Construction pays HSE over £4m in fees under FFI

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

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

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

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

Notices of Contravention (HSE FFI)

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

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

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

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

Enforcement Notices (HSE FFI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Roger Hart

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

Scaffold inspection – a need to know more…

Both industrial and construction sites we visit and support often have scaffolding in place and regardless of if you are a client or an experienced contractor, its nice to have sufficient knowledge to complete a quick assessment or to just be able to spot when something is amiss.

For example, you’re a safety manager in an engineering business but work is being done to the roof, or you’re having an extension completed.  Or perhaps you’re a site manger in construction but you’d benefit from knowing a bit more.

Scaffold inspection – a need to know more…scaffold

With this in mind the National Access and Scaffolding Confederation (NASC) – the leading trade association for the industry within the UK has just completed a 20 page guide which you’re likely to find very useful.

This 20-page document (free to download from the NASC Website or to be distributed by email to those who need it) is intended for use by anybody with responsibility for the management, use, monitoring and provision of scaffolding.

Sections of the document describe:

  • current scaffolding regulations
  • what to expect from operatives according to the level of proficiency they have attained, i.e. whether they have CISRS Part 1 or Part 2 or Advanced Scaffolder
  • scaffold design requirements and how to tell they’ve been met
  • the minimum personal protective equipment to be worn/used
  • handover certificates
  • scaffold inspection requirements.
Posted by Roger Hart

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

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