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

June 27, 2016 , , , , , , ,

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.”

[sform id=’3220′]

Posted by Roger Hart
June 22, 2016 , , , , , , , ,

CDM Client prosecuted for failing to appoint a Principal Contractor

A CDM Client which failed to appoint a Principal Contractor under the CDM Regulations 2015 has been prosecuted and fined £50,000cdm-2015

Any Client who has building work completed which falls under CDM must appoint a Principal Designer and Principal Contractor in writing – this is one of the key requirements placed on any client under the regulations.

The CDM Client (Ziman Trading Ltd) was developing the New York Hotel in Porth when an investigation found that the company had failed to put in place appropriate measures to control risks from risk on site including fire, asbestos and falls from height.  To compound matters, Ziman Trading also failed to co-operate with the investigation and to comply with the enforcement action taken by HSE.

Ziman Trading Limited, of Cefn Coed Road, Cyncoed, Cardiff, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and Section 33(1)(G) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,478.

CDM Client prosecuted for failing to appoint a Principal Contractor;

  • Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015  – Regulation 13(1) which requires a principal contractor to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and coordinate matters relating to health and safety during the construction phase to ensure the construction work is carried out without risks to health or safety.
  • Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 – Section 33(1)(G) which is an offence to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice.

If you’re a client with CDM responsibilities please contact us on 01453 800100 or use the links above and below to find out more about how we can support you.  We’ve been involved with CDM Client support since the very start of the CDM Regulations back in 1995 and have several key staff who are very experienced CDM Consultants.

Find out more about the CDM Regulations here; HSE CDM 2015 Regulations; frequently asked questions  If you have specific questions please contact us or call us on 01453 80010 to discuss them.

For details of our experience with CDM see this link; Meet the Team

To watch our video on the CDM Regulations 2015 please click this link; CDM Regulations 2015 An Explanation

Posted by Roger Hart
February 28, 2016 , , , , , , , , , ,

Driving of fork lift trucks (FLTs) on the public highway

 Driving of fork lift trucks (FLTs) on the public highway

This is a question which has been raised by some clients about using fork lift trucks or other materials handling equipment on public roads and highways.  Questions have circulated about the need for registration, tax, lights and MOT – read on to find out how you might be affected  If you need advice the DVLA can be contacted on 0300 790 6802, please note that we do not provide advice on this issue.

Guidance

fork lift truck

Picture of a fork lift truck

Once a vehicle passes onto a public road (or as seen below certain other categories of “road”) further legislation will apply.

The following information has been taken from advice supplied by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and supporting Guidance V355/1.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that the driver of a motor vehicle when driven on a road must hold the appropriate driving licence, and, if only provisional entitlement is held, to observe the relevant provisional licence conditions.A ‘motor vehicle’ is defined in the 1988 Act as a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads. A “road” is defined as any highway, and any other road to which the public has access.

Consequently it would be advisable in our view for an individual to hold the appropriate driving licence entitlement before using any of these vehicles on a “road”.If the fork lift truck is electrically propelled the driver would need a licence covering category L. Alternatively, if the vehicle is exempt from duty, under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 because it is used for Agricultural, Horticultural or Forestry purposes (and its road travel does not exceed 1.5km each trip between different areas of land occupied by the same person) a category N licence would suffice. A full category B (motor car) licence gives full cover for both categories L and N.

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 provides that any mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on the public road should be registered, licensed and display registration plates. A fork lift truck can also be licensed within the “works truck” taxation class. The term “Works Truck” means a goods vehicle (that is a vehicle constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description) which is designed for use in private premises and used on public roads only;

i) for carrying goods between private premises and a vehicle on a road in the immediate vicinity;

or

ii) passing between one part and another or to other private premises in the immediate vicinity;

or

iii) in connection with road works at or in the immediate vicinity of the site of such works.

‘The immediate vicinity’ is a phrase that has been the subject of much debate and ultimately only the courts can decide what is considered to be the ‘immediate vicinity’. We suggest that travelling any distance on a road as qualifying in respect of registration and road tax. To register a fork lift truck you should contact your nearest Vehicle Registration Office. They will also advise you about the taxation position, depending on the form of propulsion and usage that the vehicle in question is put to.

The driver of a fork lift would not be required to hold a driving licence when driving a vehicle on private land/site to which the public has no access, although the insurers of the vehicle may have their own policy on such matters. We would therefore suggest you contact a reputable insurance company to establish whether they would issue insurance cover to a non-licence holder.”

For more information go to www.direct.gov.uk/vehicletax  For more information about DVLA’s online services, go to www.direct.gov.uk/onlinemotoringservices

Notes

The “Special Vehicle” tax class encompasses the following vehicles:

  • Mobile Crane
  • Mobile Pumps
  • Digging Machine
  • Road Roller
  • Showman’s HGV
  • Showman’s Haulage Special Trailer
Works Truck – The term “Works Truck” means a goods vehicle (that is a vehicle constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description) which is designed for use in private premises and used on public roads only:-i) for carrying goods between private premises and a vehicle on a road in the immediate vicinity; orii) passing between one part and another or to other private premises in the immediate vicinity; oriii) in connection with road works at or in the immediate vicinity of the site of such works.

 

Vehicles of these descriptions weighing up to 3,500kg pay the PLG rate and tax in the PLG class. Vehicles of these descriptions over 3,500kg pay the basic HGV rate and tax in the Special Vehicles class. If these vehicles are used for purposes outside this concession, the appropriate HGV rate applies.

Exempt Vehicles ‘Limited use’ vehicles, vehicles used by a disabled person, Disabled Passenger Vehicle, Historic vehicles, National Health Service vehicles.

‘Limited Use’  applies to a vehicle used solely in connection with agriculture, horticulture or forestry and its road travel does not exceed 1.5km each trip between different areas of land occupied by the same person.

Posted by Roger Hart
March 30, 2015

5 year electrical inspections – guidance for clients

We’re often carrying out audits and gap analysis surveys on behalf of our clients and one things which repeatedly creates questions is the requirement for periodic electrical inspections of the electrical supply system.

Most of us are familiar with the general requirement but few of us are clear on why and how often might be considered reasonable and so we’ve done our best to give this advice below.

Electrical inspections: Are these tests required by law?

Good question! The answer is yes and also no, they are not written into clear and specific legislation but they are related to a requirement made under the Electricity at Work Regulations (Reg 4). This requires that all electrical installations are maintained, so far as is reasonably practicable, to prevent danger.  So although no strict duty exists the inference is that you must take clear steps to ensure you comply with regulation 4, if you don’t carry out the regular tests required you can’t really show you are complying.  So the answer is that yes, you do need to carry out these inspections.

How often must I carry out these tests?

Another good question! The guidance issued in the 17th Edition of the IEE Wiring Regulations and IET Guidance Note 3 are technical guides intended for reference by electricians but we can extract some good guidance on recommended frequencies;

  • General commercial, educational establishments, hospitals, churches: every 5 years
  • Industrial premises. leisure complexes, agriculture and entertainment: every 3 years
  • Swimming pools, medical areas of healthcare premises, filling stations, caravan sites: annually

Your next steps

You don’t have to follow the above by law but you do have to show that you are doing something to comply with Regulation 4, and in practice this means doing what is described above.  If you chose not to then you must be ready to defend your actions in court should an incident occur (your insurer may also be concerned if you fail to carry out these tests).

We’d also suggest an annual visual inspection to ensure that any obvious defects are identified – consult with your electrician for more advice and if you have specific questions then contact us to some more advice.

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

Posted by Roger Hart
February 6, 2015 , , , ,

CDM 2015, a quick summary

CDM 2015 regulations

It would be true to say that we rarely experience a change in regulation which causes so much speculation and conversation amongst safety professionals, designers and architects, contractors, clients and everyone else who might be involved in a construction project at some stage but CDM 2015 has done it.

CDM 2015 flowchart

Flowchart of CDM 2015

There is still a lot of confusion amongst the duty holders and so we thought we would attempt (based on the latest guidance documents) to explain how we think the regulations will work from the perspective of each duty holder from client through to contractor but if you prefer a helicopter overview take a look at or download our flowchart below;

(Important Note: this guidance is provided as is and without warranty and is based on some assumptions and draft guidance documents)

  1. Notification of HSE (F10)
    1. 2007 Regs: you are required to notify HSE should your project last more than 30 consecutive days or more than 500 person days
    2. 2015 Regs; you will be required to notify HSE only if you project lasts more than 30 working days and has more than 20 people on site simultaneously or lasts more than 500 person days (add up the numbers on-site each day and the number of days, incidentally 19 persons x 26 days would be 494 person days)
      1. Note: we expect that this will reduce notifiable projects to less than one-third of their current number for larger businesses.  For domestic architects the effect will be almost all projects will come under CDM 2015
      2. The duty to notify technically rests with the client under the revised regulations
  2. Transitional arrangements
    1. The regulations are set to come into force on 6th April 2015, however, for projects for which a CDM Coordinator has already been appointed at that time there is a six month transitional period where the old regulations can still be applied and the CDM Coordinator can remain in role.  If this is the case you should start planning the transition now and be compliant with the new regs before 6th October 2015
  3. Removal of the domestic client exemption
    1. This was a key enabler for the change in the regulations.  The UK did not apply this part of the EU directive fully and was under great pressure from the EU to do so.  The regulations will now apply to all domestic work involving 2 or more contractors.
    2. The client duty to also ensure that the regulations are implemented on domestic projects will pass from the client to the principal contractor.  This may present the largest challenge to smaller contractors or those specialising in domestic works for new builds and extensions which up until now have been exempt.  It is worthy of note that this duty stays with the designer until and unless another Principal Designer is appointed in writing.
    3. These regulations “apply to ALL building projects, whether or not a person is acting in the course or furtherance of a business”
      1. Note: This is significant.  Even small projects will require a safety plan albeit one which HSE expects and allows to be smaller and less detailed than a notifiable project.  In truth, it is likely that these plans will follow a very similar layout to larger project plans in the absence of firm guidance on what should be included to be compliant with the new regulations.  This is an area in which we can help so please contact us if you need to discuss this aspect and if you are an existing client we can supply you with a suitable template plan.
  4. Role of the Principal Designer (replaces the CDM Coordinator Role)
    1. This is now expected to be a person in the design team (architect, structural engineer, services engineer). This will typically be supported by a safety expert such as ourselves working on a framework agreement or support contract as a Principal Design Consultant, for a copy of our framework agreement and cost structure please contact us on 01453 800100 or request a callback.
      1. Role and duties;
        1. • Eliminating or controlling risk throughout the design phase;
          • Ensuring that the Principal Contractor (PC) is kept updated;
          • Ensuring that a Construction Phase Plan (CPP) is prepared;
          • Assisting the Client with the preparation of pre construction information and fulfilling their project / design brief;
          • Make certain that all designers comply with their duties to design out risk where practicable;
          • Preparing the Health and Safety file at project completion.
  5. Role of the Client
    1. A key change is that the client must set a clear brief for the project and this should set out arrangements for how health and safety will be managed.  This may well be seen to include provision for audit arrangements to ensure good safety provision, risk management and welfare arrangements, another area where we can and do provide support.
    2. From the regulations;
      1. “A client is required to appoint a principal designer as well as a principal contractor in any project where there is, or it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be, more than one contractor working on the project (regulation 5). Under the 2007 Regulations appointments for similar roles were required for notifiable projects.”
    3. An additional role and interesting requirement placed on clients is to ensure that the Principal Designer and Contractors carry out their roles fully.  How they might be able to fulfil this duty without recourse to a construction safety professional such as ourselves is questionable – we usually supported in house teams even under the 2007 regulations so a new and specific requirement makes this an area which must be addressed fully by clients from 6th April 2015
  6. Role of the Principal Contractor
    1. There are more slight modifications for the role of Principal Contractor and the role is similar to the 2007 regulations for those who previously fell into scope.  The largest change will be the notification and application changes mentioned above which bring far more projects, including domestic, into the scope of the regulations for these larger contractors.
    2. However, the largest impact will be faced by small and medium sized business as ALL projects must now produce a health and safety plan and produce a health and safety file regardless of the projects size
    3. Smaller and repetitive projects
      1. What about small jobs which still involve more than one contractor? How could the regulations apply to maintenance works where only 2 hours are required at site for small works?
        1. Our answer; We don’t yet know how HSE will see this being managed but we can guess.  Under the existing regulations repetitive works could generally be grouped together and it’s possible that HSE will allow an overall arrangement for a maintenance contract rather than insist on repeated documents which could be argued to be unreasonable. We’ll update you when we know more.
  7. Sub-contractors and competency requirements (PQQ’s,SSIP and Approval Schemes in general)
    1. The requirement for competency has been replaced with a requirement of “skills, knowledge and experience” in an apparent effort to reduce this burden
      1. Sum result: We would be amazed if this changes anything.  A form of words which requires you to do much the same thing is very unlikely to have an impact on the current status quo so don’t expect CHAS, SMAS or SafeContractor requirements to be affected.
    2. In support of our opinion above it is worthy of note that the PAS 91 is specifically referenced as a means of assessing  pre qualification, anyone familiar with this document will know how detailed this assessment is.

Guidance and support

It’s likely that some of our guidance above will change as we learn more about the regulations and how HSE will apply them.  It’s also true to say that a greater understanding will come after an unlucky few suffer FFI fines and prosecution for failures in applying the Regs.  We’ll continue to keep you updated and if you want to find out a bit more detail we would recommend the CONIAC guidance which can be found below and the HSE guidance to be found here; Legal (L) Series guidance

Note:  all documents current as of time of last edit but subject to change
Posted by Roger Hart
January 28, 2015

Attack of the killer tomatoes, honestly…

Nine people working at a vegetable packing plant were hospitalised with carbon monoxide gas poisoning. A fire officer attending the incident contacted the National Chemical Emergency Centre (NCEC) for help in determining the source of the gas, which appeared to be a storage area full of tomatoes (killer tomatoes)…. Ref: NCEC news release

Attack of the killer tomatoes

NCEC confirmed that the carbon monoxide levels around the tomatoes, which were measured by the fire officer using detection, identification and monitoring (DIM) equipment, were high enough to disable staff, but he should also eliminate other possible gas sources as a precaution. It was explained to the fire officer that the gas was added to tomato storage areas to slow the ripening process and reduce freezer burn.

More information on carbon monoxide poisoning

CO poisoning occurs when you breathe in the gas and it replaces oxygen in your bloodstream. Without oxygen, your body tissue and cells die. Even small amounts of the gas can cause CO poisoning, and long term effects can include paralysis and brain damage.

Remember the six main symptoms to look out for:

  1. headaches
  2. dizziness 
  3. nausea 
  4. breathlessness 
  5. collapse 
  6. loss of consciousness

CO symptoms are similar to those of flu, food poisoning, viral infections and fatigue. and so it’s quite common for people to mistake this very dangerous poisoning for something else.

Other signs that could point to CO poisoning:

  • Your symptoms only occur when you are at home and seem to disappear when you leave home.
  • Others in your household (including pets) are experiencing similar symptoms and they appear at a similar time. 

What to do if you suspect CO poisoning

  • Get fresh air immediately. Open doors and windows, turn off gas appliances and leave the house.
  • See your doctor immediately or go to hospital – let them know that you suspect CO poisoning. They can do a blood or breath test to check.

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

Posted by Roger Hart
January 28, 2015

Passenger Lifts, requirements for test beyond the statutory inspection

You may or may not (we hope the latter) be aware that if you have a passenger lift you need to carry out a check once every 6 months to ensure that it remains in serviceable condition.  This is much like an MoT on a vehicle and most clients are aware of this requirement.

However, other workplace checks (in addition to the statutory inspection/examination and test) should, reasonably, be conducted by the dutyholder.   Have you considered carrying out checks to make sure the lift drops to the ground floor with its doors remaining open in the event of a fire?  Do you know how to respond in the event of a lift becoming stuck between floors?  Find out more about what might reasonably be expected of you below.

Passenger Lifts: Role of the dutyholder

As the dutyholder you are legally responsible for ensuring that the lift is safe to use and that it is thoroughly examined. These responsibilities include:

  1. maintaining the lift so that it is safe to use;
  2. selecting and instructing the competent person;
  3. ensuring that the lift is examined at statutory intervals (every 6 or 12 months) or in accordance with an examination scheme drawn up by a competent person;
  4. keeping the competent person informed of any changes in the lift operating conditions which may affect the risk assessment;
  5. making relevant documentation available to the competent person, e.g. manufacturer’s instructions and maintenance records;
  6. acting promptly to remedy any defects;
  7. ensuring that all documentation complies with the Regulations; and
  8. record keeping.

Other periodic checks should also be made. One of the main checks is to ensure that when the fire alarm goes off the lift returns to the ground floor, doors open and that the car remains there.

Another check is ensuring that the lift alarm activates in the event of a fault or breakdown and that communication system (if installed) works, plus;

  • Emergency lighting should also be checked periodically.
  • Normal function tests should also be conducted.

The frequency of these additional checks should be decided from the findings of a risk assessment. Some factors to consider include:

  • The frequency of use;
  • Location;
  • Age of the equipment;

Further information regarding thorough examination and testing of lifts can be found by visiting http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg339.htm

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

Posted by Roger Hart
January 28, 2015

HSE issue an appeal to West of England employers as new figures underline importance of workplace safety

The HSE have released their latest figures relating to deaths, injuries and ill health at work for 2013/14.They have made the statistics applicable for each local authority area so that they can see how businesses in their locality are performing in terms of health & safety.

The Health and Safety Executive is marking its 40th anniversary with an appeal for businesses in Bristol, Bath, Somerset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire to prioritise the wellbeing of their workers in 2015.

Figures show that 4 people across the West of England died in 2013/14 and 3,449 suffered injury as a result of work related activity.

Workplace illness statistics also released for the same period showed that across the West of England, 61,400 people were estimated to have been made ill through their work.

Nationally there were 133 deaths at work and more than 79,500 injuries (through RIDDOR) in 2013/14.

The HSE acknowledged that this “is a huge reduction from when HSE was formally established in January 1975 to enforce the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 – the statute that underpins all health and safety legislation, and that is credited with making the UK one of the safest places to work in the world. In 1974/75 a total of 651 employees alone were killed, and that is without including self-employed workers whose deaths were not recorded in the same way”.

However, the HSE are urging employers to take more measures in 2015 to ensure that they protect their workforce by improving their health, safety and welfare policies and procedures.

The HSE reported that the following areas were most at risk

  • Construction
  • Manufacturing
  • Waste & Recycling
  • Agriculture

They also highlighted the following workplace activities as areas that needed specific attention

  • Falls from height
  • Inadequate guarding on machinery
  • Poorly maintained equipment/machinery
  • Poor management of workplace transport

Harvey Wild, HSE Head of Operations for the South West, said:

“The families of the workers in the West of England who sadly lost their lives last year have just had to spend the festive period without their loved ones, while hundreds of other workers were made ill through their work or had their lives changed forever by a major injury”.

“The figures offer encouragement that we are continuing to head in the right direction, but they also show that we can still go further and challenge the industries where there is room to do more”.

HSE Chair, Judith Hackitt, added: “In the 40 years since HSE was formed, we’ve worked with businesses, workers and government to make Britain a healthier and safer place to work”.

“For the last eight years we have consistently recorded one of the lowest rates of fatal injuries to workers among the leading industrial nations in Europe. However, in HSE’s 40th year it is right that we acknowledge the progress we’ve made and look to a future of striving to bring down these statistics even further.”

Information on tackling health and safety dangers in workplaces is available on HSE’s website at www.hse.gov.uk[1].

Outsource-safety are a health & safety provider with specialists in construction, manufacturing and transport who work with businesses every day to ensure that their health and safety policy and procedures are of the highest standards.

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

Posted by Roger Hart
December 9, 2014

Safety consultant jailed following labourers death

Most people now accept that health and safety is something which they often need help with and having an expert to call on when they’re not confident on handling the risks can be a great reassurance.  However, that expert does need certain skills and qualities as well as just paper qualifications, failure to do so has led to a Safety consultant jailed.

Having to occasionally to dig in our heels and say no is not an easy thing to do when the client is paying you but we have to remember what they are paying us for – to protect them and their staff and provide advice that is not just in satisfaction of the regulations but also in line with what is technically and morally right.

Read on to find out about a recent case which highlights exactly why our consultants need both the skills and experience to say no when they need to say no…

Safety consultant jailed

A business director and their retained safety consultant have both been jailed for their roles in the death of a labourer when a basement excavation collapsed.  He was crushed to death following the collapse of a basement excavation in Ellerby Street, Fulham in December 2010.

Conrad Sidebottom a Director of Siday Construction Ltd, and his health and safety consultant Richard Golding, were found guilty on December 2, 2014 of the manslaughter of Anghel Milosavlevici.  Sidebottom was sentenced to three years and three months in jail and Golding was also jailed for nine months.

The court heard how  as the site manager Mr Sidebottom was aware of the dangerous state of the excavation, but had taken no steps to ensure it was safe.  Mr Golding, a qualified health and safety advisor who was contracted out by AllDay Safety Services Ltd, was also aware of the risks as he was responsible for drafting a method statement to be followed to ensure safety concerns were addressed.  However, this document was found to be inadequate, its geenral safety advice was not followed.  Despite Mr Golding having the authority to stop dangerous works, he failed to do so.

DCI Duffield, who headed up the case, commented: “There was overwhelming evidence that Sidebottom and Golding’s failure to carry out their respective roles directly resulted in the death of Anghel Milosavlevici. In this case the danger of collapse was not only foreseeable, it had been specifically identified by Golding in his risk assessments.”

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

Posted by Roger Hart
December 1, 2014

Legionella and your office, could you have duties you are unaware of?

When we complete risk audits for our clients we often run through legionella requirements and this usually raises an eyebrow with the client wondering how they could be affected by these regulations when all they have are offices or a warehouse.

People often, mistakenly, think that unless you have a major air conditioning system or cooling towers and an industrial process which needs them that you can simply strike legionella off your list of potential risks as something which does not affect you – and that’s wrong.

Legionnaires disease can be a risk in almost any premises and should that premises have a shower (particularly an infrequently used one as most are).

Consider the risks for a moment, legionnaires disease is caused by inhaling legionella bacteria within fine droplets of water, if the water has been lying around at a warm temperature, say 35oC, these bacteria can multiply quickly. Now consider that shower which you have in you basement;

  1. Infrequently used – check
  2. Warm water enabling bacteria to multiply – check
  3. A build up of scale / slime which gives the bacteria something to feed off – check
  4. A mechanism to create fine water droplets to enable inhalation of these droplets – check

So now think about these risks again.  Should you be doing something to manage them?  We think you should.

What to do?

Your next steps are simple.

  1. Disinfect and remove scale using a descaler (you can swap shower heads or simply leave the head in a bucket of cleaner for a while, monthly is usually fine for most offices and even quarterly might be appropriate depending on the risk assessment;
  2. Flush infrequently used outlets such as showers to stop bacteria building up (if you’re flushing it take off the head to ensure droplets aren’t created when doing this);
  3. If the shower is infrequently used consider removing it and taking the ‘dead leg’ back as far as is reasonable;
  4. Record what you have done on a simply check sheet or integrate this into your other record keeping for cleaning.

Finally, if you have questions call your retained consultant on 01453 800100, we’re here to help and always happy to hear from you.

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

Posted by Roger Hart