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
Red  
#1 Posted : 09 May 2012 19:07:36(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Red

Hi can you help me please.

I am looking for some examples where an 'individual PTW issuer' has been prosecuted. I want to use a few examples in some training I have been asked to carryout.

If you can point me at an article, or similar that would be great.

Thankyou
David H  
#2 Posted : 09 May 2012 20:46:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

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
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 10 May 2012 07:55:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Red

I doubt the information you seek is readily available because most prosecutions are pursuant to s2/3 of HWSA which does not drill down to individual actions and, s7 prosecutions are quite rare, finding one which is due to a PTW breach would be as rare as rocking horse...
David Bannister  
#4 Posted : 10 May 2012 09:09:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

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.
JohnW  
#5 Posted : 10 May 2012 10:54:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

David H wrote:
There have been many companies prosecuted due to accidents / incidents associated with poor PTW control - Piper Alpha was a classic.



David, I know failure of a 'permit system' contributed to the Piper Alpha disaster but I don't think the oil company was prosecuted, probably because it happened back in 1988. Other more knowledgable members here will have the knowledge on that.
KAJ Safe  
#6 Posted : 10 May 2012 11:24:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KAJ Safe

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.
Canopener  
#7 Posted : 10 May 2012 11:45:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Unless someone has any knowledge of a specific case, then I don’t think that you will be able to drill down through the HSE database to the extent or detail that you want. Realistically I woudl be surprised if there either is, or you could find a case this specific.

Like David, I am not convinced that an individual could escape prosecution through vicarious liability. Ray might be able/willing to elaborate!
flysafe  
#8 Posted : 10 May 2012 11:51:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
flysafe

flysafe  
#9 Posted : 10 May 2012 11:53:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
flysafe

Should have said - not quite what you want but may be of interest.

David H  
#10 Posted : 10 May 2012 17:19:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

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.
RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 10 May 2012 20:26:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

As the question has been asked - vicarious liability would have no standing in respect to criminal law. The employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee(s) if the act was within the course of their employment as opposed to an individual frolic.

See: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd [1947] AC 1.
Clairel  
#12 Posted : 11 May 2012 12:15:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

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 D  
#13 Posted : 14 May 2012 08:34:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lucy D

I am certainly aware of a couple of cases where the individuals who authorised the permit were "almost" prosecuted. I cannot give details of the cases but in both the potential reasons for prosecution were failure to follow company procedures when issuing the permit (e.g. did not visit the site before issuing the paperwork) - I imagine the prosecutions would have been under HASAWA s7
CliveLowery  
#14 Posted : 14 May 2012 08:58:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CliveLowery

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

Phil Grace  
#15 Posted : 14 May 2012 13:35:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Claire,
Interested in your comment that since a PTW isn't a legal requirement hence prosecution is unlikely.

Whilst I agree that there is no specific legal requirement consider the scenario for work within a confined space, say a tank that has held flamable contents. Surely a (unsafe) "system of work" that didn't include formal PTW could result in prosecution? The grounds for which might well include the failure to establish an overall safe system of work that should have involved:

isolation of incoming services, electrical feeds to stirrer motors etc (managed and controlled by a PTW)
venting and confirmation that it was safe to enter - by atmosphere checks
formal "permitted" entry - again managed by a permit

Phil
Clairel  
#16 Posted : 14 May 2012 16:13:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Phil Grace wrote:
Claire,
Interested in your comment that since a PTW isn't a legal requirement hence prosecution is unlikely.

Surely a (unsafe) "system of work" that didn't include formal PTW could result in prosecution? The grounds for which might well include the failure to establish an overall safe system of work..

Phil


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).
Lucy D  
#17 Posted : 14 May 2012 19:58:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lucy D

Come on now Claire - prosecutions are taken if it is in the public interest.

If you have the choice of prosecuting a large blue chip company whose permit-to-work procedure has failed (and get lots of publicity) and a permit issuer, who had failed to follow the procedure and this lead directly to the incident that resulted in prosecution, but possibly taking both prosecutions is actually going to cost a lot more money, muddy the waters for the other companies you want to influence, and therefore not gain you a lot, then prosecuting the individual is not in the public interest.

However it does not mean the evidence wasn't available and it wasn't an option.

Clairel  
#18 Posted : 14 May 2012 21:05:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

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.
Phil Grace  
#19 Posted : 17 May 2012 10:22:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

ClaireL - at risk of being pedantic - I was not suggesting that a PtW was a legal requirement that could be used as basis of a "breach" of law. You couldn't be charged with not having one... However, not having one is surely the "evidence" that is used to support and justify a charge under legislation?

Thus:
Well Ops (UK) Limited: Charged under sec3(1): Summary notes state that work "...carried out without any formal written instructions, permit to work or risk assessment."

Eco-Oil Ltd: Charged under sec2(1): Summary states "..failing to implement a system of permits to work."

Now I accept that the above firms have been charged under the HaSaW Act but seems to me that it was all down to lack of a PtW ..
Phil
John M  
#20 Posted : 17 May 2012 10:45:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

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

Jon
Canopener  
#21 Posted : 17 May 2012 13:04:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

It seems to me that many of the posts are actually singing from much the same hymn sheet. It also seems to me that in the absence of a definition within HASAWA, that a “..system of work..” under S2(2)(a) might reasonably include a SSOW, PTW or whatever might be the normally accepted ‘systems’ for safety in use within any particular industry. In that respect I think that a failure to prepare a suitable PTW might well be the basis for a prosecution of a breach of the same.

Of course it is not only breaches of ‘Statutory Provisions’ that give rise to the potential for prosecution!

The bottom line is that the example that ‘Red’ was looking for, is probably as elusive as ever.
JohnW  
#22 Posted : 17 May 2012 14:12:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

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.
Andrew W Walker  
#23 Posted : 17 May 2012 14:25:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

"Permit to work" is mentioned by name here:
http://www.legislation.g...002/2776/schedule/1/made

And in the relevant ACoP L137


Andy

Phil Grace  
#24 Posted : 17 May 2012 14:52:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
JohnW  
#25 Posted : 17 May 2012 15:03:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

Motorhead wrote:
"Permit to work" is mentioned by name here:
http://www.legislation.g...002/2776/schedule/1/made
And in the relevant ACoP L137
Andy


Andy, thanks. My 'search' of PDFs didn't work :o( and I see now 'permit' is also mentioned in L138 and the OBVIOUS one L101 Confined Spaces!

I agree with Phil, PtW is a way of securing a safe system of work, it ensures supervision, documented etc.

JohnW
Andrew W Walker  
#26 Posted : 17 May 2012 15:20:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

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
Red  
#27 Posted : 25 June 2012 20:00:29(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Red

Dear all

I have read all of your comments with interest and just want to say thank you to everyone who has taken the time to search for an example.

Thankyou

Red
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.