Rank: Forum user 
|
I was gob-smacked by this on the local telly news.
You can search on the Lancashire Telegraph's site in their news archive of the 26th October 2010 and read it in full. The family of the deceased must be stunned by the outcome of the case in Court.
I am surprised its not been discussed a lot more on the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Steve,
I couldn't read the whole stort because my PC wouldn't open the page properly, but from what I could see there were two defendants, one was fined £25K, the other one was indeed only fined £1, but that was due to insolvency; a bit strange I agree, but not quite as bad as the headline implied,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi John
The message seems to be is that the "main company/developer" can avoid criminal actions by insolvency and the scaffolder pays his fine in instalments - harsh result for the family.
I hope the directors of the main company are not allowed to continue business under another name!
I think the HSE have done well in getting this to Court but still does not seem a good result from the judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
There's no point in fining a company £1m when they have no assets.
Also, if individuals are culpable, making the company insolvent will not allow them to escape justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My wife works for a charity who, due to poor advice, have been claiming gift aid tax breaks on donations.The HMRC have just announced that they were wrong and now owe HM over £20,000 in arrears.
This charity care for very vulnerable people and will almost definitely close due to this ruling, throwing 25 workers (including her indoors) on the dole and leaving vulnerable punters adrift
So HMRC can act to grab taxes from charities without due regard to jobs and services, but alleged H&S negligent companies can get away with it thanks to a benevolent HSE. Somefink aint right here !!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I promise not to mention the international internet giant that escapes tax by a complex web of international companies........
Or the mobile phone company that does the same.....
And it isn't a benevolent HSE, it's an impoverished HSE: Impoverished of personnel as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Insolvency
I advise all H&S practitioners to get updated re 'Insolvency' as in this country insolvency gets people out of many many sins/liabilities etc in nearly all areas and people specialise in opening up companies and closing them; after milking all and who they can including the tax man! H&S is but 1 of many areas that insolvency has lots to answer for
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not read this particular case, but there was a similar case a while back where the HSE prosecuted the company even though they had gone into voluntary liquidation. The judge fined the company a nominal £1, presumably it was not paid. There was an outcry from some quarters that the prosecution was a waste of public money. However, the HSE somewhat predictably maintained it was in the public interest. I still fail to see how.
I also cannot understand how legally a company can go into voluntary liquidation following a serious health and safety incident. Surely, the law should be more astute. Prosecuting the senior officers of the company is the answer, but it appears this is a difficult task once the company becomes insolvent. I also agree that these types of cases should have been in Lord Young's remit, alas; the peculiarities of the law seem to have completely escaped his eminence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The way I read reports was that the HSE can only really establish if a charged company actually has any assets by going through the whole prosecution process. I think the HSE spokesperson said that they wanted to send a message that just sending a company into liquidation won't stop the HSE prosecuting if they think there are funds in there somewhere.
But what's better? To have the case heard, the relatives hear all the facts and those who are guilty are identified publicly - with a fine of £1, or not to prosecute and they 'get away with it'? I think the HSE are in a no-win position here.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Since the company cannot pay the 13 grand either, they may as well have been fined a lot even though they cannot pay it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.