You don't need to have a visit to receive a charge. I know of a RIDDOR report being submitted, which was followed by a phone call from the HSE asking for a copy of the incident investigation report. (Any statutory requirement to provide any incident investigation to them?) Copy of investigation sent. Two weeks later, letter from HSE Inspector stating "in my opinion circumstances of this incident indicate that you were in breach of XXX XXX XXX" "I am notifying you that the above contraventions are, in my opinion, material breaches for which a fee is payable by you to HSE under FFI". Invoice will be in the post! Watch out what information you offer in future. Rodger Ker

Rodger, Your story does not ring true. This is wha the HSE say in HSE48: HSE’s inspectors inspect work activities and investigate incidents and complaints. If, when visiting your business, they see material breaches of the law, you will have to pay a fee.

Yes I know of two large manufacturers that had planned visits and no fees. Not sure if what I heard was true but I heard that unless they tell you at the start of the visit there could be FFI they can't apply if at the end if they found material breaches during their inspection.

Redken in #4 suggest that my comment "does not ring true". I can assure him that it is 100% accurate and true (obviously I cannot disclose the full information involving the incident, walls have ears!). One can only presume that the "investigation" involved reading the supplied incident investigation report. Other than the phone call requesting a copy of the investigation report, no contact was made by the HSE with the firm concerned. No visit was made to the site and no other information was requested. Rodger Ker

Echo rodgerker statement "You don't need to have a visit to receive a charge." I supported a company on Wednesday during his interview under PACE & the HSE Inspector stated that other businesses would be receiving an invoice under FFI even though he hadn't visited them. Similarly, other's that had been interviewed albeit informally & visited, would not be receiving charges under FFI.

Both #5 and #11, as does my earlier post, make reference to the FFI coming from a RIDDOR report. I have heard of this also from other sources. Is this going to be the simplest way to implement a "parking fine" FFI? If we, as safety professionals, are foolish enough to meet our legal obligations and report a RIDDOR with the implication that will led to a charge, can anyone in their right mind (at the HSE) be surprised that the already under reporting of incidents does not fall dramatically? Rodger Ker

I am not, and would not suggest, that a RIDDOR should not be reported. However as the reporting level is about 30% of what should be (and accepted by HSE) chances of being caught are probably remote. I don't know many people who would come out of the pub and drive to the police station and ask to be breathalised! Rodger Ker

It seems that the definition of "material breach" under FFI is open to considerable interpretation and perhaps even abuse by HSE inspectors. CarlT provides a good example of this at #9 regarding an opinion held by one inspector about lack of signage to indicate that ceiling panels contained asbestos. As I'm not aware that legislation about asbestos requires ACMs (asbestos containing materials) to be visibly labelled, I think the inspector's opinion and the ensuing invoice under FFI were flawed. Though it's good to know that the company made a successful challenge, it's worrying to think that the inspector involved, and possibly others, may have expressed similar opinions to other employers about ceiling panels, and that those employers simply paid up after receiving the FFI invoices. It's likely that many employers are reluctant to challenge HSE about FFI invoices for situations which arguably do not involve "material breaches". Some employers (especially small and medium sized companies without professional OS&H support) might assume that the inspectors are correct in whatever they say and do. Also some employers may not have the confidence to try and challenge HSE. Some may even fear retribution if their challenges are successful. i.e. perceive that some inspectors (human like everyone else), resentful at having their opinions overturned, might strive during future visits to find other situations which comprise clear material breaches and lead to yet more FFI invoices. In other words, such employers may think it prudent to pay up, albeit reluctantly, and hope to keep a low profile as regards further attention from HSE. As mentioned before on this forum, I think FFI is fine in principle but its application in practice is flawed for various reasons. The reasons for this include the fact that it only applies to employers and activities which come within HSE's remit. Also the definition of 'material breach' is open to wide interpretation by different inspectors. In addition I guess that inspectors are under pressure to ensure that they generate 'sufficient' revenue through FFI. In turn this approach is likely to adversely affect how some or many employers tend to perceive HSE and interact with its inspectors.

Shineon55, as per the post at #9, there was a management system in place and it was deemed by ourselves to be acceptable but the inspector on the day had difficulty with the concept that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Fortunately the inspectors' boss was able to see that the controls were in fact more than adequate and so overruled the inspectors' decision. The whole point is, if there is a material breach then fair enough but if it all comes down to a lack of understanding on the inspectors' behalf (no one is 100% right on everything) then it should be contested. That way you are not paying undue fines and the inspector is able to learn of their error.