HSE Prosecution: Building Company Fined After Unsafe Extension Put Family at Risk

A recent Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution has highlighted the potentially devastating consequences of poor planning and inadequate health and safety management during domestic building work.

Adam’s Building Construction Ltd, a Yorkshire-based building company, and its director have been fined after a home extension was constructed over existing gas pipework and a boiler flue without the necessary arrangements being made to relocate them.

The case is a timely reminder that domestic building projects still require proper health and safety planning, and that a relatively routine extension can create serious risks to workers, residents and other people affected by the work.

What happened?

Adam’s Building Construction Ltd was contracted to build an extension to the rear of a property in Bradford. Work began in January 2024.

However, the extension was constructed over existing gas service pipework, while the flue serving the property’s gas boiler was not repositioned.

The problem was discovered on 22 May 2024 when a Building Control Inspector from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council attended the property. The inspector identified that the boiler flue was terminating inside the newly constructed extension.

Northern Gas Networks subsequently attended and identified the gas installation as immediately dangerous. The boiler was still operating and the flue was discharging combustion products into the extension.

The gas supply had to be disconnected, leaving the family without gas for several weeks. The remedial work reportedly cost approximately £4,000.

The consequences could have been far more serious. The defective arrangement exposed the homeowner and her two children to the potential risks of gas leaks, fire, explosion and carbon monoxide poisoning.

Perhaps most concerningly, the HSE investigation found that Building Control Inspectors had warned the company several times during the works that the gas pipework and flue needed to be properly relocated.

The importance of a construction phase plan

The prosecution was not simply about the defective gas installation.

The HSE also found that the company’s sole director, Mohammed Adam Azhar, could not demonstrate that the business had prepared construction phase plans for its building work.

This is particularly important because the projects undertaken by the company were exclusively for domestic clients.

Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015), a construction phase plan is required before construction work begins. For a project involving a single contractor, responsibility for preparing the plan rests with that contractor. Where there is more than one contractor, the principal contractor has this responsibility.

A construction phase plan does not need to be an unnecessarily complicated document. HSE guidance describes it as a practical way of setting out the health and safety arrangements, site rules and controls required for the particular project.

The HSE’s CIS80 guidance specifically identifies hazards such as:

• falls from height;
• collapse of structures;
• exposure to asbestos;
• electricity and other services;
• risks to clients, members of the public and others; and
• activities requiring supervision.

For domestic construction work, these issues remain just as important as they are on larger commercial projects.

Domestic work does not mean “low risk”

One of the lessons from this prosecution is that domestic construction should not be treated as informal construction.

A home extension may look straightforward, but the work can involve structural alterations, excavation, temporary works, electrical installations, gas services, work at height, asbestos, dust and interaction with members of the public.

HSE guidance on structural alterations makes clear that construction work which could affect the stability of a structure must be properly planned and carried out by competent people. A competent person should undertake an appropriate survey and assessment before potentially load-bearing parts of a structure are altered. Where necessary, temporary supports should be properly designed, installed, inspected and maintained.

The HSE’s construction phase plan template makes the same point, specifically identifying collapse of structures as a hazard that may require walls, beams, chimney breasts and roofs to be supported by props installed by a competent person.

Gas services and building work: a critical interface

The Bradford case also demonstrates why existing building services must be identified and considered during the planning stage.

Gas pipework, boilers and flues cannot simply be treated as obstacles to be worked around once construction is underway.

HSE guidance warns that refurbishment work can disrupt existing gas flues or ventilation systems, while inadequately installed gas appliances can create carbon monoxide risks. The impact of refurbishment on existing gas-fired systems should therefore be considered during the planning stage.

Gas appliances require an adequate supply of air and an effective flue to remove combustion products, including carbon monoxide. If a flue is obstructed, incorrectly positioned or otherwise compromised, dangerous levels of carbon monoxide can potentially accumulate.

Carbon monoxide is particularly hazardous because it is colourless, odourless and tasteless and can kill without warning.

Any work involving gas appliances or gas pipework should therefore be properly assessed and, where gas work is required, undertaken by a suitably competent Gas Safe registered engineer.

What does the law require from building contractors?

The CDM 2015 framework places clear responsibilities on contractors.

Where a contractor is the only contractor working on a project for a domestic client, that contractor must ensure a construction phase plan is prepared before setting up the site. They also take on the domestic client’s CDM duties.

Where several contractors are involved, the principal contractor has responsibility for planning, managing, monitoring and coordinating the construction phase.

This is not simply an administrative exercise.

The construction phase plan should reflect the actual work being undertaken and the hazards associated with it. It should be reviewed and revised where circumstances change.

That means asking practical questions before work begins:

What services are present?

Are there gas, electricity, water, drainage or other services that could be affected by the work?

Could the structure become unstable?

Will walls, floors, roofs or other structural elements be altered, removed or temporarily unsupported?

Who is competent to undertake specialist work?

Are suitable structural engineers, temporary works designers, Gas Safe registered engineers or other competent persons required?

How will residents and members of the public be protected?

Domestic projects often take place immediately adjacent to occupied homes, neighbouring properties, pavements and roads.

What happens if the work changes?

The original plan may no longer be adequate if the construction sequence, design or site conditions change.

These are the types of questions that should form part of a meaningful construction phase plan rather than a document produced simply to satisfy a paperwork requirement.

The consequences of ignoring health and safety warnings

The company was subject to an HSE Improvement Notice requiring it to establish a system for producing written construction phase plans where it was acting as principal contractor.

The company subsequently failed to comply with the Improvement Notice.

Mr Azhar also failed to provide relevant information requested by the HSE Lead Inspector during the investigation.

Adam’s Building Construction Ltd pleaded guilty to breaches of Section 3(1) and Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

At Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 7 August 2026, the company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,263 in costs.

Mohammed Adam Azhar pleaded guilty to breaches of Section 37(1) and Section 33(1)(e) of the Act. He was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay a £400 victim surcharge.

The HSE Inspector’s comments following the prosecution are particularly relevant for anyone responsible for domestic construction projects: proper planning and arrangements for relocating gas pipework and appliances could have prevented risks which had the potential to result in fatal consequences.

What can construction companies learn from this HSE prosecution?

There are several practical lessons that contractors and construction companies should take from the case.

1. Plan before work starts

The construction phase plan should be prepared before the construction phase begins.

It should identify the significant risks associated with the specific project and establish how those risks will be controlled.

2. Identify existing services

Before altering an existing building, contractors need reliable information about the services within and around the structure.

Gas, electricity and other services should be identified and considered before construction starts.

3. Do not ignore warnings

If Building Control, designers, engineers or other competent people identify a safety concern, it needs to be addressed.

Continuing with work despite repeated warnings can significantly increase both the risk and the potential consequences.

4. Use competent people

Some construction activities require specialist knowledge and competence.

Gas work is an obvious example, but the same principle applies to structural alterations, temporary works, asbestos and other higher-risk activities.

5. Protect people beyond the workforce

CDM 2015 is not solely about protecting construction workers.

Construction activities can affect homeowners, tenants, neighbours, visitors and members of the public. HSE guidance specifically highlights the need to consider everyone who may be affected by construction work.

6. Treat the construction phase plan as a live document

A plan prepared at the beginning of a project is of little value if it no longer reflects what is actually happening on site.

Changes in design, sequencing, contractors, site conditions or discovered services should trigger a review of the relevant risk controls.

A reminder for contractors working on domestic projects

The Bradford prosecution is a useful example of why health and safety management cannot be separated from construction planning.

An extension may be a relatively small project, but the risks can be significant. Existing gas services, structural stability, temporary works and the presence of residents all need to be considered before work begins.

Good health and safety management does not necessarily mean producing excessive amounts of paperwork. It means identifying the hazards, deciding how they will be controlled, communicating those arrangements and ensuring that the controls are actually implemented.

The HSE’s guidance on planning construction work makes clear that the construction phase plan should set out the arrangements, site rules and specific measures needed to control the risks associated with the project.

For contractors, the message from this prosecution is therefore straightforward:

Plan the work. Identify the risks. Use competent people. Listen to competent advice. And make sure the construction phase plan reflects what is actually happening on site.

At Outsource Safety, we support construction companies and contractors with practical health and safety management, including CDM 2015 support, construction phase plans and competent person services.

If you are responsible for construction work and are unsure whether your current arrangements are suitable, getting competent health and safety advice before work starts can be considerably easier—and considerably cheaper—than dealing with the consequences after something goes wrong.

Sources and further guidance

• HSE – Building company and director fined after botched extension put family’s lives at risk (17 August 2026).
• HSE – Planning for construction work.
• HSE – Construction Phase Plan (CDM 2015), CIS80.
• HSE – Domestic clients: roles and responsibilities.
• HSE – Structural stability during alteration, demolition and dismantling.
• HSE – Construction hazardous substances: Carbon monoxide.

A tragic workplace fatality has resulted in a £1 million fine for a Gloucestershire cement manufacturer after an employee was crushed by a 1.6-tonne concrete counterweight inside a cement bagging plant.

While every prosecution highlights the devastating consequences of poor health and safety management, this latest case serves as a particularly stark reminder that machine guarding is not optional. Removing safety barriers—even temporarily or for convenience—can have catastrophic consequences.

For organisations operating manufacturing plants, warehouses, production facilities, recycling centres or any workplace with automated machinery, the lessons from this prosecution are impossible to ignore.

What Happened?

On 4 August 2021, Martin Bennett, aged 35, was working at Dragon Alfa Cement Limited’s bagging facility in Sharpness, Gloucestershire, when he became trapped beneath a 1.6-tonne concrete weight used within the pallet handling system.

Image credit: HSE

Following an investigation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that a substantial section of the machine’s perimeter guarding had been routinely removed over a prolonged period, leaving employees with unrestricted access to dangerous moving parts.

The investigation concluded that the company had failed to prevent access to dangerous machinery, despite suitable safeguarding measures being readily available.

Dragon Alfa Cement Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £1 million, together with costs of £9,621, at Bristol Magistrates’ Court on 21 July 2026.

The Human Cost Behind Every Prosecution

Health and safety prosecutions often focus on legislation and financial penalties, but behind every case is a family whose lives have been permanently changed.

Martin’s wife described him as:

“Kind right down to the very bones of him.”

His daughters also spoke of the lasting trauma caused by losing their father, illustrating that workplace accidents don’t simply affect employees—they have lifelong consequences for families, friends and colleagues.

Where Did Things Go Wrong?

According to the HSE investigation, the principal failures were surprisingly straightforward:

• Machine guarding had been removed and not reinstated.
• Employees could freely access hazardous moving machinery.
• The company failed to maintain effective engineering controls.
• Existing safeguards were ignored rather than maintained.
• Risks associated with dangerous machinery were not adequately controlled.

These failures represent a breakdown of some of the most fundamental principles of machinery safety.

Why Machine Guarding Matters

Machine guards exist to remove the opportunity for human error.

Even experienced workers can become distracted, rushed or complacent during repetitive tasks. Engineering controls such as fixed guards and interlocked barriers provide protection when human behaviour alone cannot.

The HSE continues to emphasise that fixed guards should always be the first choice wherever reasonably practicable because they physically prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Understanding Your Legal Duties Under PUWER

While this prosecution centred on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, it also reinforces the wider duties imposed by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

PUWER requires employers to ensure that:

• Work equipment is suitable for its intended use.
• Dangerous moving parts are effectively guarded.
• Equipment is inspected and maintained.
• Employees receive suitable information, instruction and training.
• Risks are reduced so far as reasonably practicable.

One of the most common findings in HSE prosecutions is that safeguards which were originally installed have later been removed to speed up production or simplify maintenance.

This practice creates unacceptable levels of risk and almost always attracts regulatory enforcement following an incident.

A Pattern Seen Across Manufacturing

Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated case.

Recent HSE prosecutions continue to demonstrate recurring themes across UK manufacturing and heavy industry, including:

• inadequate machine guarding;
• unsafe lifting operations;
• failures in workplace transport management;
• insufficient supervision;
• poor maintenance of safety-critical equipment; and
• inadequate risk assessments.

For example, in 2025 another concrete products manufacturer was prosecuted after an 800kg steel pallet crushed a worker’s legs because safe systems of work had not been implemented.

Although each incident differs, the underlying causes remain remarkably consistent:

• known hazards;
• missing controls;
• poor management oversight; and
• failures to maintain safe systems of work.

Five Questions Every Employer Should Ask

Following this prosecution, employers should consider whether they can confidently answer the following:

1. Are all machine guards currently fitted and fully effective?
2. Could employees access moving machinery by bypassing barriers?
3. Are guarding inspections formally recorded?
4. Have machinery risk assessments been reviewed following operational changes?
5. Would temporary removal of guarding immediately stop production until it is safely reinstated?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no” or “I’m not sure”, it may be time to review your machinery safety arrangements.

Beyond Compliance: Building a Positive Safety Culture

Good organisations don’t simply comply with legislation—they create environments where safety concerns are raised before incidents occur.

Employees should feel empowered to report:

• damaged guards;
• missing interlocks;
• unsafe shortcuts;
• production pressures that compromise safety; and
• defects in machinery.

A positive reporting culture can prevent minor issues developing into life-changing incidents.

Final Thoughts

The £1 million fine imposed on Dragon Alfa Cement Limited reflects the seriousness of the failings identified by the HSE, but no financial penalty can compensate for the loss suffered by Martin Bennett’s family.

This case demonstrates once again that machinery accidents are rarely unpredictable. In most cases, they are entirely preventable through effective risk management, robust machine guarding and strong leadership.

For employers, the message is clear: if machinery guarding has been removed, bypassed or neglected, the time to act is now—not after an HSE investigation.

Face Fit Testing Explained: Everything Employers Need to Know

When employees rely on Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE), simply issuing a mask isn’t enough.  If the respirator doesn’t fit the wearer correctly, contaminated air can bypass the filter and enter the breathing zone, significantly reducing the level of protection. In many industries, this can expose workers to hazardous dusts, fumes, vapours, fibres and biological agents that may cause long-term occupational illness.

That’s why face fit testing is an essential part of any effective respiratory protection programme.  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) makes it clear that tight-fitting respiratory protective equipment should be face fit tested before use to ensure it provides adequate protection for the individual wearer. This isn’t simply good practice—it forms part of an employer’s legal duties under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations.

What is Face Fit Testing?

Face fit testing is a process used to confirm that a tight-fitting respirator forms an effective seal against an individual’s face.  Because everyone’s facial features are different, a mask that fits one employee perfectly may provide inadequate protection for another.  A successful face fit test demonstrates that a specific make, model and size of respirator is suitable for that individual.  It’s important to understand that a face fit test is not a one-size-fits-all approval. The test only applies to the exact mask that has been tested.

If an employee changes to a different manufacturer, model or size of respirator, another face fit test will normally be required.

Why is Face Fit Testing So Important?

Respiratory hazards are responsible for thousands of cases of work-related ill health every year.

Exposure to substances such as:

• Silica dust
• Wood dust
• Welding fumes
• Asbestos fibres
• Flour dust
• Metal fumes
• Chemical vapours
• Isocyanates

can lead to serious conditions including occupational asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), silicosis and occupational cancers.  Where engineering controls cannot eliminate exposure, suitable RPE becomes the final line of defence.  However, that protection is only effective if the respirator seals correctly against the wearer’s face. Even small gaps can dramatically reduce the protection factor of the mask.

Is Face Fit Testing a Legal Requirement?

In most circumstances, yes.  Under COSHH, employers have a duty to ensure that respiratory protective equipment is both:

• Adequate for the hazard.
• Suitable for the individual wearer.

Demonstrating suitability for tight-fitting facepieces requires face fit testing.  Failure to ensure suitable RPE may leave employers vulnerable to enforcement action and could place employees at unnecessary risk of exposure to hazardous substances.

Which Masks Require Face Fit Testing?

Face fit testing applies to all tight-fitting respiratory protective equipment, including:

• FFP2 disposable respirators
• FFP3 disposable respirators
• Reusable half-mask respirators
• Full-face respirators
• Tight-fitting powered respirators

Loose-fitting powered hoods and helmets typically do not require face fit testing because they do not rely on a facial seal to provide protection.

When Should Face Fit Testing Be Carried Out?

The ideal time to carry out face fit testing is during the selection process before employees begin using respiratory protection.

Testing should also be repeated if:

• A different make or model of respirator is introduced.
• The wearer changes mask size.
• Significant weight gain or weight loss occurs.
• Facial surgery changes facial features.
• Major dental work affects the facial profile.
• The employee can no longer achieve a satisfactory seal.

Many organisations also choose to review face fit testing as part of wider health surveillance or RPE management programmes.

Facial Hair and Face Fit Testing

One of the most common reasons for failed face fit tests is facial hair. Even light stubble can prevent a respirator from achieving an effective seal. For employees required to wear tight-fitting masks, the sealing area must be clean shaven. Where workers maintain facial hair for religious, cultural or medical reasons, employers should consider alternative respiratory protection such as loose-fitting powered respirators that do not depend on a facial seal.

Qualitative vs Quantitative Face Fit Testing

There are two recognised methods of face fit testing.

Qualitative Testing

This method relies on the wearer detecting a test solution by taste or smell while carrying out a series of movements and breathing exercises.  It is commonly used for disposable FFP2 and FFP3 respirators.

Quantitative Testing

This uses specialist equipment to measure leakage into the respirator and produces a numerical fit factor.  Quantitative testing is typically used for reusable half masks, full-face masks and higher protection applications, although it can also be used on disposable respirators.

Common Reasons Employees Fail a Face Fit Test

Failure does not necessarily indicate a problem with the employee—it often highlights that a different respirator is required.

Common reasons include:

• Incorrect mask size.
• Poor mask design for the wearer’s facial features.
• Incorrect fitting technique.
• Facial hair.
• Damaged or worn respirators.
• Incorrect strap adjustment.

Testing helps identify the most suitable equipment before exposure to hazardous substances occurs.

Face Fit Testing Is Not the Same as a Fit Check

A common misconception is that carrying out a user seal check each day replaces face fit testing.

It does not.

A face fit test is a formal assessment undertaken by a competent person to determine whether a respirator is suitable for an individual.

A fit check is the quick seal check carried out by the wearer every time the respirator is put on.

Both are important—and both should form part of an effective respiratory protection programme.

Who Can Carry Out Face Fit Testing?

The HSE states that face fit testing should only be undertaken by someone who is competent, appropriately trained and experienced.

Many organisations choose testers accredited through the Fit2Fit scheme as evidence of competence and consistency.

Best Practice for Employers

Face fit testing should never be viewed as a one-off exercise.

An effective RPE programme should also include:

• COSHH risk assessments.
• Appropriate selection of respiratory protective equipment.
• User training.
• Daily fit checks.
• Cleaning and maintenance.
• Storage procedures.
• Inspection and replacement schedules.
• Refresher training where required.

Taking this holistic approach helps ensure RPE continues to provide the protection employees rely on.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every employee need their own face fit test?

Yes. Face shape varies considerably between individuals, so each person must be tested separately.

Does passing one face fit test mean all masks will fit?

No. The result only applies to the specific make, model and size tested.

Do disposable FFP3 masks require face fit testing?

Yes, if they are tight-fitting respirators being used to control exposure to hazardous substances.

How often should face fit testing be repeated?

There is no fixed expiry period. Retesting is required whenever the respirator changes or the wearer’s facial characteristics change sufficiently to affect the fit.

How Outsource Safety Can Help

Managing respiratory protection is about far more than supplying masks. Employers must ensure their respiratory protection programme meets legal requirements, protects employees and withstands regulatory scrutiny.

At Outsource Safety, we help organisations develop practical, proportionate health and safety solutions, including COSHH compliance, risk assessments, RPE management and competent face fit testing support.

If you’re unsure whether your organisation is meeting its legal responsibilities, our experienced consultants can help you review your current arrangements and identify any areas for improvement.

Key Takeaways

Face fit testing is an essential element of respiratory protection and a legal requirement whenever tight-fitting RPE is relied upon to control exposure to hazardous substances.

By selecting suitable equipment, using competent testers, training employees correctly and maintaining an effective RPE programme, employers can significantly reduce the risk of occupational respiratory disease while demonstrating compliance with UK health and safety legislation.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published its latest Work-related Fatal Injuries in Great Britain statistics, revealing that 126 workers lost their lives in workplace accidents during 2025/26.

While this represents one of the lowest annual totals on record outside the pandemic years, every fatality represents a person who never returned home from work. Behind every statistic is a family, colleagues and a community affected by an entirely preventable tragedy.

The figures provide encouraging evidence that workplace safety standards continue to improve across Great Britain. However, they also highlight persistent risks that employers must continue to address through effective health and safety management.

Key findings from the latest HSE statistics: 2025/26 HSE Fatal Injury Headlines

Source: HSE Work-related Fatal Injuries in Great Britain 2025/26.

Although these figures represent significant progress compared with previous decades—when annual workplace fatalities regularly exceeded 400—the pace of improvement has slowed in recent years. This suggests that further reductions will require organisations to focus on the quality of their safety culture rather than relying solely on compliance.

Which industries remain at greatest risk?

Some sectors continue to experience disproportionately high numbers of fatal injuries.

Worker Fatalities by Industry

Construction remains the sector with the highest number of fatalities, while Agriculture continues to record the highest fatal injury rate per 100,000 workers.

Construction continues to record the highest number of fatalities, although the sector has seen a welcome reduction compared with previous years. Agriculture, however, continues to experience the highest fatal injury rate per 100,000 workers, underlining the importance of robust risk management in higher-risk industries.

Falls from height remain the leading killer

Despite ongoing awareness campaigns and improvements in equipment, falls from height remain the leading cause of workplace deaths.

Leading Causes of Fatal Workplace Accidents

This table reinforces one of the article’s key messages—that familiar risks continue to account for the majority of workplace deaths.

Many of these incidents are entirely foreseeable and, more importantly, preventable.

Simple controls such as proper planning, competent supervision, suitable access equipment, effective vehicle segregation and regular maintenance continue to offer some of the greatest opportunities to reduce fatal risk.

Older workers continue to be disproportionately affected

One notable finding is the age profile of those involved in fatal accidents.

Workers aged 60 and over accounted for approximately one-third of all workplace fatalities, despite representing a much smaller proportion of the overall workforce.

As the UK’s workforce continues to age, employers should consider whether existing risk assessments adequately account for factors such as mobility, fatigue, physical capability and health conditions, particularly in physically demanding roles.

Statistics should drive action—not complacency

Although Great Britain remains one of the safest places in the world to work, these figures should never be viewed as a reason to relax health and safety standards.

Why Employers Should Pay Attention

These are not emerging risks—they are well understood. The challenge lies in ensuring that suitable controls are consistently implemented, monitored and reviewed.

A strong safety management system is about more than meeting legal requirements. It creates safer workplaces, reduces disruption, protects reputation and demonstrates a genuine commitment to employees’ wellbeing.

What employers should review now

The publication of the HSE’s annual statistics provides an ideal opportunity for organisations to review their own health and safety performance.

Employer Health & Safety Checklist

Often, a proactive review identifies opportunities for improvement long before an incident occurs.

How Outsource Safety can help

At Outsource Safety, we work with organisations across a wide range of industries to develop practical, proportionate health and safety management systems that support both compliance and operational performance.

Whether you require competent health and safety advice, risk assessments, policy development, audits, inspections or ongoing retained consultancy support, our aim is simple: helping businesses prevent incidents before they happen.

The latest HSE statistics remind us that while workplace safety has improved dramatically over recent decades, there is still work to do. Every employer has a role to play in ensuring that everyone goes home safely at the end of every working day.

If you would like to review your current arrangements or discuss how we can support your organisation, please get in touch with the Outsource Safety team.

Hot Weather at Work: Employer Responsibilities During Heatwaves and HSE Guidance for 2026

As temperatures continue to rise across the UK, employers are being reminded of their legal responsibilities to protect workers from the risks associated with hot weather and workplace heat stress.  If you have questions and are (or want to be) a Safety~net Competent Person Scheme member, please contact us for further information and guidance.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently updated its guidance for employers, highlighting the importance of managing workplace temperatures and taking practical steps to prevent heat-related illness during periods of extreme weather.

While UK law does not set a maximum workplace temperature, employers still have a duty of care to ensure working conditions are safe, healthy and do not place employees at risk.

What Are an Employer’s Responsibilities During Hot Weather?

Many employers are surprised to learn that there is no legal maximum temperature for workplaces in the UK.

However, under health and safety legislation, employers must assess workplace risks and implement suitable control measures where high temperatures could affect employee health, safety or wellbeing.

This applies to:

• Offices
• Warehouses
• Manufacturing facilities
• Construction sites
• Outdoor workplaces
• Agricultural environments
• Logistics and transport operations

As part of their workplace risk assessment, employers should identify situations where excessive heat could lead to illness, fatigue, reduced concentration or increased accident rates.

What Is Heat Stress at Work?

Heat stress occurs when the body’s natural cooling mechanisms are unable to maintain a safe internal temperature.

When employees become too hot, they can develop heat-related illnesses ranging from mild discomfort through to serious medical emergencies such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

Common Signs of Heat Stress

Employees and supervisors should be aware of symptoms including:

• Excessive sweating
• Dizziness
• Headaches
• Muscle cramps
• Fatigue
• Nausea
• Reduced concentration
• Confusion
• Rapid heartbeat

Recognising these symptoms early can help prevent more serious health consequences.

Why Heat Stress Is Becoming a Growing Workplace Safety Issue

Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense across the UK.

According to climate projections, extreme weather events are expected to increase in both frequency and severity over the coming decades. This means workplace heat exposure is no longer an occasional summer concern but an emerging long-term occupational health and safety challenge.

High temperatures can:

• Reduce productivity
• Increase worker fatigue
• Impair decision-making
• Increase accident rates
• Contribute to dehydration
• Exacerbate existing medical conditions

For employers, failing to manage these risks can result in increased sickness absence, reduced operational performance and potential enforcement action where risks have not been adequately controlled.

Which Workers Are Most at Risk During a Heatwave?

Certain employees are particularly vulnerable to hot weather conditions.

Higher-risk groups include:

• Outdoor workers
• Construction workers
• Road and rail maintenance teams
• Agricultural workers
• Manufacturing employees
• Warehouse operatives
• Workers wearing PPE
• Pregnant employees
• Older workers
• Employees with underlying health conditions
• New starters who have not yet acclimatised

Risk assessments should specifically consider these groups and any additional controls required.

HSE Guidance: How Employers Can Reduce Heat Stress Risks

The HSE recommends a range of practical measures to help employers manage workplace temperatures and protect their workforce during hot weather.

1. Review Work Schedules

Where possible:

• Move physically demanding tasks to cooler parts of the day
• Avoid unnecessary manual handling during peak temperatures
• Introduce task rotation
• Consider flexible working hours

2. Provide Access to Drinking Water

Dehydration significantly increases the risk of heat stress.

Employers should ensure:

• Cool drinking water is readily available
• Workers are encouraged to drink regularly
• Remote workers have suitable hydration arrangements

3. Improve Ventilation and Airflow

For indoor workplaces, employers should consider:

• Increasing natural ventilation
• Opening windows and doors where safe
• Using fans appropriately
• Improving air circulation
• Introducing cooling systems where necessary

4. Increase Rest Breaks

Additional rest periods can help workers recover from heat exposure.

Employers should provide:

• More frequent breaks
• Cool recovery areas
• Shaded outdoor rest locations

5. Review Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

PPE can increase heat stress by limiting the body’s ability to cool itself.

Employers should:

• Review whether alternative PPE options are available
• Monitor workers undertaking strenuous tasks
• Ensure regular breaks are provided

6. Train Employees to Recognise Heat-Related Illness

Workers should understand:

• Signs and symptoms of heat stress
• Emergency procedures
• Reporting requirements
• The importance of hydration and rest

Outdoor Working in Hot Weather

Outdoor workers face additional risks due to direct sun exposure and prolonged periods in high temperatures.

Employers should consider:

• Providing shaded work areas
• Adjusting work schedules
• Monitoring weather forecasts
• Providing sun protection measures
• Increasing supervision during heatwaves

Planning ahead can significantly reduce the likelihood of heat-related illness and lost working time.

Is There a Legal Maximum Workplace Temperature in the UK?

This remains one of the most frequently asked workplace health and safety questions.

Currently, there is no legal maximum workplace temperature in UK legislation.

However, employers are still required to ensure workplace temperatures are reasonable and do not create health and safety risks.

Trade unions and occupational health organisations continue to campaign for a maximum legal workplace temperature, particularly as climate change increases the frequency of extreme heat events.

Until any legislative changes are introduced, employers must rely on robust risk assessments and proportionate control measures to demonstrate compliance.

Heatwave Workplace Safety: Key Actions for Employers

As temperatures continue to rise, employers should take a proactive approach to managing heat-related risks.

Key actions include:

✓ Reviewing workplace risk assessments

✓ Identifying vulnerable workers

✓ Providing access to water and rest facilities

✓ Improving ventilation and cooling

✓ Adjusting work schedules where necessary

✓ Training staff to recognise heat stress symptoms

By implementing these measures, organisations can improve employee wellbeing, maintain productivity and demonstrate compliance with their health and safety obligations.

Need Help Reviewing Your Workplace Risk Assessments?

Heat stress is increasingly becoming a significant workplace health and safety issue across the UK.

If your organisation has not reviewed its hot weather arrangements recently, now is an ideal opportunity to assess existing controls and ensure employees remain protected during periods of extreme heat.

A proactive approach today can help prevent incidents, reduce sickness absence and support legal compliance throughout the summer months.

When you have LEV installed, you must then have a report from the installer which summarises how the installation has met successfully with the design criteria set for the LEV.  Both of these tasks are always carried out by competent engineers experienced in the design and validation of LEV, often a qualification issued by BOHS (British Occupational Hygiene Society). If you’re wondering what one might look like CIBSE have an example document on their website: Link

It’s helpful to draw an analogy here with other more common reports, such as a handover certificate when you have electrical or gas work completed by a competent engineer.  Read our succinct and helpful summary on what a LEV commissioning report should contain below, and if you have questions and are (or want to be) a Safety~net Competent Person Scheme member, please contact us for further information and guidance.

An LEV (Local Exhaust Ventilation) commissioning report is a formal, documented record that proves a newly installed or significantly modified LEV system is operating exactly as it was designed to, and that it provides the necessary protection for employees from hazardous substances in the air.

In the UK, under the COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) Regulations, employers have a legal duty to ensure that any control measure (like an LEV system) is maintained in an efficient state and in good working order. Commissioning is the critical “first step” in this process.

What is the Purpose of the Report?

The report serves as the “Baseline” for the system. Once a system is commissioned, all future routine examinations and tests (TExT) will be compared against these initial results to ensure the system hasn’t degraded over time.

It confirms three main criteria:

1. Design Compliance: Does the system achieve the required airflow, velocity, and pressure identified in the original design specification?
2. Safety Performance: Is it effectively capturing, conveying, and removing hazardous substances (fumes, dust, vapours) from the worker’s breathing zone?
3. Instruction & Training: Does the system have clear documentation, and are the operators trained on how to use it correctly?

Key Components of an LEV Commissioning Report

A professional commissioning report should include:

• System Description: Details of the layout, ductwork, fan, and filtration units.
• Design Specifications: A summary of the design intent (e.g., the target capture velocity or required volume flow rate).
• Measurement Data:
  • Flow Rates: Air volume measurements at the hood and throughout the ductwork.
  • Pressure Readings: Static pressure measurements across the system.
  • Face Velocities: The speed of air moving into the hood (crucial for capture).
• Visual Evidence: Photographs of the installation and any testing points (e.g., test ports in ducts).
• System Integrity: Checks for leaks in ductwork or blockages in the filtration unit.
• Verification of Performance: Results from smoke tests or tracer gas tests to visualize airflow and confirm it is actually capturing the contaminants.
• User Instructions: Confirmation that a logbook is in place and that users understand how to use the system (e.g., not blocking hoods).

Why is this Report Critical?

• Legal Compliance: Without a commissioning report, you technically do not have a record that the system was ever “fit for purpose” when it was installed.
• Insurance & Liability: In the event of a workplace health issue (such as respiratory problems related to dust or fumes), this report is your primary evidence that the company took adequate steps to control exposure.
• Maintenance Benchmark: You cannot effectively perform routine maintenance if you do not know the “correct” performance numbers established at commissioning.

A Note on Competence

The person conducting the commissioning must be competent. They should have the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience—often evidenced by relevant qualifications (such as those from the British Occupational Hygiene Society – BOHS) or through professional engineering bodies—to perform the measurements accurately and interpret the results correctly.

Dry cutting of stone and stone-like materials can give rise to high levels of respirable crystalline silica (RCS), and this can lead to severe health problems for employees.  Don’t be fooled; even wet cutting cannot control dust levels – you will always need a face-fitted FFP3 mask.  You might not be able to see the dust, but it’s there – we’ve air sampled it and proved that beyond all doubt.  If you need air sampling for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) or awareness sessions for staff working with these substances, please contact us or request a call back.  If you are an existing Safety~net subscriber, please contact us for further help and support.

HSE Targets Engineered Stone Dust Risks with New Crackdown on Dry Cutting

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has announced a significant enforcement campaign targeting businesses working with engineered stone, following growing concern over workers developing silicosis and other life-changing respiratory illnesses linked to silica dust exposure.

This comes alongside updated HSE guidance making it explicitly clear that dry cutting of engineered stone is unacceptable. Inspectors are now set to carry out more than 1,000 inspections across Great Britain over the next 12 months, with enforcement action expected where businesses fail to control exposure risks adequately.

Why Engineered Stone Presents a Serious Risk

Engineered stone, commonly used for kitchen worktops and interior surfaces, often contains very high levels of crystalline silica — in some cases up to 95%. When materials are cut, ground or polished, respirable crystalline silica (RCS) dust is released into the air. These microscopic particles can penetrate deep into the lungs. (HSE)

Exposure to RCS has long been associated with:

• Silicosis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Lung cancer
• Permanent and irreversible lung damage

One of the major concerns highlighted by occupational health specialists is that damage can occur long before symptoms become noticeable. In many cases, silicosis continues to progress even after exposure has stopped. (HSE)

International concern over engineered stone has intensified in recent years. Australia has already introduced a national ban on engineered stone products because of rising numbers of severe silicosis cases among younger workers.

HSE’s Key Message: Dry Cutting Must Stop

The latest HSE guidance leaves little room for interpretation. Dry cutting engineered stone creates dramatically higher levels of airborne silica dust than wet-cutting methods.

Research referenced by HSE found that dry fabrication can generate respirable crystalline silica exposure levels five to ten times higher than equivalent wet-cutting processes.

The regulator is therefore directing duty holders towards:

• Water suppression systems
• Effective local exhaust ventilation (LEV)
• Powered air purifying respirators (PAPR)
• Routine health surveillance
• Enhanced housekeeping arrangements
• Lower silica-content stone products where possible

These measures are not optional recommendations — they sit firmly within employers’ legal duties under COSHH regulations. (HSE)

Increased Enforcement Activity Across the Sector

The announcement signals a clear shift towards proactive enforcement within the stonemasonry and worktop fabrication industries.

HSE inspectors have already begun visits and will focus heavily on whether businesses are:

• Preventing dry cutting activities
• Adequately controlling airborne silica exposure
• Providing suitable respiratory protective equipment (RPE)
• Carrying out health surveillance
• Maintaining effective cleaning regimes
• Training workers appropriately

Where standards fall short, enforcement notices and prosecutions are likely.

This follows several recent enforcement cases involving poor silica dust controls. In one high-profile prosecution, a stone company was fined after inspectors identified widespread failures to manage hazardous dust exposure within the workplace. (press.hse.gov.uk)

What Employers Should Be Doing Now

For organisations involved in fabrication, installation or processing of engineered stone, this latest HSE intervention should act as an immediate trigger for review.

Key priorities include:

• Reviewing Risk Assessments
  • Employers should revisit COSHH assessments specifically relating to respirable crystalline silica exposure and ensure they reflect current working practices.
• Eliminating Dry Processing
  • Any remaining dry cutting, grinding or polishing activities should be stopped immediately unless a robust justification and effective controls are demonstrably in place.
• Verifying Existing Controls
  • LEV systems, wet suppression equipment and RPE arrangements should be tested, maintained and monitored regularly to confirm they remain effective.
• Introducing Health Surveillance
  • Where workers are regularly exposed to silica dust, suitable respiratory health surveillance should be in place.
• Delivering Competent Training
  • Employees must understand:
  • The risks associated with silica dust
  • Correct use of controls and RPE
  • Cleaning procedures
  • Reporting requirements

A Wider Occupational Health Wake-Up Call

The renewed focus on engineered stone also reflects a broader shift within health and safety enforcement towards occupational disease prevention.

Historically, workplace health risks have often received less attention than immediate safety hazards. However, regulators are increasingly targeting long-latency illnesses such as occupational lung disease, with silica exposure remaining one of the most significant construction-related health risks in the UK. (HSE)

For many businesses, the challenge is no longer simply having controls on paper — it is demonstrating that those controls are genuinely effective in practice.

Businesses operating within the engineered stone sector should expect increasing scrutiny throughout 2026 and beyond. The message from HSE is clear: if silica dust risks are not being properly controlled, enforcement action will follow. (UKATA)

HAVS can be a difficult hazard to manage. If you need help and support, consider joining the hundreds of businesses already using our competent person support service, Safety~net.  Contact us or request a call back for more information.

A metal fabrication company operating at Immingham Docks has been fined after seven workers developed vibration-related health conditions linked to the use of power tools. Following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Drury Engineering Services Ltd was prosecuted for failing to protect workers from harmful exposure to hand-arm vibration. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £44,000, with £8,061.70 in costs, at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court on 26 February 2026.

Investigation Following Illness Reports

The HSE began investigating in June 2024 after three workers were diagnosed with vibration-related health conditions. Inspectors served the company with an Improvement Notice, requiring it to introduce effective controls for vibration exposure. During the investigation, three further cases were identified, with a seventh worker later reporting symptoms consistent with vibration-related illness.

Workers reported symptoms including:

• Finger blanching (commonly known as white finger)
• Numbness and tingling in the hands
• Loss of grip strength
• Sleep disruption caused by nerve pain

Several workers said their condition affected everyday activities such as gripping tools, carrying out household tasks and even mowing the lawn.

Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS)

The symptoms experienced by the workers are associated with Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) — a permanent and preventable occupational disease caused by prolonged exposure to vibration from hand-held power tools.

Common tools associated with HAVS include:

• Angle grinders
• Impact drills
• Sanders and polishers
• Road breakers
• Hammer drills

Without appropriate controls, long-term exposure can lead to irreversible damage to nerves, blood vessels and joints in the hands and arms.

Failures Identified by HSE

The HSE investigation found that the company had not adequately managed the risks associated with vibration exposure.

In particular, the business had failed to:

• Carry out a suitable and sufficient vibration risk assessment
• Implement controls to limit worker exposure to vibration
• Introduce an effective health surveillance programme
• Provide sufficient training and information for employees using vibrating tools

Although the company later appointed a new health and safety manager who began improving vibration management processes, inspectors concluded that workers had already been exposed to harmful levels of vibration for several years.

Employer Responsibilities

Under the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, employers must assess and control the risks from vibration exposure where workers use power tools or vibrating equipment.

Practical control measures can include:

• Selecting lower-vibration tools and equipment
• Maintaining tools to prevent excessive vibration
• Limiting exposure time through task rotation
• Monitoring exposure against daily vibration limits
• Implementing health surveillance programmes to identify early symptoms

A Preventable Occupational Health Risk

Cases of HAVS remain a significant occupational health issue across industries including construction, engineering, fabrication and maintenance.

The HSE estimates that millions of UK workers use vibrating tools as part of their job, meaning employers must remain vigilant in managing exposure.

This prosecution serves as a reminder that failure to properly manage vibration risks can lead not only to serious, life-changing health conditions for workers but also significant financial and reputational consequences for businesses.

What This Means for Employers

This case highlights the importance of proactively managing vibration risks in workplaces where employees regularly use power tools.

Employers should ensure that vibration risks are properly assessed and controlled before workers are exposed to prolonged tool use. Regular monitoring of vibration exposure levels and early health surveillance are critical to identifying potential problems before they develop into permanent conditions.

Businesses should also ensure workers receive appropriate training on the safe use of vibrating equipment and understand the importance of reporting early symptoms such as tingling, numbness or finger blanching.

Failing to control vibration exposure can result in serious long-term health consequences for workers and enforcement action from the regulator, including fines, improvement notices and reputational damage.

We know that HAVS can be a difficult hazard to manage. If you need help and support, consider joining the hundreds of businesses already using our competent person support service, Safety~net.  Contact us or request a call back for more information.

Before we look at this tragic accident, please make yourself aware of the standards which should be applied to ensure this doesn’t happen in your workplace.

The HSE is clear that emery cloth must never be applied by hand to a rotating workpiece. Contact with moving parts can lead to rapid entanglement and fatal injuries.  👉 Read the guidance: HSG129 – Health and safety in engineering workshops.  We always look at issues such as this – and the hidden signs which might lead our safety consultants to believe this is happening.  If you feel you would benefit from a similar audit, please contact us or request a call back for further advice.  If you are a Safety~net member, please contact us to arrange this audit with your retainec consultant.

Forge fined £750,000 after worker dragged 20-metre lathe in entirely preventable incident

Somers Forge Limited has been ordered to pay £750,000 after a tragic workplace accident resulted in the death of a machinist who became entangled in a 20-metre lathe. The prosecution highlights significant safety failings and reinforces long-established guidance on machine risk management.

A Preventable Tragedy

On 8 December 2023, 54-year-old machinist Nick Hardiman was working in the machine shop at Somers Forge’s facility in Halesowen when the fatal incident occurred. Mr Hardiman was finishing a rotating component on the forge’s large lathe using hand-held emery cloth — a practice specifically warned against in machine safety guidance.

While the lathe was in motion, Mr Hardiman became entangled with the rotating workpiece. Despite rapid emergency response, he sustained catastrophic injuries and died later that evening. His loss has devastated his family and loved ones.

HSE Investigation Identified Serious Failings

The subsequent investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) uncovered multiple breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974:

• Failure to prohibit the use of hand-held emery cloth on live lathes.
• Inadequate measures to prevent access to dangerous moving parts.
• A lack of adequate risk assessment or safe operating procedures for lathe work.
• Insufficient control of personal protective equipment (PPE) that inadvertently increased risk.

HSE Inspector Sophie Neale emphasised that this was “an entirely preventable incident” and reiterated employers’ obligations to implement safe systems of work and control foreseeable hazards.

Court Outcome and Wider Lessons

Somers Forge Limited pleaded guilty at Walsall Magistrates’ Court to breaching Section 2(1) of the HSW Act. In addition to the £750,000 fine, the company was ordered to pay £38,314 in costs.

HSE’s guidance on metalworking lathes specifically states that emery cloth should never be applied by hand to rotating machinery. Safe alternatives include clamping work in place or using purpose-designed holding tools to prevent direct contact with moving parts.

This case sits within a broader pattern of serious lathe-related accidents reported in industry, where poor machine guarding, lack of risk assessment and unsafe working practices have repeatedly contributed to life-altering injuries or death.

Key Takeaways for Duty Holders

This prosecution underscores fundamental principles of machinery safety:

• Risk assessments must be suitable and sufficient. Identifying hazards is a legal requirement, not optional.
• Safe operating procedures must be documented and enforced. Workers should never improvise dangerous tasks.
• Machine guarding and control measures must be effective and cannot be bypassed or ignored.
• Training and supervision should align with hazards posed by specific equipment.

For firms that use lathes and similar industrial plant, this enforcement serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences of complacency. Machinery casualties can be avoided when risk control principles are properly applied.

This accident illustrates the breadth of hazards which a competent health and safety professional must consider. Skin exposure to solvents, the potential for flammable atmospheres, the possible narcotic effects of inhalation of solvent vapours (perhaps leading to a serious road traffic accident), the potential for fire and explosion, the knowledge and approach of a competent worker who is unaware of the potential hazrds from a substance which has been used commonly in the business, perhaps for years without incident.

Health and safety assessment isn’t easy, and when it comes to chemicals and COSHH, there are sometimes issues which can only be fully assessed by someone with a very specific skill set.  If you need help and support, join the hundreds of safety professionals who call on our support for key risks by joining our Safety~net Competent Person Support Scheme. Please contact us or request a call back to speak directly to one of our friendly and helpful advisors.

A Hertfordshire maintenance company has been ordered to pay £400,000 after a worker died from inhalation of toxic glue vapour while carrying out flooring work, highlighting the critical importance of hazardous substance control and ventilation in confined spaces.

On 9 December 2020, 38-year-old Darren Nevill was installing a vinyl bathroom floor at a domestic property in Hoddesdon when he was exposed to lethal levels of dichloromethane (DCM) vapours, a highly volatile solvent present in the adhesive supplied by his employer, Connect Property Services Limited, a maintenance subsidiary of Peabody.

What Happened?

DCM-based adhesives emit colourless, low-odour vapours that can rapidly accumulate in enclosed or poorly ventilated areas. During the task, a pressurised glue canister hose became damaged, releasing a significant volume of adhesive into the bathroom.

Mr Nevill inhaled a concentration of DCM estimated to be 84.5 times the legal workplace exposure limit, with post-mortem analysis showing levels more than three times the fatal concentration. He lost consciousness and died at the scene. Emergency services were forced to break into the property to recover his body.

HSE Investigation and Findings

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the company had failed to adequately control exposure to hazardous substances, despite safer alternatives being reasonably practicable.

The investigation concluded that the risks associated with DCM were not properly mitigated, particularly given the confined nature of the bathroom and the absence of sufficient ventilation. HSE guidance is clear that products containing dichloromethane should be avoided wherever possible, and where use cannot be eliminated, strict controls must be in place to prevent vapour build-up.

Court Proceedings and Penalty

At Stevenage Magistrates’ Court on 26 January 2026, Connect Property Services pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The company was fined £400,000, ordered to pay £9,676.81 in costs, and a £190 victim surcharge.

HSE Inspector Rauf Ahmed stated that the statutory 15-minute exposure limit for DCM would have been exceeded in seconds, adding that the incident was entirely preventable with appropriate controls in place.

What This Means for Your Business

This case serves as a stark reminder of employers’ duties under COSHH and the Health and Safety at Work Act. Organisations involved in maintenance, refurbishment, flooring or similar activities should review their arrangements urgently.

Key actions for duty holders include:

• Eliminate or substitute hazardous substances
  Where reasonably practicable, replace products containing high-risk solvents such as dichloromethane with safer alternatives.
• Review COSHH risk assessments
  Ensure assessments are task-specific and consider worst-case scenarios, including confined spaces, equipment failure and cumulative exposure.
• Assess ventilation realistically
  Natural ventilation is often insufficient in bathrooms, cupboards and small rooms. Where adequate ventilation cannot be guaranteed, the task should not proceed.
• Check exposure limits and usage times
  Volatile substances can exceed Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) in seconds. Controls must reflect this reality, not theoretical averages.
• Provide competent supervision and training
  Employees must understand the hazards, symptoms of exposure, and the steps to take if something goes wrong.
• Audit products and equipment
  Pressurised systems, hoses and applicators should be subject to inspection and maintenance regimes to prevent leaks and failures.

Beyond the significant financial penalties, this case demonstrates the human cost of inadequate chemical risk management. Employers must ensure that health and safety decisions are driven by prevention, not convenience or cost.

If you need help and support on this or other matters from experts in health and safety please contact us or request a call back.  We offer tailored support packages through our Safety~net Competent Person Support Scheme for hundreds of clients across the UK.