Sorry if this has already been raised recently.. I've just got round to reading the HSE guidance on the application of FFI, as published at the end of last month. Whilst I'm dead agin the entire concept of paying a policeman to prosecute me, on fundamental principles, I have a couple of individual concerns which readers may be able to answer... Is there any 'third party' route for appealing an HSE letter giving a notification of contravention? If an inspector makes a mistake issuing formal improvement or prohibition notices, then appeal is to an industrial Tribunal, and if the appeal succeeds, the FFI is to be refunded. But if there is no third party appeal to letters.... then surely it can't be right that HSE issue the letters, and HSE are the ONLY route to challenge the imposition of FFI???? This just looks like a licence to print money - can I foresee a boom in letters giving notification of contravention, and a corresponding reduction in INs and PNs? And... The guidance identifies that 'time spent' on a case - and hence time chargeable at the exhorbitant rates specified - will vary according to the level of experience of the inspector, and the 'complexity' of the breach. Are we really expected to believe it is fair that any action by an inexperienced Inspector should cost MORE than equivalent action by a fully experienced one? I don't want to get into rant mode here... But if anyone can offer insight into the thinking behind these two elements I'd be very interested. Steve

Steve have you seen this report? http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...011/071211/pdecb1179.pdf This talks about a panel to review decisions after an "appeal" to the inspectors manager has failed This has already been set up http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/challenge-panel.htm but I agree the published draft info on fee for fault does not make this clear. As for the cost - I read that to mean that where a complex issue requires specialist help and a senior inspector then the fee will be greater, not that you will pay more for the inexperienced officer who may take more time. If you want to rant about the system I for one will join you! Brian

I think this will soon be known as Fine for intervention and it is just that, entirely on an inspectors say so. With the vagueries of health and safety legislation it is fairly subjective. I would almost go as far as to say that if a company has an HSE visit the greater probability is that they will be charged. Having spoken to an inspector I don't think they believe this will be in their interests either. When I was running construction sites I would welcome an HSE inspector on site because I could ask advice get helpful information and have them look over the site and I could put things right if needed before someone got hurt. Now I think I would only co-operate as far as was absolutely necessary, be as evasive as possible and hide as much as I could, but still expect to get "fined" for something.

It will be interesting to see how it all 'pans out' won't it? Don't we already effectively pay Policeman to prosecute us anyway! Just a thought.