Tag Archives: CDM 2015

Clients receives huge fine after self employed contractor falls from MEWP

falls from heightYou are most probably aware of the duties you have as a client to select contractors which are competent and adequately resourced for safety.  Sometimes you will also need to convince others within your supply chain or business of the need to complete a thorough assessment and the case below may offer assistance.

In this case a major company had employed a self employed contractor to carry out work installing updated fire detection equipment at its Yate factory site. Due to a failure to plan and supervise the work correctly an overhead conveyor was started which ultimately led to a fall of over 5 metres for from the Mobile Elevating Work Platform (MEWP) which the contractor was using.

Maintenance workers employed by Whirlpool UK Appliances Ltd were unaware that starting the conveyor system would results in this tragedy as they had not been told that this work was taking place.  An HSE investigation found that there were no effective controls or supervision in place to prevent these conflicting work tasks from being undertaken at the same time.

The company pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court to breaching section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £700,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,466.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Matt Tyler said:

“This is a tragic case where the incident could have been prevented if the company had planned and controlled the work properly.”

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Form Not Exist.

Jail sentence for both company directors and the main contractor following death

HSEHSE now has a policy of ‘looking beyond the garden gate’ in construction accidents.  in this particular case the directors of a roofing business, and also the director of the business which contracted this work out to them, have seen custodial sentences (see our earlier blog for another example of this type of prosecution).

HSE has made plain its intention to look further up the supply chain and drive home the message that contractors are responsible for decisions they make when subcontracting work.  The duty to ensure that the subcontractor is competent and adequately resourced for safety is becoming a recurring theme and is one which deserves further consideration for any construction based business.

The cases which will begin to filter through which occurred after the CDM 2015 changes will likely see this intensify with HSE able to look even further up the supply chain to target clients and designers more effectively in the coming years.

Read the story below to find out more details as report in Safety & Health Practitioner (link) and if you need support please click on Contact Us above

Three company bosses have been jailed following the death of 25-year-old father of one, Benjamin Edge, who fell from a roof he was working on, without safety equipment and in windy conditions.

Following the incident safety failings were covered up, a new risk assessment was written and an employee was “sent home to collect harnesses to make it look like the accident was Mr Edge’s fault, because he had not worn safety equipment” it was reported.

Credit: Greater Manchester Police

Credit: Greater Manchester Police

The fatal incident

On 10 December 2014, Mr Edge, fell from the roof of a metal structure he was helping to dismantle in Ramsbottom, Bury.

He died hours later at Salford Royal Hospital, after suffering catastrophic head injuries.

At the time of the fall, Mr Edge was working for SR and RJ Brown and was working on a site run by Marshalls Mono.

Investigation

A joint investigation by the Greater Manchester Police alongside the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) looked into the circumstances surrounding Mr Edge’s death.

It was heard in court how MA Excavations Ltd, contracted out the work to brothers Christopher and Robert ‘James’ Brown, directors at SR and RJ Brown Limited.

Mark Aspin, director at MA Excavations Ltd said he believed the Browns were ‘competent’ and could complete the job safely, but the court heard he did not check their qualifications.

Manchester Evening News reported that RobertJames’ Brown composed a ‘grossly inadequate’ risk assessment before the job which he did not show to anyone.

After Mr Edge was rushed to hospital he then typed up another risk assessment, which should have been done beforehand.

Peter Heap, 34, who had been working alongside Mr Edge was asked by Christopher Brown, 25, to go home and collect harnesses to make it look like the accident was Mr Edge’s fault, because he had not worn safety equipment.

“Foolishly, weakly and criminally – as he now realises – Peter Heap went along with what he was told to do,” Mr Justice Openshaw said.

The Browns maintained that the harnesses had been there before the incident, although they did admit falsifying the risk assessment.

Sentencing

During sentencing, addressing Christopher Brown and Robert ‘James’ Brown Ben’s mother said that when she saw her son’s coffin at the funeral she wanted to drag those responsible to the coffin so they could see what they had done.

She said: “Ben’s death was totally avoidable. He had everything to live for, but his future was stolen from him.”

Mrs Edge added: “Benjamin Edge, known affectionately as Ben, was my son and his father, Tim’s, son. We are so proud of Ben, not just what he achieved, but who he was.”

  • SR and RJ Brown Limited, of which brothers Christopher and Robert Brown are directors, was fined £300,000 at Manchester Crown Court after admitting corporate manslaughter.
  • Christopher Brown and Robert Brown pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and two counts of health and safety breaches. They were jailed for 20 months. A count of manslaughter for the brothers is to lie on file.
  • Mark Aspin, 37, was sentenced to a year in jail after admitting health and safety offences.
  • MA Excavations Ltd, of Garden Street, Ramsbottom, which contracted out the work – was fined £75,000 after pleading guilty to two health and safety breaches.
  • Employee Peter Heap, 34, was spared jail after he followed orders to bring safety harnesses to the site after his colleague had fallen to try to conceal what had happened. His four-month sentence for perverting the course of justice, which he had admitted, was suspended for two years.

Ben’s family have issued a tribute to their son, who leaves behind a three year-old daughter, a loving mother and father, twin brother, and partner.

“Ben was taken from us in tragic circumstances aged only 25, and our family and all of his friends are totally grief stricken by his loss.

“We miss him so very, very much.

“He was a loving, caring son, twin brother and family man. Ben was a much loved partner and father and will always remain a huge part of everyone’s lives”.

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Form Not Exist.

Lack of experience leads to Principal Contractor being fined £360k

Both a Principal Contractor and other contractors have been fined following a worker falling over 7 metres through a fragile roof which was being replaced.

Our belief is that the client was lucky not to be prosecuted as a key requirement on them is to ensure that those they appoint are competent and adequately resourced – a point of note for all clients.  If the case had been heard under the 2015 Regs the client would also be likely to have been found guilty.

Rafal Myslimm was standing on a asbestos sheeting when this gave way and he fell to the concrete floor below, as he fell he hit a number of metal pipes – no safety netting or other fall protection had been provided, he suffered a haematoma to the brain.

HSE found that three companies were at fault, Dengie Crops Ltd had contracted Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd, an agricultural machinery supplier, to help the company replace their roof.  However, they recognised that they themselves lacked the appropriate experience and subcontracted the work to Balsham ( Buildings) Ltd.

Balsham assessed the requirements and subsequently subcontracted the replacement work to Strong Clad Ltd.. However, Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd remained the Principal Contractor under the CDM Regulations but were unable to perform this role effectively due to their lack of experience in construction, it shoudl be noted that Balsham had highlighted to them the risk of a fall.

Outcomes

None of the three parties involved put in place safety measures for the 40% of the roof which was not protected with safety netting and relied too heavily on the verbal briefings to workers regarding where the netting was situated, rather than simply putting in place these measures for the whole roof.

  • Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd – of Ulting, Essex, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and were fined £360,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000
  • Balsham (Buildings) Ltd – of Balsham, Cambridge, pleaded guilty to breaching 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulation 2005. They were fined £45,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,000
  • Strong Clad Ltd – of Castle Hedingham, Essex, pleaded guilty to breaching 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulation 2005. They were fined £7,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,000

HSE inspector Adam Hills said:

“The dangers of working on fragile roofs are well documented. Every year too many people are killed or seriously injured due to falls from height while carrying out this work.

Work at height requires adequate planning, organisation and communication between all parties. This incident was entirely preventable and Mr Myslim is lucky to be alive.”

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Form Not Exist.

Precast Concrete: ‘Barring’ of floor units causes major injuries and £33k fine

The use of pinch or crowbars to move components is a common practice in precast concrete erection.  Components should be positioned as close as possible to minimise the need for it but there is often a need for some adjustment whether to ensure that the component reaches the right position or to tighten up a floor after laying.

If you have any questions on barring we would recommend you read the Precast flooring Federations Code of Practice for the Safety Installation of Precast Concrete Floors and Associated Components available here.

The incident to which the title refers occurred in December 2014 when Walter Thompson (Contractors) Limited, a construction company from Northallerton, was engaged as Principal Contractor for a 47 bedroom extension of the Ramside Hall Hotel, Durham.

£33,000 fine under CDM Regulations

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident found that the company had failed to adequately plan and manage the installation of the two-floor slabs.

The defendants pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £33,000 with £12,552.81 costs.

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

HSE to Issue Construction Sector Plan for 2017 – 2022: emphasis on CDM 2015 compliance

HSEThe Board of HSE met in December to discuss draft sectors plans for construction for the coming 3-5 year period, the summary of the points for consideration are listed below with the emphasis being placed on Health, Smaller Business and CDM 2015;

HSE Priorities

  1. Health Hazards – reducing incidents of ill-health, with a particular focus on occupational lung disease and musculoskeletal disorders;
  2. Small Businesses – supporting small businesses to achieve improved risk management and control; and
  3. CDM Regulations 2015 – embedding the principles of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM).

HSE will secure effective management and control of risk by:

  • Project Regulation – directing inspection and enforcement at those failing to manage and control risks, focusing on health risks refurbishment, and licenced asbestos removal;
  • Central interventions – visiting dutyholders to review their health risk management arrangements using leading indicators in the Construction Health Risks Toolkit; and
  • CDM 2015 Pre-Construction Phase – intervening with construction clients, principal designers and designers to ensure proportionate CDM understanding and compliance, working with or through other health and safety regulators (eg ONR) where necessary.

HSE will lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety by:

  • Health Ownership – working with the Health in Construction Leadership Group in promoting the ownership by industry of good health risk management, and the development of case studies and health-specific leading indicators;
  • Awareness Research – funding communication insight research enabling improved risk awareness, management and mitigation in small and micro businesses;
  • CDM 2015  for SMEs – helping small businesses to comply proportionately with CDM, eg case studies on social media;
  • Designer Risk Mitigation – working with professional bodies to enhance the competence of designers through the effective teaching of design risk mitigation across built environment higher education courses;
  • BIM Promotion – demonstrating the effective use of building information modelling (BIM) to improve risk information sharing, coordination and collaboration throughout the construction process; and
  • Manual Handling – working with supply chains to reduce risks from manual handling.

HSE will reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents by:

  • Major Projects – early and strategic interventions with major projects, including Crossrail, HS2, Thames Tideway, power generation decommissioning and new build; and
  • Risk Leadership – working with industry to develop clear standards of construction risk leadership and leading performance.

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

CDM Client and their Contractors fined more than £1.5m

A local authority and its two contractors have been fined in excess of HSE£1.5 million following two incidents involving roadworks on a busy Liverpool city centre road. A man died and another was seriously injured while attempting to cross Queens Drive in Liverpool during major resurfacing works which happened in the summer of 2012.

In the case, heard at Liverpool Crown Court, it was reported that on the 3 July 2012 a 74-year-old man suffered head injuries after he was hit by a car while using a crossing at temporary lights. One side of the Queen’s Drive dual carriageway had been put into a contraflow to allow vehicles to travel in both directions but temporary pedestrian lights were not working and no alternative was provided.

The Court also heard that on the 19th August 2012, 69-year-old Ernest Haughton died when he was struck by a car whilst crossing a single lane of traffic on the same road using a temporary pedestrian crossing.

Following complaints from motorists changes were made to the traffic control lights to alleviate congestion but this  resulted in the removal of the natural break in traffic flow needed to allow pedestrians to safely cross the carriageway.

When Mr Haughton died the temporary lights were removed but no alternative control measures were put in place to enable pedestrians to cross. In addition, a large A-frame sign was placed on the crossing which obscured the view of both pedestrians and motorists.

Liverpool City Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) and were fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 costs.

HSE investigators found that Liverpool City Council had failed to ensure that the arrangements for managing the roadworks were suitable, including failing to appoint a suitable co-ordinator for the work. Instead the council sought to delegate responsibilities to Enterprise Liverpool Limited who pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) and were fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £80,000 costs.

HSE found that Enterprise Liverpool Limited failed to ensure the designs for the traffic management were checked or approved and failed to check that the construction plan for pedestrian routes and provision of barriers was being followed.  At the time of the incidents they were found not to have provided a safe means of pedestrians crossing the works area or the carriageway.

Tarmac Trading Limited of Solihull, pleaded guilty to Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974 and were fined £1.3 million and ordered to pay £130,000 costs.

Tarmac Trading Limited, who were responsible for the provision and installation of the traffic and pedestrian management, failed to provide alternative assistance for pedestrians at the time of the first incident despite it being known that the temporary lights were broken. A temporary bus stop had also been placed in the middle of the road at the crossing.

HSE Inspector Jacqueline Western commented:

“The risks associated with road works are well known in the industry and specific guidance is available to assist with the planning and implementation. It is not unreasonable to expect that those who regularly engage in this type of construction work should be well aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The combined failure of all three dutyholders to comply with their duties on more than one occasion during the Queens Drive resurfacing project, led to one man losing his life and another suffering serious injury. It could quite easily have been two fatal incidents.

By engaging with the entire project team at the very start of a project, clients like Liverpool City Council, can ensure that a good health and safety culture is embodied throughout the life of the project. Ongoing communication and cooperation between the principal contractors and sub-contractors ensures that the project is being adequately planned, managed and monitored.”

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above or the form below to request a proposal;

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

Solar panel installer falls through fragile asbestos roof, company fined more than £20,000

solar_farm_imageNorwich-based Durrant Electrical and Mechanical Ltd, trading as Green Home Energy Solutions, had admitted a single charge of breaching working at height regulations on September 26, 2013.

The accident occurred when employee Chris Eldon was measuring up an asbestos roof on a tractor shed at Woodland Farm, near Watton.  He was completing this work without the use of crawling boards.

Klentiana Mahmutaj, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said Mr Eldon suffered severe concussion, a fractured wrist and bruising to the base of his spine when it gave way and he fell 2m to the ground.

An HSE investigation had found the company had carried out an inadequate risk assessment and planning for working on an inadequate roof.  The HSE Inspector added no-one from Durrant Electrical and Mechanical had been on site to brief Mr Eldon before he and apprentice Kyll Staff had started work.

“What should have happened was for the roof to be assessed by a competent person, who would have concluded it was fragile,” she said, adding falling from a roof could often lead to death or serious injuries.

Julia Kendrick, defending the firm, said Mr Eldon had worked for the company since 2011 and had been been given training in health and safety and working at heights. She added: “He was very experienced and he had significant training to make him aware of the risks which were inherent in the kind of work he was undertaking.

“The injured person had completed more than 100 installations. He was a supervisor on some jobs and they considered him extremely competent. Systems were in place but were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented.”

Durrant Electrical and Mechanical had had to lay off workers after a downturn in the renewables sector, the court was told. After making a £95,000 profit in 2015, it had so far lost £25,000 this year.

“They are struggling to pay their workers and stay afloat,” said Miss Kendrick, adding the company had no previous accidents or convictions.

Under the new sentencing guidelines firms can be fined between £14,000 and £250,000 for breaches. Judge Sell ordered it to pay £14,000, with £7,000 costs, commenting: “I’ve certainly not seen any evidence of serious or systemic failings to assess risks to health and safety.”

Durrent Electrical and Mechanical was given two years to pay.

After the hearing directors Kerry and Debbie Durrant, who were present in court, declined to comment.

Contact us on 01453 800100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use contact us above of the form below to request a proposal;

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

Brexit and its effects on safety

The news is full of Brexit and the likelihood is that your sick of hearing about it!

In that case sorry, but I couldn’t resist responding to a few clients who have raised questions on how it might affect safety laws and regulation over the coming months and years.

In truth I think most people are agreed that its impact will be minimal, the UK has always been a leader in global safety and our progress with HS(G)65 and BS8800 leading into OHSAS18001 has cemented this.  However, there are a few areas which we might see some movement in as we move into a more independent regulatory stance…

Oh, and Brexit has already been used in a legal defence!  More on that below.

Brexit and Safety Legislation

As we said we do feel that there are some areas which may be affected by Brexit and these are the three key areas where we feel a change may occur;

  1. CDM 2015 (application to domestic projects)
  2. Working Time Directive (extension of opt outs)
  3. REACH regulations

I think the most likely and the most impactful of these three will be the CDM Regulations 2015.  The truth is that application of these regulations to the domestic sector was largely forced upon us by the EU, we’ve never applied HASAWA to domestic situations and were reluctant to do so at the time of the first mobile sites Directive in 1994.

Our subsequent failure to incorporate the domestic element of the European Directive into UK CDM Legislation is telling and is a good example of the UK not ‘gold plating’ EU Directives.  It also aligns with the governments red tape push and is an area where smaller builders and tradesmen could return to a position where they have less H&S legislative burden (as some might put it).

Will this actually happen?  Its very hard to say as so much remains unanswered at this stage but as we approach an election in 2020 its not unlikely – so watch this space.

Brexit used as defence in HSE Prosecution

Hard to believe but Brexit has already made its first appearance as part of the defence in a prosecution by HSE with Stone Superstore Ltd pleading that the fine sought by the prosecution of £250,000 for the death of one of their employees who will killed in an accident involving an overturned fork lift truck in 2010.

Claiming that the company would be struggling financially post Brexit the judge agreed to reduce the fine imposing a £40,000 instead.

If you’ve got questions or need support on safety in the industrial, contracting or construction sectors please contact us for sensible and proportionate advice on 01453 800100

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

Construction pays HSE over £4m in fees under FFI

Despite HSE insisting that its Fee for Intervention (FFI) scheme is HSEnot intended to plug the hole in its finances caused by the reduction of its government grant recent figures show a 13% decline in enforcement notices (improvement notices and prohibition notices).  At the same time a 26% increase in the charges made under FFI has been made against the construction sector with fees from April 2015 to March 2016 reaching a record £4.22m

Some may be rightly concerned whilst others may be grateful to avoid having an enforcement notice issued against their business and the subsequent need to admit this to their client base (as its presence in the HSE Hall of Shame).

Whatever your particular viewpoint it does show that Fee For Intervention is on the increase and that construction and contracting businesses are being targeted.  As you will probably be aware all FFI is ‘in the Inspectors opinion’ and so good practice is important and base legal compliance may not be enough to protect you from fines.

As always, if you need more advice please contact your retained consultant.

Notices of Contravention (FFI)

HSE issue invoices following a written Notice of Contravention sent to duty holders regarding ‘material breaches’ of the law found by HSE inspectors, HSE invoice data for the last three full year invoice is as follows:

April 2013 – March 2014 – 6960 invoices issued with a total value of £2,545,474. The average value of invoices issued is £366.

April 2014 – March 2015 – 6075 invoices issued with a total value of £3,1116,234. This represents a 21% increase in the total value of invoices issued over the previous period. The average value of invoices issued is £513 representing a 29% increase.

April 2015 – March 2016 – 6990 invoices issued with a total value of £4,220,972. This represents a 26% increase in the total value of invoices issued over the previous period. The average value of invoices issued is £604 representing 15% increase.

Enforcement Notices

Over the same period which shows that the number of enforcement notices issued in the construction sector has fallen.

April 2013 – March 2014 – the database shows 3625 prohibition and improvement notices issued by HSE construction teams.

April 2014 – March 2015 – the database shows 3244 prohibition and improvement notices issued by HSE construction teams. This represents a 11% fall in the number of notices issued.

April 2015 – March 2016 – the database shows 2713 prohibition and improvement notices issued by HSE construction teams. This represents a 13% fall in the number of notices issued.
Comment

The data suggest that the HSE Notice of Contravention and consequent inspection fee forms an increasingly important mechanism for HSE in securing compliance and improved standards of health and safety in the construction sector.

This is occurring at a time when use of formal Enforcement Notices (improvement and prohibition) is declining in the sector.

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.

Unbelievable, tragic and wholly avoidable

falls from heightA six year jail sentence under gross negligence manslaughter, a fine of £400,000 and £55,000 costs hit Allan Thomson, director of demolition firm, Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd. The firm who subcontracted this work to them, C Smith & Sons (Rochdale) Ltd, were also fined for breaching both the CDM Regulations and Work at Height Regulations, Director Michael Smith was jailed for eight months, fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £45,000 court costs.

Two of Mr Thomson’s workers fell from the roof they were dismantling on the same day, one suffered life changing injuries and the second person died from major head trauma.

The chain of events which led to these tragic accidents are scarcely believable, read on below to find out more.

Originally C Smith & Sons (Rochdale) Ltd were contracted to carry out demolition of some buildings in Stockport in 2014, this work was then subcontracted to Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd.

A method known as remote demolition was selected which meant minimal risk to staff as it was to be carried out using machinery.  However, after winning the control Mr Smith decided to dismantle the building piece by piece requiring work at height to remove roofing sheets  prior to the structure being dismantled – this work being subcontracted to Allan Thompson of Building & Dismantling Contractors Ltd.

Repeated failures

In January four men employed by Building and Dismantling Contractors Ltd travelled to Stockport to carry out the task of taking the roof apart piece by piece including a 47-year-old man who would sustain life-changing injuries and 42-year-old Scott Harrower, who died as a result of the negligence of Thomson.

The roof comprised corrugated steel sheets and plastic skylights. The skylights had deteriorated over time and had subsequently been covered with corrugated steel sheets in a bid to repair this damage.

On 20 January 2014, Mr Harrower stepped on a skylight but somehow managed to prevent himself falling 30ft to the concrete floor below.  Despite this very serious “near miss” the men returned to continue their work the next day.

At just after 9am on Tuesday 21 January 2014, one of the group fell through a skylight to the concrete floor below, fracturing his spine, pelvis, right leg, heel and wrist.

Ambulance and police attended the scene which was “deemed to be an accident” and after advice was given regarding the obligation to inform HSE the police officers left the scene.

Near miss turns into fatal fall

Despite their colleague suffering these horrific injuries, the workmen men were ordered to return to the roof just hours later. At 4pm Scott Harrower, the same person who had almost fallen the previous day, fell through another skylight to the concrete below suffering catastrophic head injuries which led to his death.

Detective Chief Inspector Richard Eales commented:

“It is clear from the evidence that both Smith and Thomson saw an opportunity to make a quick profit without any thought for the workers they sent on to the roof, and as a direct result of that greed Scott died and another man suffered life-changing injuries.

Smith and Thomson’s remorse did not then stretch to admitting their guilt, as both tried to hide behind their companies and refused to plead guilty to the charges levelled against them personally.

Thankfully, the jury saw through their attempts and both now can face justice for the decisions that they made, decisions that have robbed one family of a loving partner, father, and son, and another of a man’s ability to live a life untainted by severe physical injury.”

HSE Inspector Sandra Tomlinson, said:

“Falls from height, and in particular falls involving fragile roofs, are one of the main causes of work-related deaths in Britain. The risks are therefore well-known and documented, as is the guidance on how to reduce these risks.

The roof dismantling works were not properly planned or supervised and adequate precautions, such as netting, were not put in place.

This led to two men falling in separate incidents and resulted in one man suffering life-changing injuries as well as the dreadful tragedy of Mr Harrower’s death.”

Contact form

Please complete the form below and we promise to respond within 24 hrs. If you need more urgent help just call 01453 800109 and ask for Andrea.