CDM Client and their Contractors fined more than £1.5m

A local authority (acting as a CDM Client) and its two contractors have been fined in excess of £1.5 million following two incidents involving roadworks on a busy Liverpool city centre road. A man died and another was seriously injured while attempting to cross Queens Drive in Liverpool during major resurfacing works which happened in the summer of 2012.

CDM Client fined more than £1.5m

In the case, heard at Liverpool Crown Court, it was reported that on the 3 July 2012 a 74-year-old man suffered head injuries after he was hit by a car while using a crossing at temporary lights. One side of the Queen’s Drive dual carriageway had been put into a contraflow to allow vehicles to travel in both directions but temporary pedestrian lights were not working and no alternative was provided.HSE

The Court also heard that on the 19th August 2012, 69-year-old Ernest Haughton died when he was struck by a car whilst crossing a single lane of traffic on the same road using a temporary pedestrian crossing.

Following complaints from motorists changes were made to the traffic control lights to alleviate congestion but this  resulted in the removal of the natural break in traffic flow needed to allow pedestrians to safely cross the carriageway.

When Mr Haughton died the temporary lights were removed but no alternative control measures were put in place to enable pedestrians to cross. In addition, a large A-frame sign was placed on the crossing which obscured the view of both pedestrians and motorists.

Liverpool City Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) and were fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 costs.

HSE investigators found that Liverpool City Council had failed to ensure that the arrangements for managing the roadworks were suitable, including failing to appoint a suitable co-ordinator for the work. Instead the council sought to delegate responsibilities to Enterprise Liverpool Limited who pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) and were fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £80,000 costs.

HSE found that Enterprise Liverpool Limited failed to ensure the designs for the traffic management were checked or approved and failed to check that the construction plan for pedestrian routes and provision of barriers was being followed.  At the time of the incidents they were found not to have provided a safe means of pedestrians crossing the works area or the carriageway.

Tarmac Trading Limited of Solihull, pleaded guilty to Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974 and were fined £1.3 million and ordered to pay £130,000 costs.

Tarmac Trading Limited, who were responsible for the provision and installation of the traffic and pedestrian management, failed to provide alternative assistance for pedestrians at the time of the first incident despite it being known that the temporary lights were broken. A temporary bus stop had also been placed in the middle of the road at the crossing.

HSE Inspector Jacqueline Western commented:

“The risks associated with road works are well known in the industry and specific guidance is available to assist with the planning and implementation. It is not unreasonable to expect that those who regularly engage in this type of construction work should be well aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The combined failure of all three dutyholders to comply with their duties on more than one occasion during the Queens Drive resurfacing project, led to one man losing his life and another suffering serious injury. It could quite easily have been two fatal incidents.

By engaging with the entire project team at the very start of a project, clients like Liverpool City Council, can ensure that a good health and safety culture is embodied throughout the life of the project. Ongoing communication and cooperation between the principal contractors and sub-contractors ensures that the project is being adequately planned, managed and monitored.”

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

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

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

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