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”.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 3

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.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 2

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.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety)

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.