an experienced roofer, who completely failed in his duties to properly plan the roof work and to ensure it was carried out safely. By failing to have suitable edge protection installed around the building, Mr. Hardaker put himself and his employees at risk, ultimately costing Mr. Fogarty his life.”
Roy Hardaker, 9 to 5 Roofing, of Oldham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, suspended for two years and 200 hours of unpaid work.

London based firm fined after worker's death

Bus Company Go Ahead London has been sentenced after worker was killed when he fell from a ladder.

Southwark Crown Court heard on 26 May 2011 the worker was using a ladder to access the top of a fuel tank when he fell two and a half metres backwards, suffering fatal head injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company did not implement and keep to their own procedures for managing contractors. As a result they failed to manage their contractors effectively and ensure that they conduct work in a safe manner.

Go Ahead London of 41-51 Grey Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne have been found guilty of section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and have been fined £600,000 and ordered to pay costs of £78,531.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Neil Fry said:

“This is a tragic case which could have been entirely preventable.  If the company had managed their contractors effectively then the worker would have returned home safely from work.”

Self-employed haulage contractor killed by reversing lorry

A Swinton transport company and a director were in court today following the death of an HGV company owner at their Sandywood Industrial Estate.
Daniel Adams, 63, of Farnworth, rented a unit on the industrial estate owned by Alec Sharples Farm Supplies and Transport Limited where the fatal incident occurred on the 7 May 2014.

Manchester Crown Court heard how Mr Adams had been working on one of his own lorries when an HGV owned by Alec Sharples reversed into Mr Adams’s section of the yard.
The HGV driver spoke with Mr Adams. However, when the conversation was over the HGV driver reversed his truck, inadvertently crushing Mr Adams between the two vehicles. Daniel Adams was taken to Salford Royal Hospital where he died of internal injuries two days later.

The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted Alec Sharples Farm Supplies and Transport Limited for serious safety failings in the organisation and operation of the site.
The HSE investigation found the firm had failed to implement a safe system of work for reversing HGVs and training drivers. There was no segregation of pedestrians and HGVs or any banksmen provided.

Alec Sharples Farm Supplies and Transport Ltd of Roscow Road, Kearsley, Bolton pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Ian Betley said:

“This was a tragic and wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of the host company to implement safe systems of work, and failure to ensure that health and safety documentation was communicated and followed.
This risk was further amplified by the company’s failure to undertake a number of simple safety measures including segregating vehicles and pedestrians, ensuring that vehicles were fitted with reversing ‘bleepers’, and ensuring that reversing manoeuvres were supervised, in accordance with their site rules.
 
Container terminal in court after worker injured
London Container Terminal (Tilbury) Limited (LCT) has been fined after a worker was seriously injured when the ‘straddle’ carrier he was driving overturned at Tilbury Docks in November 2014.

Basildon Crown Court heard that on 16 November 2014 a worker inadvertently drove his straddle carrier into a large excavation at the docks.  The court was told that looking down from his cab, the driver did not see the road cones, small flashing lights or the ticker tape around the excavation because it was dark and the weather conditions were poor.
The straddle carrier, a vehicle used in the port terminal for stacking and moving freight shipping containers, toppled over. The worker suffered life changing injuries, his head wound required 29 staples to close and he continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the precautions taken by LCT were wholly inadequate to prevent the vehicle from being able to enter the excavation. The court heard that all of the straddle carrier drivers working in the vicinity of the excavation had been exposed to the risk for several days during the course of the excavation works.
London Container Terminal Limited of Northfleet Hope House, Tilbury Docks, Tilbury pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and have been fined £180,000 and ordered to pay costs of £73,296. London Container Terminal ceased trading in December the fine will be paid by the Port of Tilbury (London) Limited.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Nicola Jaynes said:
“This was a serious incident and that could have been much worse. This was preventable if LCT had the correct safety precautions in place.  This case serves as a reminder that suitable precautions are required to protect both pedestrians and vehicles from entering excavations.”

Oldham building contractor in court over fall from height risk
An Oldham based building firm has been fined for exposing its workers to dangerous work at height.

An Inspector from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued an immediate Prohibition Notice ordering Select Quality Homes Ltd to stop work at a site at Newmarket Road, Ashton under Lyne until workers had protection against falling from height. 
 
Manchester City Magistrates Court heard that an unannounced inspection took place in April 2015. During the visit the Inspector found that edge protection on the scaffolding was absent or inadequate in several places and as a result a prohibition notice was issued. Upon a return visit from HSE to the site the scaffolding was still inadequate. 
The court also heard that if Select Quality Homes Ltd had carried out their duty to plan, manage, and monitor the site properly, and subsequently followed the advice outlined by HSE’s Inspector, the defects in the scaffolding would have been resolved without the need for any formal enforcement action.
Select Quality Homes Ltd of Middleton Road, Chadderton, Oldham pleaded guilty to breaches of Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £6,600 and ordered to pay costs of £646.70.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector David Argument said:
“This could have been avoided if Select Quality Homes Ltd had taken simple steps to prevent people from falling, such as guard rails, mid rails and toe-boards.  Prohibition Notices are only served when an Inspector is concerned there is a risk of serious injury.  Failure to comply with these notices is a criminal offence and HSE will take robust action when dutyholders do not take action to control serious risk”.


 

 

Monday, 13 February 2017


Health and Safety in the news this week
HSE to make cost recovery dispute process fully independent

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has announced that it is to consult on proposals to make its cost recovery scheme dispute process fully independent.
The scheme, Fee for Intervention (FFI) was introduced in October 2012 to shift the cost of regulating workplace health and safety from the public purse to businesses which break the law and ensures the cost burden of HSE intervention is picked up by those companies and not taxpayers.

If an inspector identifies serious health and safety failings in the workplace about which they need to write to the dutyholder, then that dutyholder has to pay the costs of the HSE visit. If the inspector simply issues verbal advice there is no charge. If there is disagreement on HSE’s decision the dutyholder can dispute it.
Until now, disputes were considered by a panel which consisted of two members from HSE and one independent person. However, after reviewing the current process HSE will consult with relevant stakeholders with a view to making the process fully independent.

A spokesperson for HSE said: “HSE has always kept the dispute process under review and following a recent application for a judicial review we believe the time is right to move to a dispute process which is completely independent of HSE.”
Source: www.hse.gov.uk
 

HSE prosecution round up:
Oxfordshire based company fined for safety failings

An Oxfordshire based ground engineering company has been fined after a worker contracted severe hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).
Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee, who was working at the company’s earth retaining division, known as Phi Group, was eventually diagnosed as suffering from HAVS after repeatedly flagging his symptoms to the company for over five years.

Symptoms of HAVS can include tingling, numbness and pain in the hands. This affects sleep when it occurs at night and sufferers have difficulties in gripping and holding things, particularly small items such as screws, doing up buttons, writing and driving.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company did not have the right system in place to manage the workers’ health as it did not have a suitable health surveillance programme in place to monitor for the early onset of HAVS and to prevent the irreversible condition from developing.

Keller Limited of Oxford Road, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and were fined £6,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,263.45.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Mehtaab Hamid said:

“This was a case of the company completely failing to grasp the importance of HAVS health surveillance.  If they had understood why health surveillance was necessary, it would have ensured that it had the right systems in place to monitor worker’s health and the employee’s condition would not have been allowed to develop to a severe and life altering stage”.

Construction company director imprisoned after safety failings
The director of a construction company has been imprisoned for eight months after failing to take appropriate action which resulted in a young worker receiving serious burns.

Cardiff Crown Court heard the young worker was instructed to stand on top of a skip and pour a drum of flammable thinners onto the burning waste to help it to burn. The fireball that resulted when the thinners ignited caused the worker to be blown from the skip and he suffered substantial burns to his arms and legs.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company director did not ensure the burning of the waste material was being carried out in a safe or appropriate manner. He failed to administer any first aid to the young injured worker and did not send him to hospital, the most appropriate response given the severity of the injuries suffered. He failed to inform HSE of the incident, a legal requirement, and the incident was only reported sometime later by a third party

David Gordon Stead of Mildred Street, Beddau, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and also pled guilty to breaching Section 4 (1) of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR), and was sentenced to 32 weeks imprisonment, half on release under licence. He has also been disqualified from being a company director for seven years.

Speaking after the case HSE inspector Adele Davies said:
“David Stead failed his employees. His actions could have resulted in the death of this worker. The young man suffered unnecessary life threatening injuries due to poor working standards.  We hope this sentence sends out a message that directors of businesses must take their health and safety responsibilities seriously.”

Building Contractor fined after workers fatal fall
A Manchester building contractor has been jailed following the death of a casual labourer who fell nearly seven metres through a fragile roof.

The 45-year-old labourer from Manchester had been carrying out repair work at Witney Mill, Manchester when the incident occurred on 23 November 2013.
Saleem Hussain had been engaged by the warehouse owner, who believed him to be a competent building contractor, to carry out repair and maintenance work on the warehouse roof. He then hired two people to do the work. 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that both workers were not qualified to carry out work at height. They had accessed the roof via a ladder in order to repair and seal leaking guttering. No safety precautions were in place to protect the two men from the danger of falling through the fragile roof.
Manchester Crown Court heard that Mr Hussain failed to assess the risks or put a safe working method in place. No suitable training or equipment to work on the roof had been provided.

Saleem Hussain of Birchfields Road, Manchester pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was sentenced to 8 months immediate imprisonment.
Speaking after the hearing HSE Principal Inspector Mike Sebastian said:

”The dangers of falls through fragile roofs and working at height are well known. Simple steps such as removing the need to access the roof directly by using mobile working platforms, or boarding out the roof, or using safety harnesses, can and should be used to prevent accident and injury.  Mr Hussain’s failure to take any such actions resulted in a tragic and needless loss of life”. 

Suspended sentence for unregistered gas worker
A man has been fined and given a suspended prison sentence after working on a number of boilers without being Gas Safe registered.

High Wycombe Crown Court heard how Philip Locke carried out work on a boiler in 2013 without being registered, faults were later found with the boiler.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuting issued a letter to Mr Locke informing him of his responsibility to be registered in order to work on boilers. Further information given to HSE suggested that Mr Locke failed to become Gas Safe registered.

Mr Philip Locke of Chalfont St Giles, High Wycombe pleaded of breaching pleaded guilty to two charges under the Gas Safety Regulations 1998 has been sentenced to four months imprisonment suspended for one year and fined £6500 and ordered to pay costs of £6280.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Stephen Faulkner said:

“Philip Locke showed disregard for the law when he continued to work on gas appliances without certification.  This case highlights the importance that plumbers must be competent and Gas Safe registered to work on gas appliances.”
Recycling company fined after worker crushed

A recycling firm has been fined after a worker suffered crush injuries from a roller shutter door.
Newport Magistrates’ Court heard how a Recresco Limited employee was injured when the door’s roller barrel fell on him resulting in three cracked ribs and a damaged spleen, causing him to miss eight weeks of work.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on the 17 April 2015, found that none of the electronically operated roller shutter doors at the company’s site had been adequately maintained to keep the equipment safe.
Recresco Limited of Springvale Industrial Estate, Cwmbran have pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and have been fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9944.

Speaking after the case HSE inspector Lee Schilling said:  
“This case highlights the importance of regular pro-active maintenance and inspection of work equipment, including roller shutter doors, to ensure equipment does not deteriorate to the extent that it puts people at risk. In this case Recresco failed to effectively maintain their equipment and it could have easily resulted in a fatal injury.”