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

Takeaway owner sentenced for Fire Safety Offences

The owner of a Gloucester takeaway (Best Takeaway, 136 Eastgate Street, Gloucester) has this week been prosecuted for serious breaches of fire safety legislation.best_takeaway_interior

Ilhami Ince, originally of London,  appeared at Cheltenham Magistrates Court on the 15th August 2016 for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

This hearing followed an earlier failure to appear resulting in a warrant being issued for his arrest. Throughout the investigation the lack of co-operation from Mr Ince repeatedly frustrated the process of making the premises safe in the event of fire thereby failing to protect the persons who had been placed at risk.

In July 2014, a multi-agency inspection of the premises was carried out supported by Gloucester City Council and Gloucestershire Constabulary. Fire Safety Enforcement Officers found that unauthorised sleeping accommodation for staff had been provided on the first and second floors and that a fire alarm system had not been provided and the structural fire precautions were insufficient to allow safe escape in the event of fire.

The Fire Safety breaches identified in the premises were so serious that death or serious injury would be imminent in the event of fire. This resulted in the first and second floors being prohibited from use.

Further investigations found that the ‘prohibition notice’ was being breached and staff were sleeping on the first and second floors.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the following matters:

  1. Failure to comply with the prohibition notice on 3 occasions 24th September 2014, 8th October 2014, 7th July 2015.
  2. Ground floor door between the takeaway and escape route was not fire-resisting.
  3. Employees were not provided with fire safety training.
  4. Two bedroom doors on the first floor were not fire-resisting.
  5. Two bedroom doors on the second floor were not fire-resisting.
  6. One bedroom door was so small a person had to crawl through it to exit and enter.
  7. A kitchen was situated within the first floor escape route.
  8. Emergency lighting was not provided.
  9. No fire alarm and smoke detectors were provided.
  10. A Fire Risk Assessment had not been completed.
  11. No fire safety information provided to employees

Ince was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months and was also ordered to pay full costs of £11,228.04 plus victim surcharge.

Cllr Nigel Moor, cabinet member responsible for fire, said:

“Fire safety law is there to ensure that occupants of premises are safe.

“Although we would prefer to work alongside business owners to make sure they comply with law, sometimes prosecution is the only reasonable outcome. Our priority is to ensure that Gloucestershire a safe place to live, work and visit.

“This prosecution sends a strong message to the business community to ensure that fire regulations are taken seriously.”

Chief fire officer Stewart Edgar said: “The targeted inspections highlighted some serious fire safety concerns in a number of premises that provided staff accommodation, so immediate action has been taken.

“The fire service is now working with these businesses to make sure their fire safety is brought up to standard. A fire in a commercial premises would have a devastating impact on both the employer and employee and the outcome could be a large fine or imprisonment in serious cases.”

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.

Posted by Roger Hart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Durrent Electrical and Mechanical was given two years to pay.

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

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or request a call back.

Posted by Roger Hart

How did that accident happen? Motion induced blindness

So, here you are.  Steadily driving your way home along a motorway, mile after mile and junction after junction, perhaps in kind of semi aware state casually glancing at the sat nav, speedo or rear view mirror.  Every now and then you find yourself simply gazing at the view ahead and seconds turn into minutes and then half an hour passes without you realising it.

Motion induced blindnessmotion induced blindness

It should do because almost everyone that I’ve spoken to has experienced it, particularly on long and familiar journeys with a steady pace and light traffic, the M5 heading past Bristol and into the Southwest is a good example on a weekday afternoon, clear of bank holiday traffic.

The truth is this drifting state is dangerous and its not just when you’re on a motorway.

We often wonder when we come to look at an accident just how it happened.  We are given the gift of 20/20 hindsight of course and its always hard to put yourself in that persons position to the extent that you can truly appreciate the thought processes they went through.  You are there to try and identify the root causes – that’s why its worth knowing about motion induced blindness as a principle and also raising it with your staff as an issue before these accidents have a chance to occur.

Visual and optical phenomena and safety

So, how do we get this message out there to vehicle fleet drivers, fork lift truck operators, motorcyclists and a whole other raft of people who might benefit?  As usual, by training and education – and a very neat graphic courtesy of the internet.

Stare at the central yellow dot and keep looking, do the other three dots then start to disappear?  That’s motion induced blindness.

Now imagine yourself at a busy crossroads waiting to pull out with pedestrians and other waiting to cross – can you spot that motorbike approaching?

Or perhaps you’re a a forklift truck driver in a busy warehouse passing by aisles and with pallet movers and pedestrian pickers all around you.

What next?

Use the video above in your training sessions when you have fork lift truck refreshers or new driver training, hold a toolbox talks for those who drive as part of their job (road users or otherwise) or ask us to complete a toolbox talk on your behalf to raise awareness.

How to combat motion induced blindness

You may still be wondering, why the jet fighter image at the top of the page? Fighter pilots are taught a technique to overcome this weakness in the way we process our view of the world around us and its very simple but very effective – you keep you head moving.  Don’t believe me?  Keep moving your head whilst re-watching the video above and you’ll see the difference – make sure that’s a key part of your training session.

As always, we hope you’ve found the information above interesting and feel you can use it to make a positive change in how you actively manage risk in your workplace.

About: Roger Hart  is Managing Director of Outsource Safety Ltd, a consultancy specialising in ISO9001, ISO14001 and OHSAS18001 Management Systems.  The company employs 10 staff and works for hundreds of retained clients across the UK in all sectors from Defence and Aerospace to Education and Museums with a specialism in the contracting, construction and renewables sectors, www.outsource-safety.co.uk

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use our contact us page.

Posted by Roger Hart

Is there a case for intuition in safety?

Sintuition safetyometimes you just feel that something isn’t right, you can’t explain exactly why but you have that feeling, your subconscious is telling you to look a little more closely or probe a bit deeper.  We think there is a case for intuition in safety and here’s why.

I read an interesting article recently by Dr Travis Bradberry.  It discusses the role the subconscious has in guiding our actions and asks us to use these feelings more to guide us in our decision-making, it contains an interesting quote;

“Intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.” – Jonas Salk

In a study by the Salk Institute participants were asked to play a card game by pulling cards from two different decks, unknown to them the decks were rigged.  Its took around 50 cards for these participants to realise something was unequal and about 80 cards to realise what the actual difference was.

However, after just 10 cards most players starting to sweat slightly on their palms before pulling a card from the ‘losing’ deck, at about the same time they started subconsciously favouring the ‘winning’ deck.

The above study serves to demonstrate the power of intuition, something which comes from the primitive brain and which served us well in days where danger was all around us, and something which we should, perhaps, be happier to rely on more often in our modern lives.

Is there a case for intuition in safety?

If you remain unconvinced why not try a little game, stare intently at the back of someone’s head in the office or walking down a corridor. Perhaps you’re sat across a table or hall from someone you know at lunch.  The wait and see how long it takes them to raise their head and search for the person looking at them, it might not work every time but I think you’ll be surprised at how often it does (and if you do know them don’t forget to at least nod a hello!).

So next time you’re completing a safety tour, audit or inspection don’t be afraid to slow down and listen to your gut feeling, it might lead you in the right direction.

About: Roger Hart  is Managing Director of Outsource Safety Ltd, a consultancy specialising in ISO9001, ISO14001 and ISO45001 Management Systems.  The company employs 10 staff and works for hundreds of retained clients across the UK in all sectors from Defence and Aerospace to Education, Additve Manufacture and Museums with a specialism in the contracting, construction and renewables sectors, www.outsource-safety.co.uk

Contact us on 01453 800 100 if you need expert help with health and safety for a fixed cost or use our contact us page.

Posted by Roger Hart

Occupational Health: Styrene Vapour Prosecution, Templetown Canopies Ltd

We’ve carried out many monitoring programmes which have involved exposure to styrene vapour over the past 20 or so years.  The substance is in common use and because of this businesses and their staff can sometimes become too familiar with the substance and fail to take adequate precautions.

We also have heard staff assuring us that they don’t need to use protective equipment as they have developed a tolerance or even an immunity to styrene’s effects – wouldn’t it be good if that could ever be the case…

In the case below styrene exposure simply wasn’t guarded against and although HSE Inspectors know that small businesses have pressures on them they quite rightly won’t allow this as an excuse to endanger the health of their employees.

If you need occupation health advice, air monitoring for styrene or any other safety support please speak to your retained advisor or contact us on 01453 800100 to get some sound advice.

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

Templetown Canopies Limited from Tyneside has been prosecuted over the lack of controls regarding the use of the hazardous substance styrene during the production of fibre glass door and window canopies.

Styrene exposure causes irritation to the nose, throat and lungs and neurological effect including difficulty in concentrating, drowsiness, headaches and nausea.

HSE inspected the company premises in May 2013 issued an Improvement Notice. However, the company did not take action to comply with the Notice until they moved premises in March 2015 failing to adequately control exposure of their employees to styrene.

An extraction system should also have been in place to remove the heavier than air vapours and RPE provided with the correct filters (FFP3) to protect operators.

Employees exposed to styrene vapour for almost 2 years

Templetown Canopies Limited, of Shaftsbury Avenue, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and was fined £8,500 and ordered to pay costs of £4,500.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Fiona McGarry said:

“Workers’ health was put at risk from exposure to styrene for a period of 22 months, even after the company had been made aware of the actions it needed to take.

Whilst HSE is sympathetic to the pressures faced by small businesses, this is simply not acceptable. Employers need to take action to ensure they are providing adequate control to protect the health of their employees.”

Posted by Roger Hart

Brexit and its effects on safety

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

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

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

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

Brexit and Safety Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit used as defence in HSE Prosecution

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

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

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

Posted by Roger Hart

Safety Advisor fined by HSE for poor occupational health advice

With more and more one man bands setting up safety consultancy HSEbusinesses in the past 10 years its time to question if you’re being given the right advice rather than just advice – there’s a big difference and the outcome can be devastating for individuals and for companiesas this case for a safety advisor being fined.

The case below raises two questions;

  1. Do we know the health risks in our business well enough?
  2. Does our consultant have the right skills for our sector?

Take some time to ask yourself if the person looking after your safety really knows enough about the risks in your business.  Perhaps their background isn’t in manufacturing, engineering, construction or whatever it is that you do.  If so, get the right advice.

Safety Advisor Fined under HASAWA 1974

Hereford Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee contracted the skin disease after being exposed to sensitising ingredients in rubber compounds.

TRP Polymer Solutions Limited, of Netherwood Road, Rotherwas Industrial Estate in Hereford, has been fined £40,000 after a worker contracted allergic contact dermatitis.

Hereford Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee contracted the skin disease after being exposed to sensitising ingredients in rubber compounds.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company, which manufactures specialist rubber sealing components and high performance elastomer ‘O’ rings, had failed to assess risks from products used or manage those risks.

TRP Polymer Solutions’ health and safety advisor failed to understand the underlying issues to the level required for the company to understand its responsibilities.

The firm pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and Regulations 6 and 11 of the Control of Substances hazardous to Health 2002, and was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,529.

Paula Underwood, a self-employed health and safety advisor, of Slaughter Castle, Kimbolton, Leominster, Herefordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for failing to carry out her duty under the act to a level of competence expected by someone carrying out her role, thereby exposing others to risks to their health and safety.

She was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £200.

Posted by Roger Hart

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

Socket protectors – are they a danger?

socket protectorsMany clients who have members of the public visiting their premises have acted in good faith to put in place socket protectors (think schools, medical practices, car showrooms and similar).

You’re probably thinking that its a good idea and we would have been inclined to agree but research findings over recent years have led to their withdrawal, culminating in a Dept of Health Alert issued today which advises their removal in all NHS premises.

Why should I remove my socket protectors?

Children will be children and many games are based inserting blocks, sticks and cylinders into various sized holes. We’re all aware of the risk of a child picking up a pen, screwdriver, hair clip or similar and then inserting it into a socket – that’s probably why you purchased socket inserts in the first place.

However, were you aware that sockets produced since 1947 should have an internal shutter mechanism which prevents access to the live and neutral pins until the earth pin (top centre) activates the shutter to expose them.  IET members have argued that there have been no cases of children being harmed from sockets that have been left uncovered since a new generation of sockets were introduced in 1990.

Now consider this scenario, a child picks up a socket insert and places it in the socket upside down – both live and neutral are now exposed.  Also consider the fact that there is no British Standard for these inserts and their manufacturing tolerance is not always suitable – this leads to broken / damaged sockets and an even higher risk.

What should I do?

We have to agree with the findings of the safety alert, these inserts can cause more harm than good, our advice is that if you have them you remove them today.

Notes; don’t forget to still manage your risk but checking on the location and condition of your sockets and removing any appliance plugged into sockets which isn’t in use.

IET Wiring Matters 2012 number 44
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/44/wall-socket-protectors.cfm?type=pdf
Fatally flawed:
www.fatallyflawed.org.uk

[sform id=’3220′]

Posted by Roger Hart

Hand arm vibration – are you doing enough?

vibration white fingerHaving read of a recent case where a company was fined £200,000 plus £27,724 costs for a HAVS incident has made us revisit the vibration issue here in the office.

Each of us already know that the emphasis from HSE and our insurers is now firmly on health as well as safety.  We reported nearly two years ago that occupational deafness has become the new whiplash with claims rocketing and payouts of well over £10,000.

Vibration monitoring and assessment

We liken HAVS to COSHH and DSEAR as one of those areas which many of us know that we should tackle head on but we often find a number of other more pressing things we need to do instead – if this is you read on or make contact with your retained consultant to have a 5 minutes chat and find out more.

The truth is that many of us have made a good attempt as assessing our vibration risks and in many cases have felt that it wasn’t quite s bad as we had feared once we had got started.  However, as its something most of us don’t tackle every day that familiarity soon wears off and we find ourselves back as square one making he same old excuses.  Its also worth remembering that this dates back to the 1990’s and so we have very little in the way of excuses when it comes to defending cases or demonstrating our own safety management qualities to the Board.

Although the risks are certainly real the damage takes a long time to manifest, what we have to remind ourselves of is that this, like occupational deafness, isn’t going to reverse itself and the consequences for the person can be life changing.

You have in essence two choices; complete your own assessments or call in ourselves as external experts to complete this for you.  We can often work from manufacturers data and so costs are competitive and even if you do have specific processes which require vibration to work we can always monitor these individually and arrive at not just an answer in terms of exposure but also good advice on how you can control and reduce exposure.

So, don’t stick your head in the sand and hope this will go away or kid yourself that you’ll get around to it soon – if you need help contact us and if you’re too busy to be able to complete internally just ask your consultant, we’ll be glad to help out.

Posted by Roger Hart