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
JOL3003  
#1 Posted : 17 July 2014 12:14:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JOL3003

HI All,

I'm looking for some examples that have led to fines and prosecutions where organisations have had risk assessments in place, not used them, which has resulted in an injury/death.

Can anyone help?

James
Ron Hunter  
#2 Posted : 17 July 2014 12:27:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Try search for Tullis Russell paper mill in Fife.
JohnW  
#3 Posted : 17 July 2014 17:22:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

JOL, this may be a good example

http://www.mb-hs.com/blo...-act-on-risk-assessment/

In conclusion it says "HSE inspector rightly commented, “this case shows that risk assessments are not just about producing pieces of paper. Employers have a duty to act on their findings”.

(I couldn't find this in the HSE press release webpages)
PIKEMAN  
#4 Posted : 18 July 2014 08:11:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PIKEMAN

Isn't this the norm? Keep RAs in a file as a lucky charm against being prosecuted /sued? Cripes you will saying next that they have to be realistic and reflect actual practice!
martinw  
#5 Posted : 18 July 2014 08:18:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

And from a fire point of view:

05 March 2010
A company that owned a Bayswater hotel has been ordered to pay over £21,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation following a prosecution brought by the London Fire Brigade.
Malfax Investments Limited admitted six offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Sentencing occurred on Wednesday 3 March 2010 at Westminster Magistrates Court.
The Averard Hotel on Lancaster Gate, W2 3LH was inspected by fire officers on 8 April 2009. The officers found a number of fire safety failings including inadequate fire detection and alarm system, problems with the external means of escape and inadequate and defective fire doors. As a result of these deficiencies the officers issued an enforcement notice on 17 April detailing the issues and when they needed to be completed by.
The company disclosed a fire risk assessment that was prepared in January 2008. It detailed a number of failings and advised steps they needed to take to address them. Malfax Investments Limited failed to act on the findings and implement any of the actions required to ensure peoples safety in the event of a fire occurring.
The hotel closed shortly after the enforcement noticed was issued.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order places a duty on the 'responsible person' for the premises (the person who controls the premises e.g. a owner /landlord/employer) to carry out a fire risk assessment, take appropriate measures to minimise the risk of fire and implement general fire precautions to protect people in the premises if a fire occurs. The assessment and the fire precautions must be kept under review by the ‘responsible person’.
London Fire Brigade’s Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation, Steve Turek, said: “The general public should feel safe from fire when they are staying at a hotel and the responsible person must make sure their premises comply with the regulations. All premises owners and operators must undertake a fire safety risk assessment. Although this was completed in this case, it is no use if the responsible person does not act on its findings.”

Have a good weekend
chris42  
#6 Posted : 18 July 2014 09:09:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I tried to look up the press release for the company in #3 , but only found the Enforcement area of the HSE web site. Interestingly they hadn't learned by their mistakes. More interesting if you compare the previous issue (injury) and fine to the later issue and fine.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/no...t_details.asp?SV=1253892

Then again on last nights news someone had died and the fine £200k.

Chris
Canopener  
#7 Posted : 18 July 2014 09:25:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I would suggest that the number of examples where the content/findings of a risk assessment are not followed are probably countless although most will not subsequently result in prosecutions. I am sure that the majority of us have come across a situation where a risk assessment is requested (sometimes demanded) merely for the sake of the piece of paper rather than actually taking the time to understand what the assessment has found or what it is saying needs to be done to manage the risk. i.e. many clearly think that the mere existence of the risk assessment will in itself manage the risk.

Although not specifically to do with risk assessment the following quote helps illustrate the situation you, and I would suspect many of us find ourselves in.

“There was a written policy on health and safety, which as a matter of drafting was a thing of… some beauty. If it had existed beyond its existence on paper, it would have very substantially mitigated the
blameworthiness of those representing the Borough”

Mr Justice Burnton (2006)
JohnW  
#8 Posted : 18 July 2014 16:57:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

In this example risk assessments existed and had not been reviewed for a number of years.

http://www.wolflaw.co.uk...dequate-risk-assessment/
JOL3003  
#9 Posted : 23 July 2014 13:07:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
JOL3003

Thanks everyone
Steve e ashton  
#10 Posted : 23 July 2014 14:32:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

York city college nursery... Death of a toddler ...
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.