The Storage of Substances Hazardous to Health

Many organisations need to store substances that are classified as hazardous to health, sometimes in substantial quantities.  Several sets of Regulations may apply, depending on the exact nature of the substance being store, but in nearly every case, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (or COSHH Regulations) will apply.  COSHH applies as much to the storage of substances hazardous to health as it does to their manufacture and use.  Many aspects of the safe storage of substances hazardous to health rely on common sense and part of the purpose of the COSHH risk assessment is to formalise the application of this common sense.

Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is the cornerstone of modern health and safety management.  The need to carryout risk assessments is identified in Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended:

Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of - 

• the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and
• the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

In the case of stored substances, risk assessments may also required by other pieces of legislation, such as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 or the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002.  It is not necessary to carryout two (or more) different) risk assessments is all of the relevant points are contained in a single risk assessment.  It would be acceptable for a single risk assessment to deal with the safe storage of substances, provided it dealt with the hazardous nature of the materials being stored, as well as the fire and explosion risks, etc.

Materials that are not substances hazardous to health, but are still dangerous

As well as the health risks associated with substances, there are other risks that may not be accounted for (or may be missed) if the only form of risk assessment is a COSHH Assessment.  There are several categories of hazard that do not form part of the COSHH assessment, but which, because of the risks that they create, still need to be considered by any organisation storing the substances.  These include issues such as fire and explosion, radioactive substances, substances stored under pressure and quantities of certain substances that bring the COMAH Regulations into consideration.  It should also be considered that several materials will be classified as substances hazardous to health and will have other hazards associated with them.  

Flammable and Highly Flammable Substances

The hazards flammable and highly flammable are not relevant under COSHH.  Historically, the storage of flammable and highly flammable substances (such as solvents, thinners, paints, petrol and other fuels, etc.) was covered by the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972.  These Regulations were revoked by the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002 (DSEAR).  DSEAR introduced a risk assessment based route for consideration of storage arrangements and removed the requirement for a Petroleum License (previously under the Petroleum Act 1928) and replaced this with a risk assessment based approach to storage. The storage of flammable and highly flammable substances should be subject to a risk assessment (or DSEAR) and may have an impact on the fire safety assessment for the premises, as required by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Explosives

Materials that are dangerous only because they are explosive are outside of the COSHH Regulations.  The storage of such materials falls under the new Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005.  Businesses that store fireworks require registration or licence from the local authority (Trading Standards).

Pesticides

The use and storage of pesticides is governed by the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1996 (as amended). 

Radioactive Substances

Where substances are considered to be hazardous because they are radioactive, then these substances are not covered by the COSHH Regulations, but by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.

COMAH Regulations

Storage of certain materials in amounts over their threshold levels may bring the organisation within the ambit of the COMAH Regulations (Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999).  The substances, along with their threshold quantities are listed in Schedule 1 of the COMAH Regulations.

General storage considerations

There are some general points that apply to nearly all storage arrangements.  These include:

Labelling

It should be ensured that all substances are labelled suitably.  The label should identify the substance and the hazards that are associated with the substance.  It should be legible and should be kept clean.  Where appropriate, pipe and duct work should also be labelled, preferably in accordance with the colour based identification system described in BS 1710.

Hazard identification

The substance, and any associated pipe work, etc. should be labelled to identify the hazard(s) associated with the substance.  This may take the form of words or of the orange square with appropriate warning symbol(s).  

Safety Signs

Suitable safety signs, designed in accordance with The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 (as amended), should be displayed in appropriate positions within the work and storage areas.   These should highlight the presence of (various classes of) hazardous substance and indicate what type of personal protective equipment should be worn.  These should supplement, not replace, the risk assessment.

Provision of information

Suitable and sufficient information must be made available, to those who may be exposed to the substances being stored, of the hazards associated with the substance and of the measures to be taken in the event of an uncontrolled or unexpected release of the substance, such as dealing with leaks and spillages.  This should include, but must not be limited to, an up to date copy of the appropriate materials safety data sheet.  The COSHH Regulations make it explicit that a suitable and sufficient COSHH assessment does not comprise solely of a collection of material safety data sheets.

Staff training

Staff should be provided with suitable and sufficient training in the safe use and handling of the hazardous substance.  This relates to the hazards associated with the substance and the control measures to be employed to protect themselves, and others, from harm.  This must include information on the appropriate use of extraction equipment, other engineering controls, personal protective equipment, etc.  Staff must also receive appropriate training in dealing with spillages, leaks and other accidental releases of substances hazardous to health.  Training should also include the actions to take in response to a spillage or other accidental release.  

First Aid Provision

In addition to normal workplace first aid, any special first aid provisions should be based on the risk assessment findings (COSHH and other assessments).  This may include provision of emergency eye wash facilities (such as for the storage of corrosive substances) and any specialist first aid training or equipment.  These may include:

• breathable oxygen bottles for dealing with cases of (suspected) cyanide poisoning, or
• calcium gluconate gel for treating hydrofluoric acid burns.  

Spillage (or release) procedures

Suitable, safe procedures for dealing with spillages, or releases, of the hazardous substance must be developed and staff must receive adequate training.  Spillages must be cleaned up promptly and disposed of safely.  Where appropriate, spillage response kits should be provided.  Depending on the likely nature of any spillage, these response kits should contain: brushes, temporary bunding materials, epoxy based emergency filling materials, vacuum cleaning equipment (fitted with a filter corresponding to type H of BS 5415 for toxic dusts), pumping equipment (flameproof if required), appropriate personal protective equipment, absorbent granules, etc. as is deemed appropriate from the COSHH and other risk assessments.  In many cases, the availability and condition of these kits should be checked periodically. Depending on the level of risk, it may be necessary to simulate spillages and practise the responses.  

Active Monitoring

The condition of the storage facilities and the stored materials should be checked regularly and suitable records maintained.  Further to this, the work practices and procedures should be monitored to ensure that suitable practices are adhered to and to ensure that short-cuts and poor practices are not allowed continuing.  Active monitoring may be used to ensure that the control measures identified in the risk assessment process are used and are effective.

Protection from extremes of temperature

Some substances are sensitive to extremes of temperature.  Heat may cause some substances to change form (melting or vaporisation), leading to loss of containment or even cause some substances to decompose, changing the chemistry and, hence, the risks.  Some substances need to be protected from freezing.  Glacial acrylic acid, for example, is stabilised by the addition of methyl ethyl hydroquinone (MEHQ).  Phase separation on freezing leads to loss in stabilisation and can lead to serious problems (such as explosive polymerisation) on thawing.  Information of susceptibility to extremes of temperature may be found on the materials safety data sheet.

General ventilation

Appropriate levels of general ventilation must be provided to prevent the build up of vapours, fumes and dusts.  This may be achieved by a combination of natural and mechanical means.  There is obviously a strong overlap with fire safety issues for the storage of flammable and highly flammable materials.

Storage packaging/vessels

The integrity of the storage vessel or packaging is an important factor in the control of exposure to hazardous substances in storage.  There are various sets of regulations (such as the Chemical (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002) that require the manufacturers/suppliers to package substances safely.  Containers need to be of an appropriate UN Performance Tested type and need to be suitable for the storage conditions (or storage conditions need to be suitable for the type of container/packaging).  

Amount of materials stored

Where possible, the risks from hazardous substances can be reduced by decreasing the amount of each substance stored.  This is also a simple, but useful method for ensuring that the operation does not fall within the scope of the COMAH Regulations.

Vessel Cleaning

Periodically, some storage vessels will need to be cleaned.  A risk assessment must be completed for this operation having regard to the substances present and to any additional risks, such as those arising from any confined space work, etc.  Such work may need to be carried out under a suitable permit to work.  The provision of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 should be implemented where appropriate.

Summary

The COSHH Regulations require employers to prevent exposure to substances hazardous to health to both employees and non-employees where it is reasonably practicable to do so.  Where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid exposure, then exposure must be controlled adequately.  Hence, COSHH assessments must consider the storage of substances and their accidental release as well as their use.  It may be necessary to supplement the COSHH risk assessment with other assessments (or to carry out a combined assessment) where other, non-COSHH, hazards exist (such as the storage of highly flammable, explosive or radioactive materials).  

Michael Ellerby

LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM MIFSM CChem MRSC CSci

Director

LRB Consulting Limited

Tel 01509 550023

Please visit our website

Health and Safety - Record Keeping

This blog discusses the need for record keeping and discusses, by way of a few examples, the number and types of records that may be required and the type of information that should be recorded.  The size of the subject means that this article is an introduction only, not a definitive list.

Introduction

Record keeping for matters relating to health and safety is something that many organisations are poor at, yet suitable records kept in an accurate and retrievable form can make a significant contribution to the good management of an organisation and to legal defences (when being prosecuted or sued) and also to avoiding legal action in the first place.  Potentially, there are many records that an organisation could keep.  Careful consideration should be given to what records should be kept and for how long.  Some records are required to be kept be various pieces of legislation, while others may be useful in defending legal actions.  Many pieces of legislation require various records and documents to be kept, although few specify the exact nature of the record to be kept. 

Accident Records

As a minimum, details of all workplace injuries must be recorded in the Accident Book (Form B1510), as required by the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1979.  Such records must be kept for at least three years from the date of an entry.

In the event of more serious accidents and injuries, there are reporting requirements under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995).  These regulations require records of reportable injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences to be kept for at least three years.  RIDDOR incidents may not be reported on-line or by phone, but all records must contain the basic information required by the HSE form F2508. 

Records should be made of all accident and incident investigations. These should record not only the details of the event, but all relevant finding of the investigation, including:

• Details of the accident/incident
• Details of all injuries and injured persons
• Details of all witnesses
• Causes of the accident/incident
• Details of corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence of the accident/incident.

Provision of Health and Safety Training and the keeping of Training Records

It is well established that training is a requirement of nearly all health and safety legislation.  The general requirement to provide suitable and sufficient, comprehensible training is introduced in the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (Section 2) and reinforced in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 13).  The requirement to train employees is explicitly referred to in many pieces of legislation including (but not limited to): 

• Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (Article 21)
• Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (Regulation 9)
• Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (Regulation 9)
• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (Regulation 12)

These various pieces of legislation do not, however, create a duty to keep records of training provided.  However, the guidance and codes of practice associated with the various pieces of legislation promote the need for records.  By way of example, the Approved Code of Practice to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 make it clear that employers may find it helpful to keep a record of the training given to employees. The records may provide a useful checklist for ensuring that employees receive all the necessary training at the appropriate time. The records may also help to resolve any disputes that arise about whether the employer has provided a particular employee with a specific aspect of information, instruction and training.  It is recommended that training records are kept for six years from the date of training.

Risk Assessments

Risk Assessments are required under most modern health and safety legislation.  The general duty for risk assessments comes from the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3), but (like training) also has a range of specific legislation creating specific risk assessment requirements, including:

• Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (Article 9)
• Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (Regulation 2)
• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (Regulation 6)
• Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (Regulation 4)

The various pieces of legislation also provide that employers with five or more employees must record the significant findings of their risk assessment. The Approved Code of Practice to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 sate that the (written) record should represent an effective statement of hazards and risks that then leads the management to take the relevant actions to protect health and safety. The record must be retrievable for use by management in reviews and for safety representatives (or other employee representatives) and visiting enforcing officers.  Records can be kept on paper or by electronic means provided that they are retrievable. They may be kept separately, or can form part of the same document as the health and safety policy. Records may have to be kept for a prescribed minimum period, as described under specific Regulations.

Health Surveillance Records

Health surveillance records are required by several pieces of legislation, including:

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002
• Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
• Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
• Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005
• Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005

Using exposure to hazardous substances as an example: Regulation 11 of COSHH requires employers to maintain an up-to-date health record for each individual employee placed under health surveillance. This record should contain the information this is approved by HSE, namely:

• identifying details
• surname
• forenames
• gender
• date of birth
• permanent address and post code
• national insurance number
• date when present employment started
• a historical record of jobs in this employment involving exposure to identified substances requiring health surveillance;
• results of all other health surveillance procedures and the date on which and by whom they were carried out. The conclusions should relate only to the employee’s fitness for work and will include, where appropriate:
• a record of the decisions of the medical inspector or appointed doctor; or
• conclusions of the medical practitioner, occupational health nurse or other suitably qualified or responsible person

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Employers have a duty to provide appropriate PPE to employees to help to control the risks, in a manner identified by risk assessment.  Further to this, the employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the PPE provided is worn and used appropriately.  To support this, the employer should keep appropriate records of:

• the risk assessment (see above)
• the issue of items of PPE
• maintenance details for items of PPE (to be kept for five years)
• records of training (see above)

Active Monitoring Records for the use of Control Measures

In order to discharge their duties with respect to ensuring the appropriate use of PPE (see above), the employer should also monitor the availability and appropriate use of PPE in the work place (whether on their own site or elsewhere).  Such active monitoring should be recorded and should encompass several related areas in one exercise.  Active monitoring is not restricted to the use of PPE, but to the appropriate use of control measures in aspects of health and safety.  There is no set format for recording active monitoring, but it is recommended that a simple recording format is used that allows compliance to be conformed easily (such as a tick list), but allows non-compliances to be recorded, along with details of the actions taken to correct these non-compliances.

Machinery Safety Inspection Records

There are many facets to machinery safety inspections and records.  Regulation 6 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) creates a duty on employers to ensure that work equipment is inspected (by a competent) person when it is installed or moved and then at regular interval, according to need.  Regulation 6 (3) of PUWER creates a duty on the employer to ensure that the result of any such inspection is recorded and kept until the next such inspection is recorded.  There is no specific required format for this record, although the following information is recommended:

• information on the type and model of equipment
• any identification mark or number that it has
• normal location of equipment
• the date that the inspection was carried out
• who carried out the inspection
• information on any faults and/or any action taken
• identification of to whom the faults have been reported
• the date when repairs or other necessary action were carried out

Similarly, Regulation 32 of PUWER creates a duty on employers to ensure that power presses are inspected and are subject to thorough examination at appropriate intervals (at least once every twelve months for presses that have only fixed guards and at least once every six months in other instances, as well as whenever exceptional circumstances have arisen that are liable to jeopardise safety).  A report should be made (by the competent person) of every thorough examination and this should be submitted no later than 14 days after the examination. The ACoP for the Safe Use of Power Presses indicates that any suitable method of reporting may be used, subject to agreement between the employer and the competent person, although a signature is specifically required by Regulation 34(l)(b) of PUWER to authenticate the report.  The information to be included in this record is comprehensive and may be found in Schedule 3 of PUWER.

The risk assessment for the equipment or for the operation should also identify other records that should be kept, such as:

• regular inspection and testing of the machinery guarding
• regular inspection and testing of any safety devices
• regular inspection and testing of controls and emergency stop controls
• regular inspection and testing of the power/energy supplies to the equipment (such as electrical, pressurised systems, etc.) and associated isolations

Similarly to records required under PUWER, records of thorough examination are required for items of lifting equipment and for lifting accessories under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER).

Other types of health and safety records that should be maintained by the employer

The list of other health and safety records that could be kept is vast, but includes:

• asbestos register
• authorised users lists, such as for:
• specific items of machinery and other work equipment
• fork lift trucks
• company vehicles
• certain hazardous substances (such as cyanides, Isocyanates, etc)
• permit to work documentation
• waste transfer notes
• fire safety records (such as a Fire Precautions Log Book)
• employee opt out (Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended) 
• records of time worked (Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended) 
• documents required under Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (such as: policy for prevention of major accidents, notification of the start of operations, on-site emergency plan, off -site emergency plan, etc.)
• information relating to communication and consultation with employers on matters relating to health and safety
• minutes of the safety committee meeting
• etc

Summary

There are many health and safety records that should be created and maintained.  In most cases, there is no set format for the record, although there, more often, a basis requirement for the information that is recorded.  Suitable records are one of the most important pieces of evidence that a Company can produce to demonstrate that it has complied with relevant health and safety law and met its legal requirements, such as to reduce the risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

Michael Ellerby

LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM MIFSM CChem MRSC CSci

Director

LRB Consulting Limited

Please visit our website

Health and Safety - What is the minimum that I can get away with?

Some employers take Health and Safety seriously and are prepared to invest to keep their workers healthy and safe. Some other employers wish to do the minimum that they can get away with With respect to risk assessments (in particular) and health and safety (in general), it’s not uncommon to hear phrases (from employers) such as:

• “I only want to do what I have to …”
• “What’s the minimum I must do to be legal…”
• “What can I get away with doing…?”

The minimum

The most common duty, with respect to health and safety at work, is to reduce the level of risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable (ALARP).  There are some cases where a higher standard is required, but most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974, which may be paraphrased as “to ensure the health and safety of employees (and non-employees who may be effected by the undertaking), so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP).  The minimum (legal) standard, then, is to do what is reasonably practicable.

The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial. 

What does all this mean?

All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking.  After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP.  When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant.  Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.  

Control measures (to reduce risk to ALARP)

Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:

(a) avoiding risks;
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided;
(c) combating the risks at source;
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health;
(e) adapting to technical progress;
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous;
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment;
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees.

Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.  By way of example, consider the hierarchy above in respect to the use of a highly toxic chemical in come sort of coating process.  It is clearly not adequate to merely provide a respirator.  The reasonably practicable approach may involve the use of a safer substance used within a suitable enclosure provided with suitable, maintained and tested extraction system coupled to workplace monitoring and health surveillance, etc.  Typical control measures that may be proposed and which the employer will need to make (informed) decisions about include:

a	avoiding the need to do the coating operation – such as by the use of a different substrate (plastic in place of metal, etc.)  doing without the benefit that the coating provides
b	risk assessment covering all risks:  chemical fire and explosion risks manual handling  pressurised systems machinery, mechanical, etc etc
c	full or partial enclosure of the coating operation  coupled to provision of extraction  coupled to provision of scrubbing system
d	consideration of posture in spraying consideration of loads to be lifted, held, manoeuvred, etc space, including headroom workplace temperature, lighting, ventilation, etc.
e	Staying in touch with changing technology and best practice and introducing them as appropriate to the workplace, such as: low-air/high-solids applicators that reduces the amount of material sprayed and the amount of substance that may be released as overspray lower pressure spraying systems
f	replacing the toxic coating chemical with  a less dangerous substance (such as one that is toxic, harmful, etc.)  or (better still) with one that is not classified as hazardous;
g	Active management of the issues arising and avoidance of control by only one approach review of risk assessments active workplace monitoring (are control measures working, are they used, are they enforced, etc.) checking the operation of extraction equipment (daily, weekly, monthly operator checks, etc. and 14-monthly statutory examinations, etc)
h	ensuring that exposure to (for example) inhalation of toxic materials are controlled by enclosure (full or partial) and by local exhaust ventilation (extraction) rather than by reliance on personal protective equipment (such as respirators)
i	training  principles of control, risk assessment, COSHH assessment safe working practices use and provision of welfare facilities the needs for good standards of personal hygiene, etc.

Summary

Even doing the minimum means doing a lot, with respect to health and safety.  Consideration must be given to the risks presented by a task, workplace, operation, etc.  After the risk assessment, suitable control measures must be identified and implemented that address the risks identified and work in accordance with the hierarchy of control.  Risk assessment needs to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures.  For example: 

• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks associated with flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads and mechanical risks, etc.

Those who state “I only want to do what I have to …” probably do not realise how much is involved.  In many cases, achieving the minimum means going a long way!

Michael Ellerby

LLB BSc CMIOSH MIIRSM MIFSM CChem MRSC CSci

Director

LRB Consulting Limited

Health and Safety Team - away day meeting

On Friday 29th June, we had an away-day for the Health and Safety Team. I'm pleased to report that this was an extremely interesting, productive, thought promoting  and useful day. 


We welcomed some new members to the Team and then went on to discuss the progress that we have made since December 2011, when we half our last meeting of this type. In December, we set a target for the business of getting 25 new (retained) clients in 2012. At the meeting, I was able to report back that we had achieved 19 out of 25 new clients with six months left to go! 


We reviewed some of the new contracts and the routes by which we had secured them. We discussed how different members of the team had been involved with these clients and we reviewed some of our other, existing clients. Some are small, local (Loughborough and Leicestershire) based companies, while others are well known national organisations.


I led a discussion on the power of social media marketing in getting our message across to potential new clients.  We then focussed some of the discussion onto understanding what "our message" is - more on that subject in future blog items.  It was very reassuring to get agreement (rather than merely consensus) on what our message is. We will be able to promote this message with vigour and from a concerted front.for all of our consultants rather than focussing too narrowly. We have some great ideas on where to look next!


We moved the discussion on to consider the sectors that we would be targeting next as well as the types of work that we will be promoting most strongly. Our approach will be aimed a providing work 


We discussed chemical safety, COSHH, Legionella and other related issues as well as fire safety, residential flats, Facilities Management safety, Health and Safety Training Courses, etc.


Peter (aka Hagrid) gave an excellent (albeit shortened) presentation on Emergency Aid training. Pleasingly, everyone joined in and added to this from their own experiences. 


Lunch was delivered to the venue on time and allowed for a fair amount of relaxed interaction between the consultants, many of whom rarely meet - due to geographical issues.

After Sheffield - what now?

I have just finished an interim post as Head of Safety Services for the University of Sheffield. This was an extremely interesting and challenging role. This does raise the question: what now?


The next six months
I will be picking up on some of the things that were started in December 2011, but were put on hold to make time for the Sheffield project.  In December, we had a team meeting and we set a target of 25 new clients in 2012 (not including the "one-offs" that turn up). So far we have 17 of the 25 - and it's only just June. If we can keep up at this rate then 2012 will be a very good year indeed.


The next six months will involve me spending, hopefully, more time "working on the business" rather than working in the business.  This should allow me to find more of the higher value business that my team can deliver against, while allowing me to oversee the client interactions.


I have a couple of interesting, large projects to follow up on and some existing clients to discuss new services with. I will also be looking to form a couple of sensible strategic partnerships (or alliances) with local and national organisations to improve the offering to our clients. Some of the discussions for these have already started. I will also be working even harder with networking, including Social Media Marketing.


SMM
SMM, or Social Media Marketing, is an area that I intend to expand on over the rest of 2012. This will involve a lot more blogging and linking of sites, a lot more use of Twitter, etc. Other members of my team will be encouraged to do their bit with respect to SMM for the business. I intend to create more Podcasts and Youtube videos to promote the business and to provide information to others.


Website
My website will be at the centre of my SMM drive. It will need to be revamped, expanded and improved. It will be a lot more interactive as we move into 2013, with content being linked to other media.


Blogging
There will be time to create a series of new blog items covering many aspects of Health & Safety, Fire Safety and Food Hygiene. Some of these blogs will be created as (or turned into) Podcasts and Youtube videos.


Newsletter
The Newsletter will be more extensively circulated by SMM and will be available from the Website. It will be released on a six weekly basis, with more interactive content than previously included. More reader feedback will be solicited and general more appeal!


Contact me via my website

Fire Safety advice for Landlords in Houses of Multiple Occupation

If you're a Landlord of a House in Multiple Occupation (HIMO), you may have some serious fire safety responsibilities, as shown by the prosecution laid out at the end of this article. This article is provides some simple advice on what to do to be fire safety complaint and to keep out of court.

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. We can help you with this if you are not sure what to do (see later). Ensure that the Fire Risk Assessment for your premises also contains a simple and suitable Fire Safety Improvement Plan.

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 cases below. Contact us through our website.

Details of two recent prosecutions of Landlords

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 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."

In the second case, a Lytham landlord who owned seven properties that were sub-divided into flats in St Annes pleaded guilty to 13 fire safety offences across the seven properties. He has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence and a six-month night-time curfew.

Following a fire at one of his properties (in December 2010), fire safety officers found evidence of several serious breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). Offences included: inadequate fire risk assessments; defective fire alarms; fire alarm systems that were switched off; lack of inspection, test and maintenance of fire safety equipment (such as fire extinguishers; fire alarm systems and emergency lighting); accumulation of obstructions and combustible materials on escape routes as well as inadequate fire separation (compartmentisation).

Enforcement notices were issued for all seven premises and these were followed up and extended on two occasions. It is understood that none of these were adequately complied with by the completion date.  In two cases prohibition notices were also issued to prevent use of the buildings, but the conditions set out in these notices were also breached.

In August 2012, the Landlord (who no longer owns any of the premises) pleaded guilty to 13 offences under the RRO:

• two counts of failure to comply with an enforcement notice
• seven counts of failure to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
• two counts of failure to comply with a prohibition notice
• one count of failure to provide a suitable system of maintenance
• one count of failure to ensure routes to emergency exits were kept clear.

He was sentenced in October at Preston Crown Court for the 13 counts to a prison sentence of six months, suspended for 18 months, and is subject to a six-month curfew between 7pm and 7am. He was ordered to contribute £200 towards costs.

Contact us if you need help with your fire safety risk assessment.