Paganhill Lane, Stroud, GL5 4JW  Phone +44 (0)1453-800100

Send us a Mail:
info@outsource-safety.co.uk
Opening Hours :
Mon - Fri: 8am - 5pm
Get a Quote

Safety news

Updates on new and changing regulations plus best practice in health, safety, quality and environment

May 15, 2018

Domestic Project Principal Contractor receives custodial sentence

With the CDM Regulations now in place since 2015 most people should have a pretty good understanding of what they are, how they affect them and what to do to comply with them…. shouldn’t they? Not every domestic project principal contractor is….

Well, this isn’t really the case and the most difficult duty holders to reach are those contractors working for domestic clients under projects which are now affected by CDM.

The Domestic Project Principal Contractor

These domestic projects have fallen outside of the CDM Regulations for many years since their first appearance in 1995 they didn’t cover this type of project and it was only in 2015 that domestic projects fell into scope. What does this mean?  Well, it means that pretty much any project which involves more than one contractor is now under CDM.  Having a bathroom updated?  Have a plumber and a builder?  Well, that is a CDM Project.

Duties of the Domestic Client under CDM 2015

This is an easy one for us.  As a pure domestic client, everything falls to others in the supply chain.  An architect would be the Principal Designer, any contractor taking on the work will be a Principal Contractor under the CDM regulations.  The client doesn’t have any of the duties associated with a commercial CDM Client (more on which in our earlier blog post here; The client’s duties under CDM 2015 – are you complying? ).

In this case, the Principal Contractor was constructing a dormer extension and poor planning led to an accident which left a worker with life-threatening injuries which included traumatic brain injury.. The workman was on the roof to the side of the dormer extension when he fell almost 8 metres down to the paving below.  The reason he was on the roof in an unprotected area was to install weather proofing to protect the dormer from the ingress of rain.

HSE Inspectors found that the scaffolding erected at site did not extend fully across the area and that the Principal Contractor JD Riley had failed to ensure suitable and sufficient measure were in place to prevent a person falling a distance which was likely to cause personal injury.

James D Riley (Trading as JD Riley) – of Fox and Hounds House, Tockwith Road, Long Marston, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and has received an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years, a compensation order for £5000 plus £2000 in costs

After the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Thompson commented:

“Work at height, such as roof work, is a high-risk activity that accounts for a high proportion of workplace serious injuries and fatalities each year.

In this case, by putting in place measures to prevent falls from the roof edge by providing a scaffold platform under the area of works, could have removed the danger of falling.”

Posted by Roger Hart
May 15, 2018

CDM Client and Contractor Together in Court

A CDM Client and what should have been their Principal Contractor have both been fined for failing to manage their responsibilities for safety.

CDM Client and Contractor Prosecuted

Stuart Barnes Ltd and the CDM Client Aster Property Ltd have been sentenced as a fall through fragile roofing.  Luke Maslen, 27 years old, fell almost 2 metres through the roof to the floor below and suffered a serious fracture of the upper spine, he was lucky not to have been more seriously injured or even killed.falls from height

HSE found that the work had not been properly planned, supervised or carried out in a safe manner.  Staff had not been properly trained and the project client had failed “to control how the work was carried out and to ensure any contractors hired could carry out the work safely”.

The work itself was carried out under the control of Stuart Barnes Ltd who failed to plan the work properly and in a safe manner.

  • Aster Property Limited – of Horton Avenue, Cannings Hill, Devizes, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and has been fined £14,600 and ordered to pay costs of £5,015.75.
  • Stuart Barnes Limited –  of Portland Road, Weymouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 (1)(a) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and has been fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,015.75.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Allison George said:

“This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out correct control measures and safe working practices.

Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities/injuries in this country and the risks associated with working at height are well known.”

Posted by Roger Hart
March 28, 2018 , , , , , , , ,

HSE Provides risk assessment training

Well then – who better to tell you about how provide a risk assessment training than an actual HSE Inspector!HSE

Or is it….

HSE have recently started to offer more in the way of courses and have some which cover risk assessment, others covering CDM and more are likely to arrive in the future.  The truth behind this is a drive to monetise the skills present within HSE and help fund the large reduction in the support which HSE receives from central government coffers.

I think we can all see the rationale behind this and perhaps there is merit in trying to make our tax pounds work a little harder…. but… would anyone but a very large business be willing to pay £495.00 for just one days risk assessment training?  Aren’t we already paying for this service through both tax and through the FFI Scheme? What can’t the same information and resources be made available to the smaller businesses who can’t (or won’t) pay £495.00 for just one days training?

I’ve paid in the past to attend courses at the Health and Safety Laboratory and found them useful but even we’d bulk at the costs HSE want to extract from those which they enforce.  Speaking of which, isn’t there some basic conflict of interest going on here?  Could future cases be complicated by the waving of a certificate which deems some competence on an attendee?  What about those who could not afford to attend?

In essence I’m in the ‘thanks but no thanks’ camp. Provide a level and fair playing field for all those governed by the same regulations and keep enforcement and commercial practice separate now and in the future.

Posted by Roger Hart
March 27, 2018

Domestic Principal Contractor Fined under CDM

A domestic Principal Contractor (someone with Principal Contractor duties under CDM but working on a domestic rather than commercial project) has faced a significant fine.  This is one of the key changes with the 2015 CDM Regulations – they apply to domestic as well as commercial projects in contrast with all regulations up until that point.  This is in contast with the basic provisions of English Health and Safety Law which govern work places but not domestic environments.

This cse shows HSE taking a firm stance on the duties of Principal Contractors operating on a domestic project and is of great relevance to the smaller contractor completing extensions and general house improvements as well as domestic house builds.

Domestic Principal Contractor Fined for Poor Temporary Works Provision

Surrey based construction company Portico Design and Developments Limited of Wellington Avenue, Surrey pleaded guilty of breaching Regulation 19(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 which requires steps to ensure that structures do collapse due to instability whilst carrying out construction work. The company has been fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of £16,674.

Reading Magistrates court heard how HSE inspectors were carrying out proactive inspection at a domestic property in Sunningdale – part of a construction focused inspection initiative across the UK.

It was found that the Principal Contractor failed to properly manage the temporary works on site thereby creating a risk of collapse. It was found that a number of walls had been demolished and the remaining walls were held up with temporary props – see image

 

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Adam Wycherley said:

“Portico failed to properly manage this project and allowed work to continue on site when it was unsafe to do so.

This case is a perfect example that HSE can and will bring those to justice who fall below the required standard of health and safety practices.”

If you have requirements for support on domestic CDM projects and are in the role of Principal Contractor, Principal Designer or both we can supply the help and support you need. Please see you Meet the Team pages to find out more about how we support hundreds of clients throughout the UK on CDM.

Posted by Roger Hart
February 23, 2018 , , , , , , ,

Working with Asbestos Cement (Asbestos Containing Materials)

Throughout the UK and Europe there are a multitude of workplaces still clad in asbestos cement from roofing to rainwater to any number of other similar items.  Back in the 50’s and 60’s this ‘wonder material’ was marketed as a solution to all building problems due to its characteristics for strength, lightness and fire resistance.

Asbestos training and working safely with asbestos materials

The legacy which we’re left with is having to manage a potentially harmful material on almost every industrial estate and commercial building which was built during this time and, sadly, people don’t always take the right precautions or have the right asbestos training.

A recent case highlighted the use of poorly thought out methods being put into practice which exposed persons unnecessarily to asbestos fibres. Both a manufacturing company and the contractor were prosecuted for using a high pressure jet washer to clean asbestos cement roofing with fine well into the thousands of pounds.

However, help is at hand and HSE have some useful and practical advice for those with asbestos cement roofs and similar.  Use the guidance below to ensure that you or your contractor put the right precautions in place before work starts to ensure the safety of your staff, neighbours and other who could be affected;

HSE Guidance: Work with asbestos cement (AC) (non-licensed) (asbestos training)
Posted by Roger Hart
February 2, 2018 , , , , , , , , ,

Emergency First Aid Training: HSE updates First Aid guidance leaflet

Emergency First Aid Training: First aid leaflet revised for 2018

Emergency First Aid TrainingThe HSE has updated some of its guidance material that covers first aid at work.   This is important information for anyone who has recently completed Emergency First Aid Training with us.  If you need emergency First Aid Training please contact Andrea on 01453 800100 and see our Emergency First Aid Training Course  See what has changed here; PDF Logo Updated leaflet INDG347

New material. The updated version of the HSE leaflet ‘Basic advice on first aid at work’ (INDG347) has been designed to provide basic advice on first aid, covering resuscitation, bleeding, broken bones, burns, eye injuries and record keeping. This leaflet is typically found in first aid boxes as a basic guide to first aid treatment. We’d recommend you also keep one with your first aid kits in vehicles as it’s more likely it will be read by someone without much training.

Although the contents of the leaflet have changed in a fairly minor way, it’s always best to circulate the updated version to your trained first aiders, emergency first aid trained staff and others who may benefit from have a copy of the guide.

The key change is that the leaflet now mentions the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). Specifically, if a casualty is not breathing, the staff member administering first aid should “get help and call for an AED if available”. The revised leaflet also explains the point at which an AED should be used during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, namely, after the first 30 chest compressions and having opened the airway.

Note: You’re only legally obliged to install an AED in your workplace when your first aid risk assessment identifies it as necessary.  For example, you may be in a remote location or have a higher than average number of older staff which makes an AED a wise choice.  If you need AED use added to your Emergency First Aid Training Course please ask us.

If you need some first aiders trained please contact us as we offer Emergency First Aid Training, please contact Andrea Hart on 01453 800100 to book your place for as little as £85.00 per person.
Posted by Roger Hart
January 31, 2018 , , , , , , , ,

Scaffolder faces up to 6 months in jail for failing to use harness – on a CPS Building!

Scaffolder Terrance Murray faces up to 6 months in jail after being photographed by a retired HSE Inspector working 60 feet up on a scaffold in Manchester.  Even more surprising is that the building he was working on housed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who are now involved in prosecuting the case against him!

Scaffolder faces jail after working dangerously on CPS Building

A photograph can be seen which shows the scaffolder looking directly into the Crown prosecution Services offices within the building, his apprentice was working further down the same scaffolding but is not being prosecuted.

Murray, who is an experienced scaffolder can be seen standing on planks without having first erected a rail  to stop his fall, as required by SG4:15 In the photograph he is wearing a harness but has not connected it to the scaffold leaving him unprotected from a fall.

Attending court yesterday, Murray, pleaded guilty to failing to take reasonable care for either himself or others who may have been affected by his acts and omissions while at work.

District Judge Mark Hadfield adjourned the case when Murray, who was not without legal representation, admitted he hadn’t realised he could be sent to prison for the offence.  The case was adjourned until February 20 to allow Murray to consider getting a lawyer.

After the hearing, HM inspector of health and safety Matt Greenly commented:

‘The potential for his actions was the death of a young man. This is a situation which could easily have been avoided. He had all the right equipment. He chose for some unknown reason to take his life in his own hands that day.’

 

 

 

 

Posted by Roger Hart
Face Fit Testing
January 22, 2018 , , , , , , , , , , ,

Controlling dusts in construction

Controlling construction dusts has really hit the headlines as a requirements in recent years – and with good reason.  Deaths related to dust inhalation through COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and the effects of exposure to RCS (respirable crystalline silica) are estimated to be in the thousands each year.  HSE estimates that over 100 people are estimated to die every week compared to 1 person or less per week from physical risks on construction sites (falling from height and similar).

Controlling dusts is often through simple measures such as water suppression and wearing appropriate masks which have been face fit tested but there are times when you can’t use wet cutting methods – in these circumstances you’ll need to capture the dust at source.  The next question is what do you use?  The answer is certainly not a Henry vacuum ( as much as we like them and yes, we do have one in the office!).

Effective capture of construction dust needs something intended and designed for that purpose and capable of withstanding rough usage.  Using a poorly specified extractor will simply makes things worse – much worse – by capturing the dust only to blow large amounts of the fine dust into the atmosphere for you and all around you to breathe in, not what you want to achieve and something guaranteed to get you some attention from HSE and their Fee for Intervention scheme…

Controlling exposure to construction dusts

Firstly, there is some really good information available from the HSE, primarily in the form of the CIS Sheets; Controlling construction dust with on-tool extraction CIS69 – HSE being your first port of call in this case.  This gives a reasonably in-depth summary of what you need to review and consider but for the purpose of this blog we’re going to make things as simple as possible and also aim them at what we think our clients would most like to know.

With this in mind we are working with our clients to address these risks, educate their staff through training courses and toolbox talks and also running free sessions on the risks associated with construction dusts and how to manage them.  Check out this link for the talk which we gave to WWT (the HSE and Construction industry partnership organisation).

Key steps to controlling construction dust

  1. Capture at source: this means having a hood on the machine connected to your extraction unit which is as close as possible to the cutting /abrading point.  It should cover as much of the tool as it can reasonably cover without causing an obstruction as that will make it more effective;
  2. Use the right extraction equipment: this means an industrial vacuum designed for the purpose, there are 3 choices (HML) High, Medium of Low and the choice you make depends on the dust created from high for work which produces hazardous dusts like respirable crystalline silica to low on dusts which are less inherently harmful with plaster and gypsum being good examples;
  3. Remember extraction can’t capture every bit of dust: very fine dust will always find a way to escape and respirable crystalline silica dust is again a good example, it’s so fine even wet cutting won’t reduce it to a safe level and so make sure that you and those trades around you are wearing good quality, face fitted RPE to FFP3 standard.  If you need face fit tests then please call us on 01453 800100 and we can arrange this through one of our Fit2Fit Face Fit testers;
  4. Consider neighbouring trades: consider those around you and also those who might have to clean up.  Don’t control all of your dust exposure at the time of cutting only to expose everyone when the area is cleaned – use wet capture or clean dust using the same class of vacuum and using the same protective equipment you used for cutting;
  5. Make sure it’s used consistently: even short term exposure is hazardous and build up over time, a bit like noise exposure does.  Small repeated exposures without adequate protection build up over a working life to serious health problems and can lead to terrible debilitating diseases like COPD and cancers, so use good practices each and every time, even for short duration work;
  6. Make sure it’s maintained correctly before each use by:
    1. checking it is in good working order (not damaged) before work starts;
    2. following the method of work described in your RAMS (risk assessments / method statements);
    3. using the equipment in the right way. Follow manufacturer’s instructions;
    4. ensuring the captor hood is as close as possible to the work surface;
    5. ensuring the tubing has a good connection to both the captor hood and extraction unit. Use an adaptor if needed, not tape;
    6. emptying the extraction unit regularly. Use the correct disposable waste bags. Seal and place in the right waste container. Do not empty these bags to recycle them;
    7. cleaning the equipment regularly (eg wipe down daily). Do not let dust build up on working parts such as internal motors and associated vents;
  7. Once a week do a more formal look over to check the following;
    1. damage to parts of the system such as the hood or ducting. Repair or replace straight away;
    2. maintaining the extraction unit’s flow of air. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions. Check that the airflow indicator and any built-in cleaning mechanism work properly. Replace filters when needed;
    3. replacing worn cutting discs.
  8. Once every 14 months have the equipment thoroughly inspected by a competent person, this is known as a Thorough Examination and Test (TExT).

Watch our video to find out more;

Posted by Roger Hart
HAVS Noise exposure
January 8, 2018 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

£100k fine for health surveillance failings leading to HAVS

Hand Arm Vibration (HAVS) is something which we have covered many times before but an area in which many still have a way to go.  The following prosecution illustrates just how many are still getting it wrong and the suffering which is resulting from this.

If you’re a safety advisor or manager within an organisation who feels they should be doing more, the case below should help you justify to your board the actions which you need to take to protect them, your staff and the business.  If you need advice or support on HAVS then please do get in touch – it’s just one of the things we do to help and support our clients under Safety~net.

South Wales based Charter Housing Association fined £100k for health surveillance failings which led to HAVS

Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court heard how Charter Housing Association Ltd. reported six cases of HAVS following a health surveillance programme launched in June 2015. The affected employees were all part of the maintenance team.  Subsequently, the HSE’s investigation found that the health of six of these staff were likely to have been caused or worsened by the use of vibratory power tools while in Charter Housing’s employment.  It was further found that maintenance and refurbishment staff had also experienced significant exposure to hand arm vibration in their daily work which put them at risk of developing or exacerbating existing HAVS.

The investigation also revealed that the company:

  1. neither adequately planned its working methods nor trained or informed employees on the risks to their health
  2. did not limit the duration and magnitude of exposure to vibration
  3. failed to put in place suitable health surveillance to identify problems at an early stage.

Charter Housing Association Ltd (now part of Pobl Group Ltd) of High Street, Newport pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. The company was fined £100,000 and was ordered to pay costs of £9,896.88.

HSE Comment

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Joanne Carter said:

“An individuals health should not be made worse by the work they do. If Charter Housing had correctly implemented its health surveillance earlier, it would have ensured the right systems were in place to monitor workers’ health. The six affected employees’ conditions may have been prevented from developing to a more severe stage.”

“How people work today can affect their health and wellbeing tomorrow. This case serves as an important reminder of the necessity of task based risk assessments to establish the level of exposure, control measures to reduce that exposure to as low as is reasonably practicable and effective health surveillance systems. In the case of Charter Housing this realisation came too late.”

“All employers need to do the right thing to protect workers’ health.”

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a serious and permanent condition caused by regular and frequent exposure to hand-arm vibration. HAVS results in tingling, numbness, pain and loss of strength in the hands which may affect the ability to do work safely and cause pain, distress and sleep disturbance.

Posted by Roger Hart
January 4, 2018 , , , , , ,

Changes to ISO Management Systems standards

I am sure that most of our clients are already familiar with the long established ISO.9001 as the Quality part of the ISO Management Systems standard, which has evolved to its latest version in 2015.  To many, these changes to the standard were quite dramatic and now require far more Top Management Commitment and evidence of Continuous Improvement.

Previous versions written around the need for a set of predetermined procedures were often very prescriptive and did not necessarily require the focus of Top Management in the business.  Processes now need to be established, but not necessarily driven by a procedure, unless value can be gained by their use.

Changes in 2015: ISO Management Systems standards

The new standard ISO.9001:2015, supported by a guidance document Annex SL, requires real input of your Top Management to study its own context, why it exists, who are its interested parties and what are their needs.  This then needs to be incorporated into the Business Plan before you deploy a Quality Management System that meets those needs.  In addition, Continuous Improvement now needs to be evidenced by Ongoing Objectives that are clearly defined, resourced and monitored.

Top Management should now start to feel more excited about how the new standard can support the Business Plan needs and drive Continuous Improvement within their business to everyone’s advantage – but they need to be committed and have a structured approach with regular reviews.

The Environmental Management System standard was also revised as ISO.14001:2015 and this follows the same structure with similar needs.  OHSAS18001 Safety Management System standard is being replaced in March 2018 by ISO.45001:2017, again with a similar structure referring to Annex SL.

This has enabled businesses that wish to implement one, two or all three of these standards to follow the same approach to each of them.  The key element being Top Management can now identify what it considers important and relevant in developing a management system that can truly deliver for its business and drive Continuous Improvement.

Outsource Safety can provide Management Systems support from occasional internal audits, support during the transition to the revised standards through to full implementation projects for QMS, EMS, SMS and even fully Integrated Management Systems.  If we can help and provide more information on any aspect of the above please let us know.  We support a wide number of businesses doing just that.

Posted by Roger Hart