You can be prosecuted for breaking H&S Law, even if no one is harmed

When things have gone wrong, people sometimes respond by saying things like "I don't know what the fuss is about, nobody got harmed". Good Health and Safety practise is about protecting people from harm and it means that companies need to act to protect employees from harm, as the case below demonstrates.

Aylesbury Magistrates' Court sentenced a microbrewery in October 2012 for failing to take sufficient action to prevent unsafe work at height and failing to improve manual handling at its Marsh Gibbon production plant.  The brewery was warned back in May 2010 that it needed to improve after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) served an Improvement Notice requiring action to protect workers transferring materials from racking to processing machinery.  The HSE inspector raised concerns about manual handling operations, principally the filling of hoppers with malt and barley, which involved employees lifting heavy sacks weighing up to 25kg in awkward circumstances. The notice required the company to carry out a thorough assessment of the (manual) handling risks and to take appropriate action.
 
The court heard that the HSE revisited the brewery in November 2010 and again in February 2011, but on both occasions little had changed. Concerns were also expressed about a mezzanine floor that was accessible via inadequate steps and a second Improvement Notice was served in March 2011.

The brewery was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,623 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

The HSE Inspector (Stephen Manley) said:
 
"The response of Oxfordshire Ales to the original Improvement Notice was disappointing to say the least. The improvements were necessary in order to protect workers from injury and prevent falls, yet the company took far too long to take appropriate action.  Thankfully no employees were hurt, but there were clear risks that could easily have been remedied a lot sooner."

Need help? Visit our website

Contractor's death results in large fine for construction firm

Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of fatalities and major injuries in the construction sector. In the period 2011 to 2012, 49 workers lost their lives on construction sites in the UK, with falls from height being a major cause.  Following the death of a man  after falling through a roof while working on the construction of a shopping centre in North Wales, a building firm has been ordered to pay £450,000 in fines and £98,000 costs after being found found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the HSWA 1974.

The Crown Court in Mold (North Wales) heard that Watkin Jones & Son Ltd was the principal contractor during the building of the Menai Centre in Bangor and that Thomas Whitmarsh, (aged 21) was working for a company that was sub-contracted to carry out roofwork at the site.

In December 2009, Thomas Whitmarsh was fitting a rubber membrane to a flat concrete roof when he fell nearly six metres through an unguarded opening in the roof to the floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.  He then spent several months in hospital and was making a gradual recovery. Unfortunately, the brain injury he suffered exposed him to a much higher degree of infection and he later died after contracting acute meningitis. The court heard that there was more than an 80-per-cent chance that the injuries from the fall contributed to his death.



An HSE inspector commented that there had been adequate edge protection around the void, but that this had been removed and not put back in place until after the incident. He went on to comment that: 

“Poor coordination between the principal and the roofing contractors on this particular part of the site led to the edge protection being removed from around the roof opening without alternative safeguards in place.

Falls from height are an alarmingly common cause of death and serious injury in construction. All too often, straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put needlessly at risk. Poor management of risk in this industry is unacceptable and HSE will take strong action when necessary.

This tragic case should remind all contractors that work at height must be managed effectively and adequate safeguards should be in place to prevent falls.”



 By way of mitigation, the firm said it takes health and safety seriously but accepts failings took place in relation to this incident. Following the incident, it modified its procedures to ensure that work is safely handed over to contractors.

Please feel free to contact us through our website

Safety: Managers need to manage

Part 1: Machinery Safety
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Part 3: Food Safety
Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

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”.

Visit our website

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. 

Need help with Health and Safety? Contact us through our website!

Birmingham-based university fined following exposure to asbestos fibres

A Birmingham-based university has been fined, along with a security systems firm, after two workers were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres while fitting CCTV cameras.

The worker and a 17-year-old trainee were installing the cameras in the reception area at the university's Recreation Centre on 21 July 2009 when they drilled into material containing asbestos fibres.  Both the university and the contractor carrying out the work were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the university failed to follow its own procedures on managing, planning and preparing for the installation and the arrangements were unclear and not widely known within the university.

The university pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(9)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

The investigating inspector from the HSE said:

"While the amount of asbestos involved in this incident was small, two people now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill from lung disease in the future.

"The university failed to ensure employees and others working across the site were aware of the presence of asbestos fibres.

"Surveys on the location and conditions of asbestos and materials containing asbestos had been carried out across the university but there was no procedure for communicating the details to contractors.

"The contractor, who had been working for the university for many years, had never been given any information about asbestos - and had never asked for it. They also failed to assess whether asbestos was present, what type of asbestos was involved and what condition it was in, before undertaking work."

If you need help with the management of health and safety in your workplace, please visit our website.

Landmark Fire Safety Trial, London Hotel and Director

A London hotel has paid over £260,000 in fines and costs in what is believed to be the first jury trial of a case under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

The Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited and its sole director, Michael Wilson, pleaded not guilty to 12 offences under the RRO. The offences date back to 18 May 2008 when the London Fire Brigade was called to a fire at the hotel in Finchley, north London. The blaze had spread quickly from a first floor guest bedroom, up a staircase to the floor above and along a corridor. 3 people escaped from the fire, two by using the stairs and a third by climbing out of a second floor window.

Following the blaze, fire safety inspectors visited the hotel and raised a number of concerns. These included defective fire doors, blocked escape routes and no smoke alarms in some of the hotel’s bedrooms. Mr Wilson was also unable to produce a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and was also found not to have provided staff with adequate fire safety training.

The fine was divided between the individual defendant, Michael Wilson (£180,000) and the corporate defendant, Chumleigh Lodge Hotel Limited (£30,000). The defendants were further ordered to pay prosecution costs of £50,000, and compensation of £2,000 to the guest who escaped through a second floor window.

The company was found guilty of six offences, while Mr Wilson was found guilty of ‘consent or connivance in the commission’ of those same offences:

• Failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk (article 9);
• Failure to provide staff with adequate safety training (article 21);
• Failure to ensure emergency routes from the premises are kept clear (article 14);
• Failure to adequately equip premises with fire detectors (article 13);
• Two counts of failure to ensure premises, facilities, equipment or devices are maintained in an efficient state, in working order and in good repair (article 17)
;

Brian Coleman (chairman of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority) said:

“Business owners have a clear responsibility under fire safety law to ensure that both the public and their employees are as safe as possible from the risk of fire,”

“This verdict sends out a clear message that if these responsibilities are ignored we will not hesitate in prosecuting and people will face serious penalties.

If you need help with Fire Safety, please contact us through the website

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

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

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.”

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

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."

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".

Employer without Insurance

A Bradford takeaway owner has been fined for failing to insure his staff against work-related injuries and illnesses. The owner was approached by the HSE on two occasions and asked to provide his employers' liability insurance certificate and failed to do so on both occasions. The owner also fails to turn up for a formal interview and later failed to turn up to court.

He was found guilty of breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and fined £2,500 for failing to insure his employees against injury arising from their work. He faces a further £1,000 penalty for failing to producing an insurance certificate and was also ordered to pay full costs of over £2,500

The HSE inspecton commented:

It's wholly unacceptable for employers not to arrange insurance to cover their employees for incidents or illnesses that can occur because of their work ... Employers who turn a blind eye to this are playing a dangerous game of chance and whenever HSE becomes aware this is happening, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action."

Buncefield fines -

Five companies have been told to pay more than £9m for their parts in the Buncefield oil depot fire which occurred in December 2005. It is reported that the explosion was equivalent to a 2.4-magnitude earthquake and it caused Europe's biggest fire since World War Two.

Sentencing the firms at St Albans Crown Court, Judge Sir David Calvert-Smith said:

"Had the explosion happened during a working day, the loss of life may have been measured in tens or even hundreds."

The companies were fined a total of £5.35m and ordered to pay costs of £4.08m.

Total was fined £3.6m plus £2.6m in costs, Hertfordshire Oil Storage was fined £1.45m plus £1m costs, British Pipeline Agency will pay £300,000 plus £480,000 in costs, Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd (now in administration) and TAV Engineering were both fined £1,000 and each ordered to pay £500 in costs.

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.

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

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.

A store owner is fined £12,567 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.