There have been many companies prosecuted due to accidents / incidents associated with poor PTW control - Piper Alpha was a classic. However, "individual PTW issuers" would be protected under the employers vicarious liability in my view. David

David H, I don't think that the vicarious liability principle works in that way. If there is negligence by an individual, they remain negligent, regardless of any liability being passed on to their superiors. This is in civil law. To be prosecuted under criminal law there needs to have been a breach of criminal law, for which personal responsibility cannot be passed on. In the case of an individual knowingly issuing a PTW when there is significant uncontrolled risk I expect in extreme circumstances a charge of manslaughter could be brought, with a backup charge under HASAWA. Have to be very extreme though and agree with Ray's summation.

Look in the SHP online "in court" section. you can do a search for key words ther but I noticed one dated 24th Feb 2011 which was a failure to monitor a contractor.

try this one http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-sco-08911.htm

Hi - my reasoning was based on the fact that offshore - requests for permits have to be submitted 48 hrs in advance. During this time, there will be site visits, level 2 RAs, COSHH, lift lans, equipment checks etc and looking at what is going on around the proposed work site (symops) There is then a permit meeting to discuss the request and the controls in place - only then will a permit be issued. Therefore - not the issuer that could be held accountable. David.

A PTW is not a legal requirement and so prosecution on the grounds of (...of what?????) is unlikely. Any individual negligence would perhaps be prosecuted under HSWA S7, depending on what it is that you had in mind as being done wrong.

Lucy, Sadly not many contractors would supply information readily on their own failings - dirty washing etc. If you want to do some research - a Premier Boarding School (Listed Buildings) near Dover that was burnt down due in the main to a systematic failure of the Hot Works Permit System. Not sure if it has or will lead to a prosecution though. See attached link as a starter for 10: http://www.kentonline.co...7/dover_school_fire.aspx Regards Clive

It is the failure to have a safe system of work, not the issue of a PTW, that is the breach. Lucy I never listen to the 'almosy prosecuted' stories. There was either enough evidence for a prosecution or there wasn't. You wouldn't be prosecuted just for failing to follow a company procedure, they would have had to have done something unsafe, probbaly resulting in a accident. Isssuing a PTW does not ensure safety but it is part of a chain of events that could lead to a lack of safety. Not having a PTW could be seen as an aggravating factor in some circumstances. But not having the PTW on it's own would not cause an accident there would have to be other unafe acts too (ie not working safely).

No Lucy. I disagree. I never took a prosecution based on publicity alone or becuase it was a Blue Chip company. In fact it would never be an either / or situation anyway. The cost of the PR never came into it. I often ran several PR's at the same time. I have prosecuted an individual. If anything that was seen as being a high profile case because prosecuting the individual is relatively rare. I reiterate that failing to issue a PTW properly does not in itself lead to the accident. It would also require unsafe systems of work. PTW is just a mg't system and prosecuting the individual would only happen if everything else was as it should be. Which doesn't happen very often.

PTW has no basis in law. Breaches of Statutory Provisions may give rise to prosecution - not failure to prepare a PTW. Jon

With Red, I too would be interested if there were instances where, in arriving at a prosecution, the failure to have or use properly a Permit To Work system was part of the evidence against the accused. For certain jobs/tasks a PtW is regarded as best practice. Yet I can find no common ACoP that mentions 'permit', and the only HSG I know of with 'permit' guidance is HSG250. I'm sure most here know: ACoPs have legal status, and they say something like ACoP gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. If you follow the advice you will be doing enough to comply with the law ...... You may use alternative methods to those in the Code in order to comply with the law, but the Code has a special legal status. If you are prosecuted for breach of safety law, and it is proved that you did not follow the advice in the Code, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way ..... or a Court will find you at fault. HSGs, however, do not have the same staus and say something like, following this guidance is not compulsory and you are free to take other action. If you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law..... inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance as illustrating good practice. That is quite different, so Red's quest may be a long one.

JohnM: I presume your posting was directed at my response... I think I ws trying to say much the sme as you: Prosecution: For breach of HaSaW Act: Evidence: Lack of safe system of work, PtW etc To me the two go hand in hand, one can not exist without the other.. of course if there had been a (suitable and satisfactory) PtW there may not have been an accident to give rise to the prosecution! I was given the analogy: Prosecution: Road Traffic Act: Evidence: Failure to obey para x of Highway Code But even if, as JohnW says, permits are not mentioend in an ACoP surely the fact that few if any safety professionals would deny their value it is therefore the case that they would be regarded as valid part of a safe system of work? Phil

There is this on the HSE website- its as close as I have got so far http://www.hse.gov.uk/el...ty/maintenance/fence.htm John W My find was helped by a well known search engine ;-) Also: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...SF=BID&SV=4204557002 Andy