Fall from height - large fines

Two Gloucestershire companies have been fined after a roofing contractor fell through a skylight and suffered serious head injuries.

The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.

At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.

The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.


Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:

"This incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by working at heigh if adequate safety protection measures are not in place ... The investigation revealed significant failures in the safe systems of work for the removal of the roof sheets and also significant failure to control risks of working at height during all of the stages of the sawmill refurbishment. RS was supervising two other employees who were also at risk, one of whom was only 17 at the time of this incident ... The sawmill remained open during all of the works and employees working below were also at risk from persons or objects falling on them. (The) fall could easily have proved fatal."

Contact us through the website

High street retailer loses appeal against a record £400,000 fine for Fire Safety breaches

A major high street retailers appeal against its record £400,000 fine for fire safety breaches at its Oxford Street store was dismissed last week (Thursday 17th), with the Court of Appeal saying the fine was not excessive in view of the company’s “lamentable” performance of fire safety duties.

In a significant judgement for responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court decided that the level of the fine was not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offences, the size and nature of the company, and the risk to the public which the company ran. The court also held that the fine was not out of kilter with those for offences under general health and safety legislation where there was a risk of death or serious injury.

The conviction of the company last November followed a fire at its Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, which resulted in a chaotic evacuation of some 400 people, the closure part of Oxford Street for two days, and the eventual demolition of the building. The company was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to two main counts under the Fire Safety Order – failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and failing to ensure that employees were given adequate fire safety training. Other alleged detailed breaches were taken into account under these two counts.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while it accepted that the fire itself was not caused by the retailer’s breaches of duty, (the cause of the fire has never been established) the offences were serious enough to create a magnitude of risk in which death and serious injury in the fire was avoided by luck.

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was rightly reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

While maintaining that the principles of setting the level of fines under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were similar to those for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court said the trial judge was right to recognise “that the nature of the risk that employees and others were to be protected was the risk from death or serious injury in a fire. Fire can be indiscriminate in its effect and, in the case of an organisation which in the centre of a large city undertakes responsibility for large numbers of visitors to its premises, breaches will usually be a very serious matter.”

The Court of Appeal concluded: “We share the judge’s view that the appellant’s performance of its fire safety duties in a large department store in the centre of London was lamentable. The fines were, we recognise, severe, but they were not on our judgement manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.”

In a statement issued after the judgement, the retailer said:

"We are committed to putting the health and safety of customers and employees first. Although the appeal against the fine was unsuccessful, we note that the original 35 alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) were reduced to 2 offences and at no time has it been alleged that the company was either responsible for the fire, or that its breaches of the RRFSO caused the fire."

Screen Wash or Legionella?

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) have suggested that motorists who do not use screenwash for their windscreen wipers risk getting potentially deadly legionnaires' disease!

The warning comes after health experts apparently discovered that professional drivers are five times more likely to be infected with the dangerous legionella bug. The suggestion is that legionella will thrive in the warm, stagnant environment of the windscreen washer bottle if screenwash is not added to discourage its proliferation. According to the survey, legionella bacterium were found in one in five cars that did not have the additive, but in no cars that did. Legionella infection is contracted when small droplets of contaminated water are breathed in (hence it's long term association with cooling towers, etc). It is not spread person to person.

It is feared that around a fifth of legionnaires' disease cases may arise from this perculiar type of exposure. The findings come from a Health Protection Agency-led study, which looked at why people at the wheel were more likely to be infected. Most at risk were found to be those driving a van, people who drive through industrial areas, and people who often had the car window open.

The study's authors said:

"Not adding screenwash to windscreen wiper fluid is a previously unidentified risk factor and appears to be strongly associated with community acquired sporadic cases of legionnaires' disease."

Do you want my view?

In case you did, it is

"It costs little to avoid this potential source of trouble to your health and possibly to your business. Add screenwash to your windscreen wash bottle and forget about reading this article. Life is too short for such worries"!

Restaurant fined £19,610 after salmonella outbreak

A Chinese restaurant has been fined £10,000 after six diners were hospitalised with salmonella food poisoning. A total of 46 people all suffered from food poisoning after eating at the restaurant, with ages of the victims ranging from an 80-year-old man to a 22-month-old baby.

Investigating Environmental Health Officers from the local council discovered the source of the outbreak was the use of raw eggs in tiramisu. They found the kitchen was dirty and the structure in poor repair. A sample taken from the fridge where tiramisu was stored confirmed the presence of salmonella bacteria. Officers also found several food items that had been prepared at least five days before, including tiramisu that had been prepared six days earlier.

They closed the restaurant after the inspection in August 2008. Before it reopened it was deep cleaned and food hygiene practices were also changed. The restaurant stopped using raw eggs as an ingredient of tiramisu.

The restaurant’s trading company, as well as the company director, admitted four charges under food safety and hygiene regulations at Wolverhampton magistrates court in February.

At Wolverhampton crown court in March, the company, which has since ceased trading, received a £10,000 fine and was ordered to pay £9,610 costs. The director was ordered to do 100 hours unpaid community service.

The court was told seven people affected by the outbreak had so far received compensation totalling £45,000 and 10 claims were outstanding.

Poor food safety standards lead to a £6000 fine for Takeaway owner

A takeaway owner in Staffordshire has been fined £3,500 after failing to put in place adequate procedures to control pests and for poor cleaning and for failing to protect food from contamination.

The owner of the take away admitted seven food hygiene offences at Burton magistrates’ court after East Staffordshire Borough Council brought a prosecution.

When Environmental Health Officers (EHO) visited the premises in February 2008 on a routine hygiene inspection they discovered food debris in the freezer and nesting material and droppings in the motor compartment. They also found filthy and contaminated equipment. In the walk-in fridge, they found burgers being stored on a dirty floor and droppings around the sink area, including the draining board.

The officers served three hygiene improvement notices and the owner voluntarily closed the premises, which posed an imminent risk to human health.

During regular revisits between February and July 2008, the EHOs discovered mouse droppings and further evidence of an infestation. Equipment, including the till, sieves and the wire rack in the hot hold cabinet, were also filthy. The kitchen had a putrid smell and officers found three dead mice in the freezer motor compartment and four dead mice in a disused warming cabinet. The owner voluntarily closed the premises again to deal with the infestation.

The presiding magistrate said he had never seen such bad conditions during his time as a magistrate. The owner was fined £500 for each offence. He was also ordered to pay £2,500 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. The magistrate said the fine would have been considerably more had the owner not been unemployed.

Holiday Fire Safety - some simple steps

Fire safety doesn't take a holiday, even if you do, so why not take a few simple steps to help to keep you and your family safe!

Hotel safety

If possible, check that your holiday accommodation is equipped with smoke detectors and sprinkler systems when you book. If it doesn't, you might want to think about taking your own portable smoke detector.

When you arrive, look for a primary and alternate escape route from your room. If a fire occurs at night, it will be easier to get out if you know where you're going.

If the worst happens and a fire breaks out:

- Close the door of the room where the fire is, if you can do so safely, and close all the doors behind you as you leave. This will help to delay the spread of fire and smoke.
- Get everyone out of the building and stay out.
- Dial the fire service from a neighbouring phone, a call box or mobile phone.
- Be careful on the way out. Before opening a closed door, touch it with the back of your hand. If it feels warm, don't open it - there could be fire on the other side.

If you're cut off by fire:

- Try to remain calm. Close all doors and block any gaps with towels or sheets to stop smoke spreading into the room.
- Get close to the floor. Smoke rises, so the lower you are the easier it will be to breathe.
- Try to make your way to a window where you can attract someone's attention and get them to alert the fire service.
- If your clothing catches fire, stop what you're doing, drop to the floor and roll over to smother the flames.

Camping safety

When camping you can sometimes be lulled into a false sense of security, you’re outdoors, and the risks should be minimal, but you can still reduce the risk further by following these handy tips:

- before you set off, get the contact details of the local Fire and Rescue Service
- set up tents at least six metres apart and away from parked cars
- make sure you know what the fire safety arrangements are on the camp site and where the nearest telephone is
- don’t use oil-burning appliances, like lanterns, or candles in or near a tent – torches are safer
- don’t smoke inside a tent
- place your cooking area well away from the tent
- keep your cooking area clear of items that catch fire easily, including long, dry grass
- put cooking appliances in a place where they can’t easily be knocked over
- keep matches, lighters, flammable liquids and gas cylinders out of the reach of children
- have an escape plan and be prepared to cut your way out of your tent if there is a fire

How to deal with a fire when camping - remember these two simple tips:

- get everyone out straight away – fires in tents spread very quickly
- ll the Fire and Rescue Service and give a map reference if possible – provide a landmark, like a farm or pub, to help them find you

Working at height and failure to control contractors

Case 1
Failure to control the work (at height) of contractors led to a large waste management company being fined £100,000 (with costs of £22,000) for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (HSWA) by failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The contractor was also fined £70,000 (with costs of £22,000) after pleading guilty to contravening Section 2(1) HSWA by not ensuring its employees’ safety. The accident followed an attempt to remove the gearbox that was attached to a large fan (9 ½ metres diameter) set at a height of ten metres. The removal of the gearbox was proving problematic and appropriate hydraulic equipment should have been brought in. However, four workers stood on the fan blades and rocked them up and down. When the fan released itself, a worker overbalanced and fell ten metres, through a mesh that could not hold his weight, to a pallet below. The worker sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a punctured lung and a hernia. The worker fell onto a pallet of copper pipes, which absorbed much of the impact. It is likely that he would have died if he had landed on the floor.

Case 2
An electrical installations company has been fined £160,000 (with costs of about £25,000) after a workman fell to his death while dismantling a mobile tower scaffold. The worker erected the mobile tower scaffold with edge protection on the top platform, but not around the intermediate levels. While dismantling the tower (from top to bottom) the worker was attempting to remove one of the intermediate platforms when he stumbled and fell from the scaffolding and landed on the ground, five metres below. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to ensure work at height was properly supervised and carried out safely.

Case 3
A worker fractured his leg and ankle after falling 4 metres from a wooden pallet that was being used as a temporary work platform that was raised by a forklift truck. Although the workers were acting on their own initiative, the problem (with a roller shutter door sticking) was one that was well known to management within the Company. The investigating HSE inspector commented that the men should have used an alternative to the pallet raised by the forklift, such as: a ladder, a mobile scaffold, a cherry picker or mobile-elevated work platform. The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. It was fined £10,000 (with costs of £5884).

Case 4
In a very recent case, a Leicester based company was fined £10,000 (with costs of £4,778) following prosecution when contracted roofers were spotted working unsafely at their premises. Safe access was provided on one of the premises, but there was not fall protection on the other side. An HSE Inspection commented “This case shows that it is not only the responsibility of the contracting company to ensure the safety of its workforce, but also it is the client’s”.

Hazardous substances or COSHH Cases

Case 1
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.

Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.

Confined spaces - A couple of cases

Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.

Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”

If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website

Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death

A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.

On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.

The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.

The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.

Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.

The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.

The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.

A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:

"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.

Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."

Company fined £210,000 after driver killed at landfill site

The death of a driver at a landfill site in Northamptonshire led to a waste management and recycling company being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and being fined £210,000.

The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.

Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.

As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.

Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.

The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A HSE Inspector said:

"Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not, in whatever circumstances they are asked to operate. Assessing risks, mitigating them wherever possible or stopping work as appropriate is the least people should expect from companies. Employers need to ensure their staff understand their roles and responsibilities in making sure sites like this operate to clear site safety rules."

"In this case, the prosecution shows that this has not happened and the Driver’s family have lost him as a result."

This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.

Website

Important food safety tips for barbecues

With summer and a (potentially) hot and sunny Bank Holiday Weekend coming up soon, here are some essential food safety tips for barbecues:


- always make sure that the meat (especially: chicken, pork, burgers, sausages and kebabs, etc) is fully cooked. This means cooked until steaming hot all the way through so that none of the meat is pink and any juices run clear


- do not start to cook too early, but wait until the charcoal is glowing red, with a powdery grey surface. If you don't you risk over-charring the outside of the meat while the inside is still raw


- if barbecuing lots of meat, consider cooking it in the oven first and then finished off (without delay) on the barbecue for added flavour


- wash your hands regularly and always after handling raw meat


- when reheating food on the barbecue, always make sure it's steaming hot all the way through before serving


- don't add sauce or marinade to cooked food if it has already been used with raw meat


Need any help with food safety? Visit our new-look website

Store owner fined after failing to put safety of public first

A store owner was fined about £12,500 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Food Safety - Scores on the Doors

Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.

The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.

Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.

At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.

Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media

To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.

Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.

Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.

Need Help? Contact us at our website

Former pub landlord fined £16,000 for fire safety breaches

A former pub landlord has been ordered to pay a total of £16,015 in fines and costs for serious breaches of fire safety law following a prosecution brought by London Fire Brigade. The former landlord pleaded guilty to 16 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.

Isleworth Crown Court heard that fire officers inspecting the public house in August 2008 uncovered a number of failings, including no fire risk assessment, no portable fire extinguishers, and no emergency signage.

After explaining their concerns and asking for the faults to be rectified, fire officers revisited the premises and issued an enforcement notice when they found continuing non-compliance.

When officers again visited the premises, conditions had deteriorated and the brigade served a prohibition notice banning the use of the upper floors by staff and guests because the risk from fire was so serious. However, a subsequent visit confirmed that the upper floors were still being used as accommodation.

Following a further inspection in May 2009, the owner of the premises took action at the recommendation of fire officers and physically barred access to the upper floor.

As pub landlord during the period, the former landlord was the responsible person under the Fire Safety Order, and was fined accordingly.

Shocking! - Manufacturer fined £10,330

A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled. The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.

The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory. The company also had no first aiders.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.

A HSE Inspector said:

"A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.

"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."