Following the prosecution brought by the HSE: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr.../coi-nw-71singleton.htm, I've seen some comments in the Lancashire Telegraph (including one claiming to be from Ross Singleton, the roofer) http://www.lancashiretel...ch_of_health_and_safety/ Interesting to see the comments below the report - maybe people are not aware of the many occasions (one example: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2012/coi-nw-07mann.htm) where people fall whilst working at this sort of height and die? Can we ever change public perception away from 'jobsworths' 'Hitlers' and 'elf n safety'?

I am not sure whether it is the arrogance or ignorance of the roofer that is most worrying. What right does he have to cost the taxpayer money in bringing a prosecution and also put third parties at risk simply because he thinks “H&S” has gone mad? He has clearly endangered himself, his workmate, passers-by and the shop owner because he thinks he knows better than the law requires. After all, in the roofers view, it was going to cost a whopping £500 to provide the protection. (sigh) I can see madness but it is nothing to do with H&S. This would be a good example for Dave and Nick to consider when finalising their plans for the self employed.

This roofer really is clueless isn't he? This comment is particularity interesting "if I would have had the roof scaffolded professionally it would have costed between £400-£500 which the owner of the hair dressers would have not been happy with this charge as wel as the roof repair". I think he's missed the point. Doing the job cheaply and cutting corners on safety like this IS being a cowboy. I had a roofing job done recently at home and the small local firm that did the job DID hire scaffolding and do it right. They were most apologetic about the extra cost but the business owner was adamant that he wasn't going to put his subbies at risk. When I told him what I did for a living we both had a good laugh about it. The whole tone of some of the responses to the article (obviously from all the roofer's mates) really makes you wonder about the common sense of some people in this country. Do they really think it's acceptable to put the lives of others at risk just because you're an "honest young man trying to make an honest living"? Pathetic.

I don't know who's the dafter: the commentators who think that roof work is not unsafe or me for attempting to prospect business in Lancashire!

My personal observation on self-employed is that they are a large risk that needs assessing on an hourly basis, every hour of every day. I have not met one [in construction/construction-engineering] that wasn't an accident waiting to happen. Usually to someone else.

Bit of a sweeping statement there John! I'm self-employed. I think I present the mythical "low risk to others" most days! Maybe I've been lucky, but I've met some excellent self-employed contractors - usually also employing others as subbies - who take H&S seriously and realise it's part of what they have to do properly to get taken seriously by larger clients these days. As I said above I've also dealt (as a domestic client) with an excellent small roofing company recently and have nothing but praise for the way they handled safety while fixing my roof. My point above was that if some of these guys can do it properly and still get work (my roofer was so busy he was working 7 days a week most weeks) then there's no excuse for the others. Sadly while some charge cheap prices and take short cuts they will be the cowboys that get the work from those clients who don't know any better and only look at the direct costs.

If the Inspector worked for me I would sack her. Imagine if, while taking her photograph, he would have fallen to his death. Its the most shameful part of being involved in this profession.

I dont know and I dont care. If somebody is in danger of a fall that could kill him you dont stand there like David Bailey. Unless of course you dont actually care about other peoples safety, in which case dont enter the profession!

I can echo Heather Collins' point that some competent self-employed contractors do exist. For example, several years ago I got visits and quotes from several small firms for replacing the ageing wooden fascia boards & soffits and heavy cast iron gutters of my house with modern PVC equivalents. Without mentioning that I worked in OS&H, I asked each contractor what sort of access they would use. Two said they would use ladders and one said that he owned proprietary platforms/span decks supported by ladders. (Despite an internet search I'm still not sure of the technical or trade name is for such platforms - please can anyone advise about this?) There wasn't much difference between the cost quotations. I chose the one from the firm with the platforms, partly because they were safer to use than ladders and, moreover, because the work would probably be done to a better standard and more swiftly from platforms. Also, the contractor and his employee subsequently said and demonstrated how the ladders and platforms could be assembled, dismantled and relocated as necessary with reasonable ease. The original post in this topic usefully includes a link to a case where a roof worker suffered serious injuries in a fall in Liverpool and died some months later. It's interesting to speculate just how the media would have responded if the work at Barrowford had resulted in serious injury or death to 1) the roofer himself, or 2) one of his workers or 3) a member of the public, especially a child, an expectant or new mother or an elderly person! It's likely that many forum users will be baffled like me by tonymurphy's assertion that taking a photo of an unsafe situation is "the most shameful part of being involved in this profession". Even if the inspector hadn't already told the roofer of the danger and taken enforcement action by serving a prohibition notice, I don't think she would have been remiss. Taking one or even several photos usually takes very little time. Also the roofer himself - not the inspector - was responsible for his actions and safety plus the actions and safety of those working for him. Photos are usually invaluable as evidence in HSE cases and far better than words alone for explaining to others, especially magistrates, judges and juries, the circumstances involved.

Hear, hear to that Bob. Took risks with his and others lives and livelihoods; cost himself more in fines and costs than doing a proper job; was aggressive and abusive to the Inspector; ignored the prohibition notice. Good business sense? Common sense? Professional roofer? I applaud the 'Inspector' for doing a professional job under what must have been very stressful conditions. I would be proud to have such a person on my safety team. p48

Probably Easi-Dec Access Systems

I don't think easi-dec (other suppliers are available) would take kindly to suggestions their kit "isn't WAHR compliant"!!! I've been pondering this issue with my pragmatic hat on and wondering how our musings and the whole prosecution process here would appear to Joe average out there. My musings considered a set of circumstances where a crew member stands on a harbour pier and rope-handles material up and down to other crew members in the boat (pick your favourite height dependent on the state of the tide). No edge protection, no fall protection, no real measures to protect those below and certainly no hard hats. How does the average Joe discriminate between these two scenarios; one acceptable and one illegal? Much is being made of the provision of scaffold to make this job safe. That means closing off the footpath, which means gaining permission from the Local Authority. Where there is no alternative, this means providing a fully accessible (wheelchair friendly), barriered, ramped temporary pedestrian route around the obstruction. This may in turn require temporary traffic management arrangments. A standard scaffold would most likely deny access to the properties below. This resulting in loss of business or else requires a scaffold design to allow access/egress where no other emergency routes are available. (Let's not forget the general mayhem which usually ensues whilst the scaffold is actually assembled and taken down) Devil's Advocate, I know. Anyone want to price the job now?

Thanks to frankC and PVZ for the information about "Easi-Dec" and similar platforms supported by and spanning the gaps between ladders. To avoid any misunderstanding, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that such platforms were appropriate for the work location which was the subject of the prosecution. The wide span platform used by the guys who did the work at my house certainly seemed very effective for such work and similar types of location. I went on it myself and was impressed by it, including its evident stability. At one stage the guys had forgotten/not bothered to fit the outer handrail assembly for the platform so I promptly asked them to fit it, not least because I wanted the job completed as promised and without any casualties/bodies on my property. Also both guys agreed that their respective partners and kids would be upset if they were killed or seriously injured. As ron hunter comments, things are more complex and costly for public locations, especially if pavements, perhaps adjacent to busy roads, have to be obstructed/closed. He's also right to an extent about the fact that dock edges usually have no barriers and are quite legal. Though I dealt with a number of docks during my time with HSE, I don't recall being notified of incidents in which dock workers and others had fallen from dock edges. (That might just be amnesia on my part, so it would be useful if other forum users can comment on the incidence of falls from dock edges.) However, there is no doubt that injuries and deaths through falls from height during construction work have been and continue to be significant in number, hence the campaigns and actions taken by HSE regarding work at height!

The words i used, Ron whilst quoting a HSE advisor were 'Doesn't FULLY comply with the W@H Regs' by way of using the W@H hierarchy. Avoid, Prevent, Protect. Once it's built it seems to be fine. While it's being assembled with a chap climbing a ladder with a frame over his shoulder, getting to the top of the ladder and having two point contact (although neither of these are a hand) whilst affixing the frame section, there is still a definite risk of a fall...unless i've missed the bit in the W@HRegs which says you CAN stand on a ladder without holding on with either hand whilst doing a task.

SP900308: Unlike that HSE Inspector, I've had time to reflect, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps I wouldn't have been so hasty in issuing the PN and spent a bit more time discussing what I saw as required to ensure a safe system of work. Me being me though I would have had to explain all the other requirements and associated risks with assembly, use and striking the scaffold................maybe my approach wouldn't have resulted in a shouting match....who knows? I did spend 7 years enforcing health and safety legislation though, & issued a few Notices and took a couple of prosecutions in my time. Apologies to frankc - it wasn't my intention to irk you. My recollection of the instructional video for this kit is that the assembly method is fully compliant, if done properly (c.f. PASMA tower scaffold). Ah well, I'm off down the harbour for a spot of fishing now!!!!!

Whether she took the photograph before or after she'd issued the Notice, it probably only took a few seconds. You might as well criticise her for not waiting until he was back on the ground, in case she startled him.

Frankc, bandwidth restrictions at work mean I had to wait until home time to revisit the video. Can't see any WAHR compliance issues. A lightweight piece of aluminium frame slung over the shoulder leaving both hands free for climbing. No different from the satchels, bags and straps etc. we would insist on for taking up tools and repair materials. Have to disagree with your HSE chap there.

Just watched the easi dec DVD for assembly. I have never used one but towards the end the person erecting it stands on the platform and there appears to be large gap between the wall and platform, enough for at least your leg to fall through. Is it that way or is it just the camera angle?

The reason HSE costs seem high is that they pursue full costs recovery rather than asking for a contribution to costs as the CPS does. To apply costs, the prosecution has to provide a detailed schedule showing the breakdown of how costs have been incurred. Inspector time is charged at roughly £60/hour and would include travel time as well as time spent on site. From memory, this case was presented in court by the Inspector, so their court time would be included in costs too (and cheaper than if a solicitor had been used too!). Principal Inspector time is roughly £75/hour and would cover review and approval of the case. Mileage is reclaimed at the HMRC rate, as are any subsistence expenses involved. Also claimed back are the costs of photocopying, printing, and photographs used for the case. So, it's actually fairly easy to run up £3000 costs on a reasonably simple case.

No a good accident history does not mean it complies. And unless you have access to all the data I don't see how you can say there hasn't been an accident on these. I've actually witnessed one myself. When I looked at this as part of a working group in HSE, the reason it is (or maybe was if they've changed it) not a perfect system is because, unlike a tower, there are a few methods like TTT that do not require the person to be standing at an open edge whilst erecting it. With the easidec system you have to stand on the platform, albeit for a relatively short amount of time. So while not full compliance, the time that someone is at risk is less. And as for the photo's and costs....... (sigh). Unless you know what the Inspector has to do to get a successful (or otherwise) prosecution into court then you can be in no position to comment on the costs. Inspectors are routinely criticised for not claiming full costs as sometimes they can seem disproportionate. They are not, but they may seem like. A solicitors costs would have been far higher but perhaps the tax payer should cover the costs of this idiot on the roof? Or actually HSE could lose a few more staff and pay for it themselves. Tony - If this person had been working for me and she DIDN'T get any photographs then I would have fired her. It is not HSE's role to try to coerce people when they have failed to listen the first time. She probably would have taken some the first time she saw him on the roof as well but it's not her risk to control, he is not her employee and he probably wasn't dangling off the roof like Harold Lloyd. Was there an immediate risk? Yes. Was he at risk of immediately falling off? No.