As most businesses will already be aware, at present a person who has suffered some loss can bring a personal injury compensation claim with no financial risk to themselves whatsoever. If they win the defendant pays the solicitor’s costs and fees, including a special bonus – the “success fee”. If they lose their solicitor agrees not to charge you for their work – the no win no fee arrangement.

In addition, their solicitor will have arranged an after-the-event insurance policy (ATE insurance) which will pay for medical reports, court fees, mediator’s fee and the defendant’s costs which normally they would pay if they lost the case. Further if they win, the defendants have to pay the premium for the ATE insurance (which may be thousands of pounds) and if they lose the premium is self-insuring so they don’t have to pay for it then either.

However, all of this could be set to change. Lord Jackson has completed a review of personal injury litigation costs and has recommended that ATE premiums are no longer payable by defendants who lose personal injury claims. Also he has proposed that the success fee – instead of being paid to the claimant’s solicitor by the defendant – is paid by the claimant out of the their compensation. Hence if you win there is a fee.

Whilst it is true that these proposals are revolutionary they do have the strong backing of the senior judges so it is likely that they will be put in to force in the not too distant future. Rest assured that we will keep you posted on any further developments.

If you need any help or assistance with health and safety our expert health and safety consultants can help you From health and safety policy development to noise and COSHH risk assessment, safety audits and staff development, just call us on 01453 800100 or visit us at www.outsource-safety.co.uk. We also provide safety services to the construction industry including CDM Coordinator, construction site safety visits, method statement and risk assessment development and health and safety policy work.

The Employment Agency Standards (EAS) inspectorate has reported that eleven out of twelve employment agencies it investigated were failing in their health and safety duties. If you do use agencies you should be aware that they share the burden of good health and safety with you and must play their role to ensure that their staff are safe whilst working on your premises.

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (CEAEBR) clearly sets out the safeguards which should be in place. In total, the investigation found evidence of 57 infringements. Of particular concern were the breaches of the CEAEBR health and safety requirements. These state that an employment agency may not, “introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information from the hirer”. Specifically, the agency must identify from the hirer “any risks to health or safety and the steps the hirer has taken to prevent or control such risks”.

If you’re using employment agencies:
• Supply your agency with copies of relevant risk assessments.
• Set out details of the experience, training, qualifications and any particular authorisations required.
• Remind the agency of their legal responsibility under the CEAEBR to pass on the information about the risks of the job and to check that the workers they supply will meet all of your requirements.
• Ask them to sign to confirm that they have fulfilled all of these responsibilities.

If you need any help or assistance with health and safety our expert health and safety consultants can help you From health and safety policy development to noise and COSHH risk assessment, safety audits and staff development, just call us on 01453 800100 or visit us at www.outsource-safety.co.uk. If you would like to be able to manage all of your risks online use our tool at www.safety247.co.uk, contact us for a guest log in.

An HSE inspector prosecuting a theme-park firm over the death of a worker ended up in the dock owing to her behaviour in court.

Inspector Helen Diamond was fined £2000 at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court on 10 November after being found in contempt of court. The charge related to her behaviour in court and towards a defence witness during the trial of Parkware Ltd, owner of the Loudoun Castle theme park in Galston, Ayrshire.

Martin Smith, who worked as a ride operator at the theme park at the time of the incident, who had given evidence for the defence, was later approached in the common area outside the court room by Diamond who asked him what his degree was in, and when he replied accountancy she told him it could have been in drama after his “performance”.

Then, while another defence witness was giving evidence, Sheriff Elizabeth McFarlane noticed the inspector pulling faces and shaking her head in the public gallery, although the Sheriff decided not to bring her behaviour to the court’s attention at this point.

Susan Duff, who was representing Parkware, made a motion to the court to have Diamond excluded because of the incident with Smith. Sheriff McFarlane agreed and told Diamond that she was considering whether her actions were in contempt. The trial ended on 10 October, with Parkware found not guilty of a contravention of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, at which point Diamond was recalled to answer a charge of contempt of court, which she accepted.

Diamond was fined £2000 by the Court and a further £500 by HSE plus has been banned from promotion for 3 years and been issued a final written warning.

A spokesperson for the Health & Safety Executive said: “This is a matter of great regret to both the inspector and the HSE. We accept and understand the decision of the court, and HSE has taken its own disciplinary action against the individual, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court. We expect the highest standards of conduct from all our employees and regret what happened in this case.”

The HSE also confirmed that it intends to write to its field staff to “remind them about court etiquette”.

The death of a seven-year-old, who’d managed to gain access to scaffolding, led to a successful prosecution by the HSE.
Background
Lovell Partnerships Ltd erected a scaffold so that its staff could repair a chimney flue whilst controlling the risk of falling from height, all well and good you might think. The plan was to put the scaffold up, complete the work, and then take it back down again shortly afterwards. However, work was delayed due to an unexpected hold-up and the scaffold remained in place.
As the scaffold was there with no one using it, local children soon adopted it as a playground. They even built a den on the roof of the building. However, twelve days after the scaffold was erected, seven-year-old Adam Triffin fell from it to his death.
Prosecution
The subsequent HSE investigation identified that the accident happened because the scaffolding had been in place long after the time when it should have been needed. The HSE Principal Inspector stated that had the scaffold been removed promptly when it was no longer needed the accident would not have occurred leading to a fine of £75,000 and costs of £46,109 against the company.

Rough justice
You could argue that this was a little heavy handed. Although the company had left the scaffold in place this was due to unforeseen circumstances, further, the company had taken steps to make access more difficult including the removal of access ladder to the lower levels of the platform. However, in this case access was made from the balcony of the building which children did have access to (the area was not fenced off as a construction site and the work area was in the middle of a housing estate), had the company netted the scaffold to prevent this access the courts decision could have been different.

Lessons
If you leave items plant, equipment or access you could be at risk. Construction sites are an attraction to children and the Courts recognise this fact when considering cases such as these. Take some time to review your current arrangements and see if you would pass this test, if you need help in this simply contact us for some free advice and assistance.

On April 26 2007, a fire ripped through New Look’s flagship store in London. The damage was so severe that what parts of the building were left standing had to be pulled down.

The retailer was found guilty as none of its staff had of what to do – to the extent that they did not even inform the Fire & Rescue Service, this was left to a neighbouring organisation.  By the time the rescue services arrived the fire was too well established.  The trial of mistakes continued with investigators also finding that one of the evacuation routes used was right underneath the seat of the fire.

The court  heard that New Look had failed to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It was fined £250,000 for failing to supply a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and £150,000 for failing to train staff adequately. In addition to the above it also had to pay £136,052 in costs.

The Health and Safety Executive announced yesterday, 19/01/2010 that hauliers in the UK are to be subject to spot checks conducted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in order to ensure they are complying with load safety regulations.

The Health and Safety Executive are concerned that too many haulage firms are placing both their goods and workers at risk by failing to properly secure their loads leading to the risk of serious accidents and damage when transporting and also when unloading.

A previous spot check campaign conducted in April 2009 found that loads were insufficiently restrained in 80 per cent of cases.

Peter Brown from HSE warned companies that there is “no excuse” for poor load safety and called for better standards for the sake of workers, other road users and the companies themselves.

He said: “Take those few extra minutes to secure your loads or at best you could face a fine or, at worst, risk death or injury to yourself or others.”

C&G Services provide training and specialist safety consultancy for road haulier and the transport industry throughout the UK including Dangerous Goods Safety Consultancy, risk assessments, method statements and health & safety policy development.  Please contact Roger Hart or John Sennett of C&G Safety & Environmental Limited for more information.

When you hire an item of plant or equipment you are often given a short introductory training course. The aim of the short session is to give rudimentary advice about the operation of the equipment and its key features but are you then competent to operate this machine?

Familiarisation training is meant to be just that. If you already have a licence for the operation of an item of plant machinery (lift truck, elevating work platform, excavator) or an item of machinery (chainsaw, drilling rig, stump grinder) then this training will show you the specifics of that machine. It is not a replacement for what could be a 1, 2 or perhaps 5 day training course.

5 days, that’s a lot of time!
Don’t worry. Unless you haven’t operated the equipment before a full training course may be just a day. The durations refer to complete novices and almost all of the plant and equipment courses which we provide can also be offered as experienced worker assessments where you skip the training and go straight to a practical and theory test. If you are taking this route you should either be replacing an expired licence or be very experienced with the equipment. I you’re not sure the assessment would be the right route simply think of your car test, could you pass again or would you have bad habits which could cause a fail?

In any case, the best thing to do is to speak to one of our experienced course coordinators, they’ll be able to guide you through the process and offer you the best value option for your specific circumstances, just call 01453 826781 or visit www.gettrained.co.uk

Some confusion exists over this issue but the realities are clearly explained in regulation. In fact, the regulations specify areas where cover may not be refused, for example;
• “any breach of the insurance policy by the employer following the event giving rise to a claim, e.g. failure of, or delay in, notification
• any breach of any enactment by the employer concerning the protection of their employees; or
• failure by the employer to keep records as required by the policy or to provide information from such records for the insurer.
• any lack of reasonable care by the employer to protect employees against the risk of bodily injury or disease”

Other than in extreme cases claims cannot be refused but restrictions can be made, particularly in respect of work which the insurer considers hazardous. The majority of insurers limit the height at which employees may work (still the single biggest cause of workplace deaths) and most also include a standard restriction relating to work with asbestos containing materials (ACM’s). These restrictions can be removed but you will find yourself paying much higher premiums for this privilege.

Restrictions are the key issue here. If you decide to work at height on a project and a restriction exists which you then break it is highly unlikely that the insurer will still have to honour the claim. Make sure you know these restrictions and make sure that your staff and managers know. A one off job or even a favour for a good client could leave you with a very significant bill if restrictions are breached and an accident occurs.

EL cover for micro businesses
If you employ just one person within the business then since February 28th 2005 EL cover has no longer been compulsory. However, consider the following scenario’s in which cover would be needed before cancelling any existing arrangement;
• You hire a part time member of staff to ease your workload over a busy period
• You employ a temp to cover you for a holiday or period of sickness absence
• You get help from volunteer works or work experience students
• You employ a gardener, cleaner or security guard through the business
• You employ an agency worker

Finally always consult with your broker before making any change, failure to meet legal requirements on EL insurance can result in a fine of £2500 per day, over a year this could add up to over £900,000.

Security giant sends its drivers to C&G

G4S, the £5.9 billion international security group, has contracted C&G Services to deliver training to its drivers. G4S, a major provider of risk management and protection to governments and businesses around the world with operations in 110 countries, has brought us in to provide training over the next five years to enable its drivers to acquire certificates under the new Driver CPC scheme (Certificate of Professional Competence). We won Government approval in the summer to provide training under the new scheme, introduced to raise UK driving standards.

Half a square kilometre of plasterboard

Paul Brooks (C&G Safety Consultant / CDM Coordinator) will be spending a great deal of time in hospital over the next few years – he will be responsible for making sure safe construction procedures are used at a new £690m ‘superhospital’ in Birmingham. We’ve been brought in by project sub-contractor B R Hodgson to conduct monthly safety audits to monitor the installation of a total of 123,000 sheets of plasterboard, covering 445,000 square metres – nearly half a square kilometre – over the next couple of years. The Birmingham New Hospitals Project will create a new 1200-bed hospital for south Birmingham, along with new psychiatric and mental health units.
“All that plasterboard raises a number of safety issues” says Paul Brooks. “We’re carrying out a full site safety audit to ensure safe access and exit and check for manual handling risks. The sheets measure 8ft x 4ft and are awkward to carry, so we need to make sure operatives use correct lifting procedures.”

Nationwide site safety project

Building management specialist Building Automation Solutions has contracted C&G to carry out site safety audits at eight sites across the UK. BAS installs and maintains systems to control and monitor services such as heating, security, ventilation and access. The sites we have been initially asked to look at include two London hospitals, the BBC TV studios in Manchester and premises in Glasgow, Gateshead and Leeds.
“We’ve been asked to carry out risk assessments and prepare the necessary safety policies for all these locations” says C&G Safety & Environmental Managing Director Roger Hart. “We’re also looking at other BAS sites around the UK with a view to doing the same work in other locations.”
The initial phase of the project, valued at around £30,000 a year, is to be completed by the end of 2010.

Excavation courses for Severn Trent staff

We’ve been asked by Severn Trent Water to provide training in deep excavation and trench support techniques to around 300 of their staff across several regions. The training will be mainly for distribution staff and supervisors.