One of the clients I work for, sub-contracted a scaffold erection job out. A very big job, anyway HSE duly paid a visit - discovered one handrail at the incorrect height..... Prohibition Notice subsequently issued which promptly stopped the job - despite it only taking twenty minutes to get someone to fix, it took three days to get the notice lifted as they promptly issued the notice and left.

Sub-contractors still waiting for the cost / invoice from the HSE.

Hhhhhhmmm, how to win friends and influence people seems to have gone.... it’s all about money.

Now in my day I'd have just been glad to see that all the handrails were in place.....

Anybody had any similar incidents on FFI yet?

In the past this would surely have just been a mention if everything else was in good order? Ok if there was a lot wrong and an indication of other breaches. This is truly a worry. Oh and re the invoice - apparently its a monthly thing so you may wait a bit!! This is a terrific heads up because we know now the minute levels they will be taking action at

"Prohibition Notice subsequently issued which promptly stopped the job - despite it only taking twenty minutes to get someone to fix, it took three days to get the notice lifted as they promptly issued the notice and left. "

Surely after 20 minutes your client was free to continue or do you mean that they got HSE to change their mind and remove the notice?

Contest the injustice of this situation. It will only take one case which the HSE lose (properly let the media know as well) and this sort of behaviour may become a thing of the past or nipped in the bud.

Rich

The way FFI was interpreted to my company was the fees kicked in as soon as the inspector issued the notice and any correspondence would be included plus the fees would continue until the notice had been withdrawn. Hope I am wrong

It seems a rather officious laying down of the law. In a majority of cases most HSE inspectors would state the fact the rail was at the wrong height and tell you to adjust without the issue of a notice. Having talked with many inspectors, a lot of them are not happy with the FFI system that has been foisted upon them. As a previous post has stated the poster seems to have a wrong impression on the PN/IN as once you have complied with the notice work may carry on. I find it useful to contact the inspector issuing the notice by telephone and informing them that it has been complied with and a letter will follow detailing the actions taken. One query I would raise in regards to the FFI is that it is very general in respect of regulations / legislation breached, i.e. HASAWA no mention of section etc etc

This will be interesting but theres an awful lot of money to be made by the Exchequer. Frankly we are in dark times no racist pun implied although a fine may already be in the post.

From the limited information available in the original posting I tend to agree with jde at #11 that the circumstances seem to suggest that the inspector was being unduly officious. However, just to play Devil's advocate, it's possible that the inspector and or his/her colleagues had previously encountered the scaffolding firm and found problems. If so, perhaps the inspector/s gave verbal advice on those occasions and received assurances that the problems would be rectified - but later found/heard that they were NOT rectified. Therefore, if the firm did have "previous" (history) regarding poor safety standards, it might well have been appropriate for the inspector to take enforcement action by serving a Prohibition Notice. It would also have been appropriate for the inspector to inform the firm about the various aspects of the Notice, including how to comply with it, the system for appealing against it and the consequences arising from non-compliance.

The inspector's contact with the firm at the time of serving the notice probably consisted of no more than a discussion with a foreman or chargehand. IF that person didn't understand and/or was over-awed by what the inspector said (perhaps frightened that his boss would blame him, rightly or wrongly, for the deficiency which prompted the notice), this might explain how misunderstandings could arise. Though some inspectors in the circumstances might have opted to phone the firm's owner or a more senior line manager to explain the ramifications of the Notice, there is probably no obligation on inspectors to do this.

As an aside it's worth mentioning a general aspect about Prohibition and Improvement Notices. Before serving any notice, an inspector ought to obtain evidence to support it. Though this might consist only of one or two photos and/or a brief statement taken from one or several employees, the obtaining of evidence also helps to demonstrate to the prospective recipient that the inspector means business and that the notice isn't a bureaucratic piece of paper which can be ignored. Though I don't know if obtaining such evidence is standard practice throughout HSE, it was certainly one which was drummed into inspectors in the HSE Area in which I worked for 10 years from 1977. Apparently the practice began after a company appealed against a notice and the inspector who had served it had no information to support his opinion regarding the subject of the notice. It would have been embarrassing for the inspector to revisit the company's premises to gather the necessary evidence, but less daunting than prospect of appearing before an industrial tribunal without it.

As for FFI, though it's difficult to argue against the principle behind it, the application of it raises various problems. Therefore, it's not surprising, as jde suggests, that "a lot of (HSE inspectors) are not happy with the FFI system that has been foisted upon them." One particular flaw of FFI in my opinion is that a fee for intervention can be based on the entire duration of a visit during which one or more material breaches of OS&H law are identified and not just on the time involved in taking enforcement action regarding the breach/es.

At #11 jde also asks why FFI is "very general in respect of regulations / legislation breached, i.e. HASAWA no mention of section etc etc." Surely it's impossible for HSE to specify which breaches of which legislation constitute material ones, especially those like the main sections of HASAWA 1974 which involve the important clause of reasonable practicability. Furthermore, just like reasonable practicability, the use of the non-specific/loose term "material breach" as one to which FFI can be applied is probably deliberate. This is because it seems to allow inspectors to apply differing actions to similar situations and also gives plenty of scope for argument between recipients of fee invoices and HSE about which breaches are material or not!

HSE RECOVER OVER £750,000 IN TWO MONTHS OF FFI
Safety regulator charging regime starts to bite in construction
The first Fee for Intervention (FFI) bills went out from HSE in week commencing 21 January 2013. The total sum invoiced for the two months from October to November was £727 644.81. This sum arose from 1418 FFI Invoices.
An earlier Freedom of Information request revealed that that 373 construction sites were visited under the scheme between October 1 and November 30 2012 and that construction made up more than a third of the 903 visits which could result in a “Notification of Contravention.”
The HSE Board has heard (30 Jan) that a “broad breakdown” of the invoices shows:
• 10% of invoices are for values greater than £1,000;
• 70% of the invoices are for less than £500;
• 30% less than £200.
The independent members of the disputes panel will be selected on 6 February and then invited to agree their terms and conditions so that the first panel can be in pace by the end of March if needed.

Firesafety101 - Your 2 points at #18 would be entirely correct if only we all lived in a perfect world. The snag is that people and the world are far from perfect.

At #14 Victor Meldrew indicated that the handrail involved was fitted by a "young lad", presumably a new inexperienced employee. Victor added that this person's error about the height of the handrail had rendered him very unpopular presumably with his workmates, supervisor and boss. If the employee was an apprentice with limited experience and knowledge, perhaps his supervisor and/or a more experienced employee should have been supervising him better and therefore deserved most of the blame. Another possibility is that the handrail might have been fitted only a very short time before the inspector saw it and, crucially, before a more experienced scaffolder had seen it and been able to get it refitted at an appropriate height.

A further point - we don't know the height and length of the handrail involved and its context as part of the scaffold, and what extra height was needed. Therefore, there's still some doubt as to whether the HSE inspector's decision to serve a Prohibition Notice was reasonable or, sadly, inspired mostly by the prospect of generating income through FFI and also accruing some internal 'brownie' points!

It would be no surprise to learn that HSE records about individual inspectors now include tallies about how much money they generate through FFI and for what types and numbers of actions concerning material breaches. If so, it's also foreseeable that inspectors who are considered not to be working sufficiently within the spirit and practice of FFI will be advised/warned to improve their performance. Another potentially worrying aspect is that FFI may well reduce the capacity of inspectors to be pragmatic and use well-honed judgement in their work, and thus result in HSE losing good experienced inspectors.

If it was fitted correctly then there would have been no problem. Shame it wasn't inspected. They may have prevented someone falling to their death. Funny old world.

In the case of Emma Shaw who was electrocuted a while back, if the system was installed and inspected correctly then a life would have been saved.

As for the lad moving on, I think its sad that he wasn't supervised or trained correctly

Business savvy eh'?!

It's very verye asy to say "do it right", but the reality is it's not always possible to get everything 100% right 100% of the time.

As OHS professionals would should accept / embrace this and use it as a building block to implement bsuiness-centric procedures and develop culture that expcets no-one is perfect but we will manage OHS as best as we can.

Your comments are neither useful or constructive.



Whilst I do not condone the "incorrect height" are you really sure that a difference of 12 cm would really make that difference? Think about how a fall could occurr, the barrier may well still have been "suitable". There is a big difference between this and the electrocution.

Statements suggesting a fall was imminent due to this "defect" are alarmist IMO.

I'm sometimes glad that I'm moving away from pure OHS and into Prohect Management!

Jake what is it with you? What I said in post #21 was...MAY HAVE not DID!

It may have saved a bump on the head....RA.. What is the most serious outcome of a fall? A hurt hand help out to save oneself or a shattered head? A lot of factors in play here.

On the other hand if there is a dwarf on-site then the rail may well have been the correct height

My point exactly Edwardh. Install correctly and test. Then no problem.

Shocked that it is so much in such a short space of time but strangely take some small comfort that 70% were for sums less than £500.

However, in this case I think issuing an IN for 12cm is harsh and a worrying sign of things to come.

Hey Chris there is a job waiting for you in the accounts department at HSE.

While your there ask then why the cover up on the Emma Shaw case. Lets see what they have to say about that little number. Hell, what's 120mm between us H&S bods anyway? I would love to put a smile on the end of this but seeing that there appears to be a feeling that we don't really need to put a great deal of emphasis on limits or what is right or wrong I'll not bother.

As ever all the talk wanders pointlessly around money and the need to give cients what the want to hear and if not we'll fudge it.

No point in standing off with a consultant is there.

nice one ed

I agree with the generality of what you say edwardh, but there has been nothing said that the lad was untrained ? just young, so at least limited experience.

He seems to have become a scapegoat for the incident. It is likely to have a long term effect on his employment. If he quit he will have a problem with Job centre, if sacked not good to have to tell future employers. Could even have knocked his confidence.

If the HSE inspector spotted a problem as you say why didn't the scaffold inspector.

The problem with 12 cm is what is the tolerance, where do you draw the line. It probably would never have been a problem, but who can tell. Next time 13 cm, next time......

Hi All

Just a thought
Part of one of my duties is to attend Health and Safety meetings with various contractors etc etc
One such meeting is held quarterly with our main client
as part of best practice we share information regarding whene and where HSE were last spotted on site
and where if known they are likely to be in the foreseable future
why dont forum members raise a similar inforamtion share systeme through this forum

Have a good weekend