Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 26 January 2007 15:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton Does anyone have knowledge or information who would be willing to share the details of the case heard in January last year where a planning supervisor was apparently charged with two offences under reg 15 of CDM. The case was reported by HSE on the Governement News Network on Friday 22nd December The accused (I won't name names) pled guilty and was fined £7k plus £4.5k costs (which seems a bit harsh to me unless his breaches somehow contributed directly to the fatality). What interests me is how, on what appears to have a been a single project, there could have been two breaches of reg 15 - the duty to ensure a pre-construction plan is prepared. Did HSE investigating the fatality simply go through his work load and pick up on all the defects they could (whether related to the site concerned or not) or was there something special about the job that would have required two pre-construction plans? Any details would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any info. Steve
Admin  
#2 Posted : 26 January 2007 15:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By holyterror72 Have you looked on the HSE prosecutions database?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 26 January 2007 16:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton yep, its there, but with less detail than the news release.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 29 January 2007 10:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice Steve, It could possibly be that charges were brought under reg 15(1) and 15(2) or (3) which in essence are completely separate but I'll look into it further.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 29 January 2007 10:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice The only other thing it could be is the same charge was given to each partner. It would not be the same charge for the same offence and they would not have looked through their worklist for other instances of a paperwork breach that did not result in an accident.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 29 January 2007 11:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GSP One probable prosecution 15(1) = Chances are they were appointed late on and not given sufficient time to produce a plan before the contractor started on site. (shouldn't have taken on the contract/or allowed start on site/didn't advise client/crap PS) Another = In the crap plan they probably didn't identify fragile roofs, requirements for working on fragile roofs etc. (Planning supervisor probably didn't even take a look at the site/probably a generic plan, that's if they did one/Crap Planning Supervisor) You have to do be really crap at planning supervision to get prosecuted. Its these sort of planning supervisor that give the good ones a bad name.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 29 January 2007 15:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By B J Mann "Chances are they were appointed late" Another of my little bugbears! (see CDM 2007 - CDM Co-ordinator and the Health and Safety http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...um=1&thread=25226&page=1) Perhaps it's just me but most of the Planning Supervisors I deal with are "appointed late"/ after I submit a draft Construction Phase Health & Safety Plan (never having seen any Pre Construction one) to the Project Manager/ months after the job finished when they decide to chase me to produce a Health & Safety File that they have "agreed" should be the Principal Contractor's responsibility. Strangely though most of them seem to be arms of the Project Manager/ QS/ Designer for the project who, presumably, weren't "appointed late"!
Admin  
#8 Posted : 29 January 2007 15:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GSP Most are but whos fault is that? maybe CDM2007 will make things change....but then again we have heard that before.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 29 January 2007 15:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Admin  
#10 Posted : 30 January 2007 12:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton drday: the first link is the case I'm interested in - but the report doesn't give any more detail than reported by HSE. The press release from HSE seems to suggest there were two reg 15 charges - I am still trying to get my head round this. It's a shame the guy plead guilty, as it may have received more publicity (and explanation) if there had been some kind of defence. As a some-time ps myself, I am obviously keen to understand what my own liabilities may be. As an employee rather than a partner, I suspect any failure on my part would result in prosecution of my employer. The HSE release appears to suggest this guy was targetted because the company was a partnership and so they couldn't be prosecuted... That in itself is news to me? If anyone does have local or detailed knowledge (i.e. over and above that contained in the HSE press release), I am still interested to hear... Steve
Admin  
#11 Posted : 30 January 2007 13:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice The legal entity in a non-limited company would be the owner(s). If the company is a prtnership then the two owners are jointly responsible and any notice must be issued to both partners for it to be legally valid. In the case of a prosecution, it would, I guess be possible to prosecute both partners but of course it may not be in the interest of justice to prosecute both for the same offence.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.