Some sensible Christmastime advice

Information sent on behalf of Leicestershire Constabulary

The main message with the frosty mornings now upon us is aimed at drivers. We always gat an increase in vehicle crime at this time of year as people will start their engines to warm up the car while they go inside to keep warm and finish off their cup of tea.

This is an open invitation to car thieves for them to come and take your car, not only will this leave you without your car, but insurance companies will not payout for vehicles taken in this way, so this could end up very expensive for YOU!

Harborough Police will be out patrolling on frosty morning looking for cars left to “defrost” and will be speaking to the owners, vehicle owners can face a fine for leaving their vehicle running unattended on the highway, so beware!

Other Vehicle tips include

• Not leaving Christmas presents on display in your vehicle.
• Make sure all your windows and lights are clear of snow before driving.
• Don’t drive unless necessary in bad conditions
• Keep your washer level topped up with screen wash with an antifreeze
• Pack an emergency kit. High Vis jacket, food, water, shovel, boots, de-icer, torch and maybe even some salt grit.
• Keep your tires in check with a good level of tread, 3mm instead of the legal minimum if 1.6mm
• Keep sunglasses in the car to deal with low sun conditions.

Other winter advice

• Leave some lights on in your home, a completely dark house tells thieves that you’re out
• In very cold spells leave the heating on but turned right down to between 10 and 15 degrees to stop the pipes freezing.

This information was originally provided for general issue by Leicestershire Constabulary

Leicester company fined for creating fire safety risk

A Leicester haulage company has been prosecuted for creating a massive fire risk by illegally storing huge quantities of highly flammable aerosols.  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the firm had not properly managed the risks associated with storing large amounts of aerosol products at their Hilltop Industrial Estate site in Leicestershire.The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(2) of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 at Coalville Magistrates Court and were fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,900.

The court heard that the company stored large amounts of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) for around seven months.  It failed to notify the authorities of its operations on site, did not complete a risk assessment and then failed to implement many good practices recognised by industry.

HSE Inspector, James Wright, said:"The arrangements this company had in place for the storage of aerosol products fell well below what HSE would expect to find ... On this occasion, with the amount of LPG being stored on site, there was a real risk of a major fire, which would have posed a threat to employees on site and those in the surrounding area ... The company also failed to notify the HSE that they were operating a site which came under the COMAH Regulations ... This case should serve as a reminder to all operators of sites warehousing aerosol products - where there are serious failures to implement suitable arrangements for managing the risks from LPG, HSE will not hesitate to prosecute."

Simple steps to avoid repeating this type of problem

This is so simple that it scarcely needs to be said: Keep the level of highly flammable materials stored on your premises under review:

• keep a simple inventory
• review the inventory against the stock on a regular basis
• manage by walking about - look to see what is being stored and ensure that the arrangements for the site are suitable for the levels and the types of materials being stored
• keep the fire risk assessment and the DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Substances Risk Assessments) up to date

If you need any assistance - contact us through our website

Sunday night - before the week ahead

Update - on Friday 09 December 2012
Team away day - Focus on 2012
The Safety Team met off site for a discussion on the challenges of the year ahead. This proved to be an extremely interesting and useful session. It allowed the Team to be more fully involved in the running of the business and in the process of considering how next year will shape up for us. We even managed to fit in a session of using Fire Extinguishers (carried out by our in house Senior Fire Safety Consultant). We have even filmed this to provide some YouTube footage, to be uploaded shortly.

Many ideas and approaches were raised by the team. These have been captured and a précis of the meeting notes is to be circulated on Monday, with actions and individuals responsible for them clearly identified. I am convinced that we are focussed on 2012 and that we will be able to progress the business in the New Year!

Wednesday's training course went really well. Hagrid did a great job of working the delegates hard and ensuring that they left enthused to achieve. I wonder how contact back with reality has hit them this morning!

For my part, the site visits at the start of the week went without any hitches and the reports have been sent onto the clients for them to action, as appropriate. The Networking session on Tuesday morning was excellent and that group is destined for great things (in my opinion).

Testimonial from a course delegate:

The issue of Health & Safety can be seen to be an obstacle to be overcome rather than an opportunity to be taken.  Mike Ellerby and Peter Phillips dispel the myths of Health & Safety and replace them with commonsense.  Like it or not, we all have to deal with Health & Safety.  Mike and his team will save you time, angst and potentially significant sums of money should you get your Health & Safety wrong.

Testimonial from a course delegate:

I recently attended the Level 2 Health & Safety in the Workplace course at (run by Mike Ellerby and Peter Phillips). The course was interesting with lot's of interaction in very comfortable surroundings, the trainer was very knowledgable re all aspects of H & S in the work place and I came away feeling more confident in my role as Health & Safety office within my work place. I would like to thank (Mike and Peter) and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Initial section of the Blog (now relegated to the rear of this blog)
I can't say that I particularly enjoyed the drive down to Lymington today, but it was reasonably hassle free.

I was pleasantly surprised by the hotel (booked on Late Rooms) and by the balcony overlooking the High Street. The Christmas tree on the balcony was a nice touch. The food (enjoyed from a window table while creating this blog) was pleasant and I enjoyed a Peroni with it.

Tomorrow starts with an early start on Lymington High Street (mainly to carry out an Accessibility Audit) and a then short drive over to Salisbury to look at the common areas of an Industrial Estate.

I'm looking forward to the Networking meeting early on Tuesday morning. There are some excellent relationships being built at that club.

On Wednesday we are running a training course in our offices and on Thursday meeting with three potential new clients.

Friday is an "away day" for the Safety Team to discuss our focus for 2012. I have to admit that I'm looking forward to that.

New Year's Safety Resolutions - are you making any?

At New Year, many people make resolutions to change - their lifestyle, attitude, eating habits, etc. Do businesses? Do the people who run businesses?

This year, why not make a resolution to "do safety better". I do not mean that you should spend unnecessary sums of money or to carry out unnecessary training or risk assessments. I mean "to think about safety and make some simple, low cost changes for the better". My hope is that some of these changes (or improvements) will become permanent and will permeate the business.

Some simple starters?

Housekeeping standards - about a third of workplace accidents result from slips, trips and falls and about half of these result from poor housekeeping. It is, therefore, simple to avoid most of these accidents just by clearing the place up a bit. This may also make your business a bit more effective and will help to reduce your fire safety risks as well.

Fire Safety - Check exit routes, check emergency lighting, check the fire alarm, do a fire drill, update your fire safety risk assessment, etc. Many businesses think that they are doing this, until they have a check and find sporadic records or records that ceases two years ago when the book was full!

Vehicle movements - review the separation between people and vehicles - people come off really badly when it goes wrong!

Focus - as with all areas that are important to your business, focus your efforts onto those things that will make a big difference for a low cost and for minimal effort. Housekeeping is a nice, easy big hit. It costs little and can reduce the instances of slips, trips and falls and it can reduce the likelihood of a fire.

Records - consider which records are most important to the management of health and safety and make it ease to keep these up to date. 

Get involved - walk round the premises and view the operation regularly. Put right those things that do not look right on the walk round or, even better, get those people who should already have addressed these issues to put them right! This is truly management by walking about.

If you do need help, please contact us through our website

Networking Groups, my view point (October 2012 update)

I am an advocate of face to face Networking as those of you who follows me on Twitter (@Safety_Matters) will know. Over the last two years, I have reviewed critically all of the Networking Groups that I am a member of. The upshot of this review is that it is clear that some Groups are more active and more effective than others. I'm not merely griping about lead generation, but I'm criticising the ethos of some of these groups.

An obvious point coming out of the review is that attending Networking Groups costs both time and money. These are commodities that all businesses need to keep under review and to control. The money (in most cases) is not a great deal. The time, however, is a resource that is increasingly subject to many demands.  I now ask a lot of the Networking Groups that I associate with and challenge them to be more than a group of people meeting up.

Following my review, I have now left two Networking Groups altogether and I have reduced by attendance at another (by using a reliable substitute from within my business). I joined an active and vibrant Group that operates differently: they meet twice a month rather than on a weekly basis and they provide tea & coffee, but not breakfast. This does help to control both the cost and the time commitment for attendance. AS I said, this new group is the most active and vibrant group that I have ever been a member of. The reason for this, I think, is focus: on the Members and on Outcomes. This group has risen to the real challenge facing many Networking Groups: getting work through the group, not just for the members. The group has secured a significant contrcat to provide the services of all members to another (business) Group on a retained basis. I hope to talk more about the mechanisms of that when it is not so sensitive a subject.

This group has also set some ambitious targets for all members: pairing members up and requiring them to get five business opportunities for their partner before the end of this year. Not an easy task.

Social media marketing cannot, for me, fully replace face to face Networking, but it does give some positive results and is becoming increasingly important to my business. I'm encouraging others within my business to take up and embrace the world Twitter. As you can guess, this is being met with different views. Jamie embraces the concept, Richard struggles with it and Hagrid can't even touch computers (a Hogwarts thing!). My time investment in Twitter is not excessive: I use a lot of (otherwise) dead time, such as waiting for clients, waiting for the train, travelling by train, etc. Writing blog posts can be both rewarding and therapeutic. Rewarding in that it helps to crystallise some thoughts and therapeutic in that it allows me to channel some frustrations into (hopefully meaningful) words. I can then spread my thoughts and my musings by the use of (you guessed it!): Twitter.

I'm making a conscious effort to make more use of LinkedIn and would be pleased to hear from other as to how effective it is (or can be).

Like many things (including the provision of health and safety services), the true costs of Networking Groups should be monitored and scrutinised regularly. If it is not working for your business, look for other things that are.

Please visit my Health and Safety Website

Please follow me on Twitter: @Safety_Matters

Health and Safety in 2012 - keeping a competitive edge

Worried about safety in 2012?
Many people (including business owners, managers and directors) are looking forward to 2012 and wondering what it will have in store for them. Health and safety is one of those things that companies need to get right, but which should not compromise the economic viability of the company.

With many companies worried about expenditure, it is right that they should be worried that the health and safety of their workers may be compromised. We offer a solution to that problem: appoint us to work with you on your health and safety. True: we charge for that service. Also true: we are likely to be more cost effective than you struggling to do it in-house and then not having the time to do it properly. The benefit of appointing us is that we know what we are doing and we will work with you to improve your safety performance.

Contact us through our website

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 extends to the Police

As of 01 September 2011, police forces, prison services and other authorities holding people in custody can now be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Health and Safety in 2012

Have you thought about health and safety in the New Year? Will be doing anything different next year? Does safety feature prominently in your business plans for the year(s) ahead?

If you want to do things differently and you need support, please contact LRB Consulting.

Can flu be avoided? simple steps

There are some steps that the employer (and the employees) can take to reduce the number of cases of flu. These steps are largely about providing suitable facilities and passing information to the workforce on how best to use these.

• Consider a simple communications campaign informing workers of the benefits to good hand hygiene at this time of year
• Promote good hand hygiene practice by providing simple awareness raising materials, such as posters and stickers in the washrooms
• Reinforce the simple message:
• cover your nose and mouth with a clean tissue when you cough or sneeze and then throw away the tissue promptly and hygienically
• As well as providing adequate hand washing facilities, promote the use of a suitable hand sanitiser
• If appropriate to the type of work that you do, provide some form of "hand hygiene on the move", such as by the provision of a handy personal issue sanitiser
• Review your cleaning operations for the winter period and consider moving to damp rather than dry dusting and consider the use of suitable surface sanitisers
• Raise awareness to the flu vaccination programme available from the NHS

For general Health and Safety advice, contact us through our website

Do I need a gas safety certificate?

If you are a Landlord (or Managing Agent) and if you are responsible for gas plant and equipment (such as a gas boiler or a gas fire), you should have the equipment serviced and maintained by a competent person (Gas Safe).  Further to this, you should arrange for the equipment to be checked and for a Gas Certificate to be issued. A copy of this Gas Certificate should be made available on request.

Poorly maintained gas appliances can cause carbon monoxide poisoning, which can kill and can also cause serious long-term health problems. Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include nausea, dizziness, tiredness, vomiting, collapse and loss of consciousness.

Recent prosecution involving the lack of a gas certificate
A Walsall landlord has been sentenced for failing to provide a gas safety certificate.The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the landlord following a complaint from a tenant, who rents a house at Raleigh Street, Walsall from him.

The Magistrates heard that the boiler was replaced in October this year, despite having broken down in January.  Until recently the landlord did not have a landlord’s gas safety certificate for the appliances in the property, despite having being issued with an Improvement Notice from the HSE in March requiring him to provide the certificate by May. The court also heard that when the new boiler was installed, the gas engineer condemned the cooker in the property as dangerous and isolated it. The Landlord was fined £2000 and ordered to pay costs of £3000.

Contact LRB Consulting through the website if you need help in understanding your duties as a landlord.

Health and Safety - the week ahead

Ever wondered how those involved in health and safety fill their time? The week ahead is very busy for my consultancy. This is how we think it's going to pan out.

Hagrid, one of my consultants, is travelling up to Leeds on Sunday to spend three days assisting a company that makes training videos with "a shoot". This follows several days work over the last few weeks reviewing and revising the script. All is ready for the final phase of this piece of work.

When Hagrid returns from Leeds, he is off to Bristol and then onto Hungerford to delivery Legionella and Asbestos awareness training. This continues a large training commitment that will take up most of the rest of this month.

John is off to Dorking to carry out some Fire Risk Assessment work and then is back to Leicester to do the same for a series of small blocks of flats with common areas. He then needs to create the reports.

Richard is off down to London, where he has picked up a lot of my Facilities Management Safety work. At least the student protests of last week did not get in the way too much.

For my part, I'm carrying out a project management task for a client on Monday as well as finishing off a paper for the Board of another client (reviewing their health and safety compliance across their sites). I will also be checking in on the progress with an update on my previous review of Health and Safety at the British Library. On Tuesday I will be delivering a day of Legionella awareness training. Wednesday involves a series of client meetings and a dental appointment. On Wednesday evening, I will be presenting my Consultancy Business to several clients of my Bank. I'll be talking about the key factors in running your own business as well as discussing how to manage health and safety.

Thursday starts off nice and early with a breakfast Networking meeting - again, promoting my business. The day continues with two schedules telephone conferences to chase progress with clients. Friday will again have an early start with more Networking.

Within the week, I also need to progress quotations for work with both new and existing clients; I need to check various reports before that are sent out; I need to review news & blog pages and sort out new content; I need to work on new PodCast materials and develop some ideas for further YouTube video; etc. I also need to address any issues as and when they arise.

Monday's Update
Hagrid reports that day one of the shoot went well, but was sapping as it involved a lot of standing around. Day two will involve film kitchen activity - the key is not to be in the way.

The telephone conference calls went well, as did the project manager review. All of the issues seem to be being progressed. The Board paper is nearly complete, it just needs two small pieces of information from the client (promised for tomorrow). Richard's sojourn in London went well, he not has the reports to put together tomorrow. Need to follow up to ensure that John got on okay in Dorking.

Tuesday's Update
Today's Legionella training course was well received by the delegates. There was lots of discussion on the risk assessments and also on record keeping. It never ceases to amaze me how tiring training is. Some time was devoted during the evening to preparing the business to business presentation (B2B) for tomorrow evening with the Bank and some of its clients. I'm hoping that this leads to contact with some interested new (potential) clients.

Feedback from Hagrid on today's filming for the training video was, again, encouraging. I'm a little envious of him for the experience, but I could spare the three consecutive days out of the business. I've been carrying out a little background research to assist him tomorrow - the power of the Internet can be useful sometimes.

Richard attended "Get Bizzing" on my behalf and reported that it was both interesting and (potentially) beneficial. In other news - report writing continues unabated and Richard has been dealing with various phone calls, and general client issues.

Wednesday's Update
Today started for me with a quick trip into the office to touch base with Richard and "delegate" a few tasks to him. I then met with a local client at 08:15 hrs to attend the start of their Board Meeting (where Health and Safety is discussed). My return to the office saw me finishing off the presentation for tonight (more later) and checking through several reports before sending them on to various clients. I dealt with a couple of enquiries and sent off one proposal for client support.

Before leaving the office to attend a dental appointment, I sorted out some invoices for some of the project clients - this is a routine task that I keep rather than delegate. Following the dental appointment, I made a few phone calls and drove over to Blaby (Leicester) where I was giving a Business to Business at a branch of HSBC to about 35 local organisations. This finished at about 20:30 hrs making today a long one. I found the experience rewarding and I'm looking forward to talking to some of the people that I met.

John enjoyed a day off and Richard was working in the office - and picking up delegated tasks! In the afternoon he set off to see a client only to have them phone and cancel while he was in transit. It doesn't happen too often, but it is frustrating. Fortunately, it was a local client.

Hagrid enjoyed the last day of the filming project, after which he called by to collect the training materials for the next two days (in Bristol and in Hungerford). Busy day for all, except John.

Thursday's Update
Well, with the working 4/5 the way through, it's good to say that most things have been achieved.
I made it to the Early Morning Breakfast meeting and renewed several good contacts. This is not a meeting that I attend regularly (it is one where I substitute into a few times a year).

I managed to chase up a lot of information for one particular client and update them in many areas. This involved an extremely long telephone discussion with one of their suppliers. The information was distilled down into a suitable spreadsheet and then emailed over.

Richard and I planned out service delivery to several clients (with a view to keeping him busy until Christmas). We discuoveed a couple of things that had been missed previously and have put things in place to keep the clients happy.

Hagrid delivered a day of Legionella Awareness training in Bristol and is travelling over to Hungerford to spend another training another group in the same subject. Five more of these sessions to be delived this month! We are alos hoping for some follow on training work.

I have put together a proposal for Food Safety Training fo nearly 250 people for next year -fingers crossed on that one!

I will have to miss the early morning Networking tomorrow as I will be taking the car into the garage for servicing. Real life intrudes on health and safety (whatever next).

Friday's Update
I was in the office early after dropping the car off for a service. So far, so good. While contemplating the day ahead, I have noticed that my writing needs to be smaller to get the ideas and actions up on the whiteboard.

Well, Hagrid completed a tough week of filming and training. He carried out the Legionella training in Hungerford and is making his week home for a well earned rest at the weekend.

Richard and John worked through various reports, submitting them in to the office for the formatting to be checked by Janice before being sent on to the client. One of these Fire Safety Risk Assessments was needed by a care home to show to the Fire Officer.

For my part, I finalised a few reports and spreadsheets for several clients and did my stint of chasing up to ensure that clients are receiving their reports on time.

I also had an interesting conversation with an Enforcement Officer with respect to an issue involving a sub-contractor to one of my clients.

Fire Safety - How To Reduce The Risks (Podcast)

This is a five minute podcast covering some important aspects of fire safety: introducing the duties of the "Responsible Person" and the talking about what we can all do within our premises to assist with fire safety.

Link to download the Podcast

Ignorance of asbestos continues to be a problem

A contractor has been found guilty of potentially exposing workers and shoppers to asbestos on a busy high-street construction site because he flouted the rules on working with this hazardous material.

The contractor was fined for several breaches of asbestos and construction design legislation on the Bromley High Street site.  In this case the contractor was a private individual. An HSE inspector who investigated the case,commented that the project had not been properly planned. The project involved the demolition of a building that comprised a restaurant on the ground floor with flats above it. Three workers, whose qualifications could not be proved, were overseen by the contractor. 


During the demolition, the workers, who did not recognise that the insulating boards in the restaurant’s ceiling contained asbestos and they used sledgehammers and hand-operated tools to break them up, so they were “more than likely” to have been exposed to asbestos fibres (according to the Inspector).
The investigating HSE Inspector said: 

“Sadly, this kind of incident is all too familiar. The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with around 1000 tradesmen dying each year from asbestos-related diseases ... Anyone working with these sorts of materials must commission an asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed contractor.”

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching the following Regulations, for which he was fined a total of £19,300 and ordered to pay full HSE costs of £7654:

• reg.8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, by undertaking work with asbestos without a licence – fine £8000;
• reg.5 of the same Regulations, by not conducting an asbestos survey – fine £6000;
• reg.4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, by not appointing a competent site manager – fine £2650; and
• reg.22(1) of the same Regulations by not managing construction work to ensure safety – fine £2650.

In mitigation, the contractor commented that he had made a mistake of ignorance and had not acted for profit motives. He had not deliberately broken the law on asbestos, but had not been aware of it. He had done what he had been asked to do to improve matters since the incident.

The site was cleared after the investigation and has since stood empty behind a first-floor façade. Inspector Seabrook explained that the site is located next to a Sainsbury’s store, which would have potentially exposed shoppers to asbestos while the demolition had been taking place. 
 

If you need help to meet your asbestos legislation duties, contact us through our website

The need for records - health and safety (revisit)

I first posted this blog about two years ago. It is still true (and simple) now.

Recently, I spent a morning in Birmingham visiting a neat little site for a major client. There were a few niggly areas to address, but the main one (which seems to affect a huge number of sites) was the retrieval of relevant records. While almost everything was in place, it was difficult to establish this with the paperwork trail. The importance of the paperwork trail can be seen by considering safety to be split into two simple things:

1. The things that we do to protect ourselves, employees and others
2. The proof of what we have done

Clearly, it is the things that we do that are most important for protecting people from harm. The proof element becomes important after things have gone wrong or when there is an enforcement visit. The proof element is essential for protecting the Company from harm. By way on schoolboy analogy: "if you are called into the Head's office to be caned, ensure that you have book down the back of your trousers". 

The records are those books - your corporate protection.

Need help to get things straight? Contact us through our website

Need help with COSHH for small business?

I address some of the issues facing smaller businesses when faced with undertaking COSHH risk assessments and introducing and enforcing the use of appropriate control measures in the workplace. Most of the businesses in the UK are small or medium sized enterprises.

The same health and safety laws apply to small businesses as apply to big ones, with a few exemptions on written risk assessments and written policy documentation for very small companies. It should be noted that these size based exemptions are not exemptions from the risk assessment itself, but from the need for a written record of the assessment.

Q - We don’t have hazardous substances, do we?

Many (smaller) businesses do not consider that they have any substances hazardous to health, often because they believe that this refers to chemicals associated with industrial processes.

In truth, there are few workplaces that do not store, use or generate any substances that are hazardous to health. In many cases, employers overlook or do not consider the hazards associated with some substances, particularly those with which they are very familiar.

A useful way to avoid this oversight is to draw up a list (or an inventory) of all of the substances that are stored, used or generated in the workplace. This inventory must be comprehensive and should include:

• cleaning and premises maintenance materials (such as lubricants, drain cleaning chemicals, paints, thinners, etc.),
• waste materials and by-products (such as wood dust and welding or soldering fume) and
• should consider water supplies (for water treatment chemicals and for Legionella).

Q - Do I really need to get safety data sheets for everything?

  

Having completed an inventory of what we have, the next stage is to determine whether any of the substances on the inventory are ‘hazardous to health’.  This includes substances

• that are labelled as hazardous (i.e. very toxic, toxic, harmful, irritant or corrosive) under the CHIP regulations or other statutory requirements
• as well as all substances that are identified as hazardous on the safety data sheet for the substance.

Once the inventory has been created, it is a relatively simple matter to obtain further information of potentially hazardous substances. Substance data sheets may be obtained from the manufacturer or supplier of the substance. These substance data sheets contain, amongst other things, information on the hazards associated with the substance.

  

Safety data sheets are particularly useful for determining if a substance is hazardous to health and are amongst the pieces of information that must be made available to employees who are exposed to substances hazardous to health. The safety data sheets will also provide the assessor with information about the hazards associated wiht the substances to which people may be exposed.

  

In the event of a person becoming ill while (potentially) exposed to a hazardous substance, the safety data sheet can provide a source of information to the person treating the ill person, such as a first aider. If that person needs to be sent to the hospital, then a copy of the safety data sheet should be sent with them.

  

Q - COSHH Assessments are very complicated, aren’t they?

  

Small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but must not assume that it does not apply to them or does not affect them.  A simple process would be:

• review the substances present of site
• assess the hazards associated with them
• reduce the number of hazardous substances
• replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
• assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
• implement suitable and sufficient control measures
• enforce the use of control measures

The COSHH assessment can be simplified in many cases by the simple expedience of reducing the number of substances.  Businesses should look critically at the inventory of substances and consider two basic questions:

• Do I really need to use this substance at all (avoidance of the hazard); and
• If I need to use a substance, if there a safer alternative available (reduction of the severity of the hazard).

Once the number of substances (and their associated hazards) has been reduced, if is time to carry out the COSHH assessment.

 

One of the main points of the risk assessment is to identify the measures that are to be used to avoid a hazard or reduce the level of risk associated with a hazard. Employers must ensure that exposure to hazardous substances is prevented or, if this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.    

Ideally, this will mean preventing exposure by:

• removing hazardous substance, by changing the process;
• substituting it with a safe or safer substance, or using it in a safer form.

Where this is not reasonably practicable, then the employer needs to ensure that they are controlling exposure by, for example:

• totally enclosing the process (such as a shot-blasting box);
• using partial enclosure and/or extraction equipment (such as a spray painting booth);
• general ventilation;
• using safe systems of work and handling procedures (written procedures, etc.).

It is for the employer to decide on the method of controlling exposure. The COSHH regulations, however, limit the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. respirators, dust marks, protective clothing), as the means of protection to only those situations where other measures cannot adequately control exposure.

  

Q - Our process risk assessments already cover hazardous substances; do I need to write new COSHH assessments?

 

For small businesses, it is often sensible to combine risk assessments to reduce paper work.  It is possible to create an “Office Risk Assessment” that deals with all of the general risk assessment issues, COSHH issues and fire safety issues in one simple assessment.

 

Although several pieces of legislation may require the employer to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to employers and/or others, there is no requirement for these assessments to be carried out separately and called:

• COSHH assessments
• general risk assessments or
• manual handling assessments, etc.

It is important that risk assessments cover all relevant areas in sufficient depth and detail. In the event that your current risk assessments (such as those that are required under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) address adequately all of the issues required under COSHH, then there is no need to produce new risk assessments to comply with the requirements of COSHH.

  

As with all other risk assessments, COSHH risk assessments must be kept up to date and reviewed in the event of any significant change or if thought to be out of date for any reason.

 

Still feel you need help? Contact us through the website 

Are cleaning chemicals dangerous - how should I store them?

Simple guidelines

Cleaning Materials

Consideration should be given to the safe storage of cleaning chemicals. This is not difficult or onerous, but may be important (as the case below demonstrates).  Some cleaning materials are corrosive and can cause burns (especially to the eyes and face).  Storage should be considered as part of the COSHH and/or workplace risk assessment.

• The storage location should be secure
• Display a warning (if hazardous substances are stored there) a warning notice should be displayed.
• The bottles of cleaning chemicals should be sealed and labels should be visible.
• The storage area should not be overcrowded.
• Efforts should be taken to avoid storing corrosive substances (such as drain or oven cleaner) at head height or above.

For more detailed advice, or help with risk assessments, etc, please contact us through our website.

Unpleasant case
A waitress at a hotel suffered burns to her eyes, face, and chest when an open bottle of oven cleaner splashed on her.  The waitress, aged 22, was working at Whitworth Hall Hotel in Spennymoor, County Durham, when the incident took place in May 2009.

The hotel was hosting a wedding and the waitress was asked by the hotel’s trainee manager to help find a roll of mop-up tissue. While searching for the roll inside an unlit storage cupboard, she disturbed a bottle of oven cleaner had been stored on a shelf three feet above ground level, without a lid and with the warning labels pointing away from her. As she moved the bottle, the liquid splashed on to her face and she suffered corneal abrasion on her eyes and burns to her face and chest. She was unable to return to work for two weeks, but has subsequently made a full recovery.
The owners of the hotel appeared at Darlington Magistrates’ Court on 12 October 2011 and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 and reg.8 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, for failing to adequately light the cupboard. It was fined a total of £8700 and £3229 in costs.

In mitigation, the company said it had adequate procedures in place and its staff should have followed them. It has subsequently put a light in the cupboard and installed signs to warn that dangerous chemicals are stored inside. The oven cleaner is now kept at the bottom of the cupboard and the company monitors who has access to the storage area.

After the hearing, the council’s head of environment, health and consumer protection, Joanne Waller, said:

“This case should serve as a warning to other businesses that they need to take their responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their staff seriously... It is not enough for employers to simply have risk assessments and procedures written down – they must also make sure their staff are aware of them and follow them properly.”

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal

This 3 minute podcast will explain in simple terms the effects of the controversial HSE cost recovery proposals, which will take effect from April next year. Find out how these proposals will effect you and your business.

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal

http://soundcloud.com/safety_matters/hse-cost-recovery-proposal/download.mp3

Safety Matters, HSE Cost Recovery Proposals

This podcast will explain in simple terms the effects of the controversial HSE cost recovery proposals, which will take effect from April next year. Find out how these proposals will effect you and your business.

Do you manage buildings? What about asbestos?

Does the duty to manage asbestos affect me?

Yes, if you are responsible for maintenance and repairs. You are a ‘dutyholder’ if:

• you own the building;
• you are responsible through a contract or tenancy agreement;
• there is no formal contract or agr eement but you have control of the building;
• in a multioccupied building, you ar e the owner and have taken responsibility for maintenance and repairs for the whole building.

asbestos

From the HSE web publication - Manage Buildings?

Fire Safety Fine for Landlords

There is a lot of interest in fire safety from the enforcing bodies, as can be seen below:

Two private residential landlords have been found guilty of breaching fire safety regulations and fined £23,000.  Each were each found guilty of five breaches of the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 2006 at a house in French Horn Lane, Hatfield, after pleading not guilty to the offences at Watford magistrates court.

The defendants were each fined £11,500, ordered to pay £2,225 each towards the council's costs.

They were found guilty of failing to:

• ensure that all means of escape from fire were free from obstruction
• ensure that all means of escape were maintained in good order
• ensure that any fire fighting equipment and fire alarms were maintained in good working order
• take measures to protect the occupiers from injury
• ensure that all the common parts of the house were maintained in good and clean decorative repair.

The Chief Executive of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council said:

“These severe breaches of fire safety regulations could have resulted in fatalities. It is something that this council, as the responsible authority for private sector housing, takes very seriously and we are working hard to ensure that high standards are maintained to ensure the safety of our residents.”


Want to avoid making the news in this way? 
Let us help you! We are very experienced in helping Landlords and Managing Agents look after fire safety in their buildings. We can carry out the fire risk assessment and advise on (often) simple steps to improve fire safety.

Visit our website

Kant in Health and Safety

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges them to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. The papers contain lots of evidence of the cost to the employer of "being caught out".
What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.

From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.

The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.

Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.

To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Asbestos prosecution for High Street Retailer

Marks and Spencer plc, along with 3 of its contractors, have been fined for putting people (including members of the public, staff and construction workers) at risk of exposure from asbestos-containing materials during the refurbishment of two of its stores in Reading and Bournemouth.

M&S were fined £1 million and ordered to pay costs of £600,000. In addition, three contractors were fined £200,000 £100,000 and £50,000 and were also ordered to pay costs.

During the 3-month trial which ended in July 2011, the Crown Court heard that construction workers at the two stores removed asbestos-containing materials that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere. The court heard that the client, Marks and Spencer plc, did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day. The HSE also alleged that Marks and Spencer plc failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores, and the court heard that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during major refurbishment.  One contractor failed to reduce to a minimum the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

The principal contractor at the Reading store, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site. The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store failed to plan, manage and monitor removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

The HSE's Southern Head of Operations for Construction, Richard Boland said:
"This outcome should act as a wake up call that any refurbishment programmes involving asbestos-containing materials must be properly resourced, both in terms of time and money - no matter what.
"Large retailers and other organisations who carry out major refurbishment works must give contractors enough time and space within the store to carry out the works safely. Where this is not done, and construction workers and the public are put at risk, HSE will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action."

Cost Recovery: HSE Proposal CD235

From April next year, the HSE will charge companies if they visit them and that visit results in some form of enforcement action. This is not something that the HSE will have discretion about, it will be mandatory.

Gordon MacDonald (the HSE's programme director), said:

"The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse. These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don't. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees."

How much might I be charged by the HSE?

Cost recovery would be at an averaged hourly fee for intervention rate, currently estimated at £133, for nearly all HSE staff. The actual costs that will recovered by the HSE will be dependent on the complexity of the investigation that is required to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry, but some guideline figures have been offered:

• Inspection with no action taken - No costs will be recovered
• Inspection which results in a letter - Approximately £750
• Inspection which results in Enforcement Notice - Approximately £1500
• Investigations carried out by the HSE - Ranging from approximately £750 through to several thousands of pounds to, in extreme cases, tens of thousands of pounds.

Want to avoid the HSE Charges?

Ensure that you are (and remain) compliant with the relevant Health and Safety legislation and this will help you to avoid attracting the attention of the HSE:

• Keep your risk assessments reviewed and up to date.
• Ensure that you have adequate control over your contractors.
• Take prompt action to prevent situations developing that may attract the interest of the HSE.
• Ensure that you keep suitable records.
• Keep that employee training is kept up to date.Keep your policies and procedures up to date.

Want to see more detailed information?

Have a look at the HSE's Consultative Document on this subject - Click here

The underlying policy of recovering costs for the HSE’s intervention through the introduction of fees where there is a material breach of the law has already been agreed by the Government. This is, therefore, not in question in this consultation. The consultation document seeks views on the systems being proposed by HSE for how it would implement this policy.

Update (21 October 2011)
The Chemical Business Association (CBA) has branded the Health & Safety Executive’s (HSE) plans to extend cost recovery as the equivalent of seeking a blank cheque from industry to compensate for cuts in its departmental budget. This would see plant owner/operators charged for any ’material breach’ found by its Inspectors and for any ’formal intervention’ required


Mike Ellerby
LRB Consulting Ltd
01509 550023
Web address

Changes in Labels for Hazardous Substances

In different countries all over the world there are different laws governing the identification or classification of the hazardous properties of chemicals and different ways in how information about these hazards is made available to users (through labels, and safety data sheets for workers). Not surprisingly, this leads to confusion as the same chemical can have different hazard descriptions in different countries.

Enter the "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals" (GHS).  The aim of GHS is, on a worldwide basis, the same:
• criteria for classifying chemicals according to their health, environmental and physical hazards; and
• hazard communication requirements for labelling and safety data sheets

The GHS is not a formal treaty, but is a non-legally binding international agreement. This means that countries must create local or national legislation to implement the GHS.

What does this mean to you?
If you use hazardous substances, then you have probably noticed that some of those you have bought recently have some different symbols on their labels. The purpose of these new symbols is to enable those who are using the product to determine if there are any health or safety risks with the substance in a (worldwide) uniform manner.

New Symbols?
Very simply, the new symbols are a new version of the traditional orange and black warnings that have been around for many years. They are new because they are starting to be “phased in”.

 

New Legislation?
The changes are being introduced as a result of the EC Regulation No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP). This new Regulation currently exists alongside the UK legislation: the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP4). It should be noted, however, that by 2015 the UK legislation will have been replaced by the EC Regulation No 1272/2008.

More Information to follow - or visit our website http://lrbconsulting.co.uk/

Some advice for Landlords of Houses of Multiple Occupation

If you're a Landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), you may have some serious fire safety responsibilities, as shown by a recent prosecution (see below). This article is intended to provide some simple advice on what to do.

What should you do?

Step 1

First of all, gain a good understanding of the fire safety needs of the premises by conducting a Fire Safety Risk Assessment, or by having one carried out for you.

Step 2

Read the report and carry out the recommendations. Sometimes there are alternatives to the actions presented, but "doing nothing" is not a sensible option. Prioritise the recommendations and make improvements in a sensible manner.

• Fire compartmentation is essential, but can be expensive.
• Fire doors (with smoke seals) are effective at stopping the spread of fire and smoke.
• Keeping escape routes clear of obstructions does not cost much.
• Fire signage is relatively simple and cheap to put right.
• Maintenance of existing systems is simple and effective.
• Determining the actions that should be taken in the event of a fire requires consideration of the premises, the residents, and rescue service policies.
• Providing residents with a fire safety action plan can be an effective way to avoid confusion.

Step 3

Keep the property and the fire safety precautions in a good and serviceable condition. Ensure that the fire detection and fire alarm system and fire fighting equipment and emergency lighting are serviced and maintained.

Step 4

Keep the premises under review. Visit premises at regular intervals and ensure that standards are not deteriorating. Liaise with residents and involve them, particularly if they have a say in how money (such as service charge) is spent.

Step 5

Don't end up in court, like the case below.

Details of a recent prosecution

A landlord has received a suspended sentence following various failures. Following a fire in March 2009 it has been reported that the landlord who owned a house of multiple occupation (or HMO) has received a 6-month suspended prison sentence and been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs. Following the blaze, fire safety investigators found several breaches of Fire Safety Legislation (the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) at the building. These breaches included included not having suitable fire doors installed and not conducting a sufficient fire safety risk assessment.

Steve Turek (the assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation at the London Fire Brigade) commented:

"This verdict sends out a clear message that if landlords ignore fire safety then they will face serious penalties. [The Landlord] was given plenty of time to improve fire safety inside the property but failed to comply. The London Fire Brigade works hard to make companies and individuals understand their responsibilities under fire safety law and only uses prosecution as a last resort."


If you need help with your fire safety risk assessment, please contact us.

Help me to increase my client base!

Like many people, I'm looking for ways to increase the number of (Health & Safety) clients that I have.

How to do this?

• Direct mail?
• email campaign? DOING, MailChimp
• (Even more) Networking? LIMITED POTENTIAL FOR THIS
• On selling to existing clients?
• COSHH (Bio)
• MHO to Charn F
• Targeting bigger clients? TRYING TO DO SO
• BL
• Shef U
• Various London FM Co's
• Web-site makeover - DONE
• PR campaign?
• Seminars? - DOING
• Teasing out suitable client contacts from existing sources? - NEED TO DEVELOP FURTHER

Ideas welcome

Landlord gets Suspended Prison Sentence for Fire Safety failures

A landlord has received a suspended sentence following various failures. Following a fire in March 2009 it has been reported that the landlord who owned a house of multiple occupation (or HMO) has received a 6-month suspended prison sentence and been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs. Following the blaze, fire safety investigators found several breaches of Fire Safety Legislation (the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) at the building. These breaches included included not having suitable fire doors installed and not conducting a sufficient fire safety risk assessment.

Steve Turek (the assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation at the London Fire Brigade) commented:

"This verdict sends out a clear message that if landlords ignore fire safety then they will face serious penalties. [The Landlord] was given plenty of time to improve fire safety inside the property but failed to comply. The London Fire Brigade works hard to make companies and individuals understand their responsibilities under fire safety law and only uses prosecution as a last resort."


If you need help with your fire safety risk assessment, please contact us.

RIDDOR - A change not in the consultation

The HSE have recently closed their Consultation on changes to RIDDOR and, almost immediately, have announced a change to RIDDOR (without consultation).

From September this year, work-related injuries and incidents that are reportable under RIDDOR will have to be notified to the HSE by its website. It is understood that over half of reportable injuries are already notified to the HSE through the website and that this proportion has been increasing steadily over the past seven years.

The reporting of fatal and major incidents will still be able to be done by phone, in recognition of the need for a more personal response in such circumstances.

Fall through a fragile roof - serious injury

A father and daughter who own and run a farm in Hertfordshire have been fined after an employee fell through a fragile barn roof and suffered multiple fractures.

In August 2010, two employees were cleaning the roof of a barn by standing on scaffold boards placed over the roof and brushing the area with brooms (as they had been instructed by their employers). The asbestos cement roof cracked and one of the employees fell 5m onto the concrete floor below. He suffered multiple fractures to his pelvis and ribs and was unable to walk for several months.

After the hearing an HSE Inspector said:

Working at height without any safety precautions in place will always put employees at risk. In this case there was an added risk as the surface the men were working on was fragile. Standards for working on fragile roofs are well-established and extensive guidance is available on HSE's website.

This incident could easily have been avoided if these had been followed. Falls from height are among the biggest causes of workplace deaths in the UK and the outcome of this incident could have been even more serious.

Last year, more than 4,000 workers suffered major injuries as the result of falls from height and 12 workers lost their lives.

The employers pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and each were fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,083 in costs between them.

Are You Responsible for Fire Safety?

If you are responsible for fire safety, do you know what you are responsible for?

The responsible person is someone who has control (or a degree of control) over the premises or fire-prevention systems within the premises. If you are the responsible person, you must make sure that everyone who uses your premises can escape if there is a fire. You need to consider anyone who might be on your premises, including employees, visitors or members of the public. You need to pay particular attention to those who may need special help, such as elderly or disabled people or children.

You must:

- carry out a fire-risk assessment and identify possible dangers and risks
- think about who might be particularly at risk (including disabled employees or people working with flammable substances)
- avoid and/or reduce the risk from fire, as far as is reasonably possible
- implement suitable fire precautions to deal with any risks that remain
- make sure there is protection if you use or store flammable or explosive materials have a plan to deal with emergencies
- record your findings and review them as and when necessary

As the responsible person, you must ensure that the fire-risk assessment is carried although you may appoint some other competent person to do the actual assessment.

The enforcing authority (usually the local fire authority) must be satisfied with your fire safety arrangements. If they are not, they will tell you what you need to do. If they find major problems they may serve an enforcement notice on your business requiring you to improve safety (or they can even restrict the use of your premises or close them altogether in certain circumstances).

If you need help, contact us.

Innocent until proven guilty? Or Section 40 HASAWA?

One point that I'm covering on certain Health and Safety Training courses is Section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  We are generally of the opinion that we are innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Health and Safety, this is not always the case. It is often the case that we need to (be able to) prove our innocence!


Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 - Section 40: Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.
In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something "so far as is practicable", or "so far as is reasonably practicable", or to use the "best practicable means" to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.


What does this mean?
In real terms it means that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the defence to show that they are not guilty. Ouch! How are you set up to demonstrate that you have reduced the risks "to as low a level as is reasonably practicable"?


Need Help? Contact us

Institute of Fire Safety Managers

I received notification today that I have been accepted as a Member of the Institute of Fire Safety Managers. I am pleased by this acceptance as Fire Safety reflects a significant and (hopefully) growing part of my business.

Michael Ellerby, MIFSM

Website

Beware of Section 40

Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 - Section 40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.

In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.

What does this mean? In real terms it means that it is not for the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the defence to show that they are not guilty. Ouch! How are you set up to demonstrate that you have reduced the risks "to as low a level as is reasonably practicable"? Need Help? Contact us

Residential Landlord fined after tenants flee from fire

A residential landlord has been found guilty of fire safety breaches (under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005) following a fire where his tenants were forced to flee for their lives.

Following an appearance at Exeter Crown Court in March 2011, The Landlord was ordered to pay a total of £135,000 in fines and a further £23,000 in costs.

This fine follows a fire at the four-storey building that had been subdivided into flats. The fire started on the ground floor and spread throughout the property and forced some of the 13 tenants to make their escape by clambering over the roof.

After the fire Devon and Somerset fire investigators carried out a safety audit of the premises. The investigation found that the door giving entrance to the ground floor flat was inappropriately constructed to resist fire and this allowed a fire in that flat to spread into the escape route. The offence carried a fine of £75,000.

There were a further three offences (£20,000 each) for three doors that had no self closing device fitted. This also impacted on fire spread to the means of escape.

Devon and Somerset area manager Nick Manning, said:

“Landlords and owners of properties used as flats should take notice of the outcome of this case - it has sent a clear message with the level of the fine awarded."

Fine for residential Landlord - Fire Safety

Outcome
A London based landlord has been prosecuted and fined £10,000 for a planning offence and also a maximum £5000 for failing to comply with a prohibition order (Housing Act 2004). Costs of £3585 were also awarded.
The Problem
The layout of a second-floor flat was so bad that there was no safe means of escape in the event of a fire, according to the Council. This state of events prompted the council's environmental health officers (EHOs) to impose a prohibition order banning people from living at the flat. Despite being aware of the fire safety risks, the landlord placed a family with two young children in the property - in direct contravention of the prohibition order.
Speaking on behalf of the Council
The Council’s executive member for planning, economic development and housing, said:

"These were blatant contraventions, which placed the lives of vulnerable tenants at risk ... The fines issued are extremely high and reflect the seriousness of the offences and the disregard shown by (the Landlord) to the law and the safety of his tenants".

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 4

Part 4: Control of Contractors

Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.