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
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:07:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://press.hse.gov.uk/...evere-forklift-injuries/

Director gets a 6 month suspended sentence and a meagre £750 costs - the firm gets a £2 fine!

Seriously?
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:07:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://press.hse.gov.uk/...evere-forklift-injuries/

Director gets a 6 month suspended sentence and a meagre £750 costs - the firm gets a £2 fine!

Seriously?
PeterP  
#3 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:12:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PeterP

I know, at first I thought the £2 was a miss print. Ridiculous!
Invictus  
#4 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:28:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

quote=PeterP]I know, at first I thought the £2 was a miss print. Ridiculous!



Well that will definitely serve as a warning to other companies! I can hear their knees knocking from here!
TDS1984  
#5 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:34:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TDS1984

It does state that the fine was decided upon having looked at the company finances. I took this to mean that the company is not financially buoyant. If they only had 2 quid then the fine is the nail in the coffin.
Invictus  
#6 Posted : 22 February 2016 09:40:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

TDS1984 wrote:
It does state that the fine was decided upon having looked at the company finances. I took this to mean that the company is not financially buoyant. If they only had 2 quid then the fine is the nail in the coffin.



Then maybe the person using the FLT to lift him should have recieved a bigger fine under section7, this also appeared to be the owner. This fine cannot bne paid through the company. I know often the FLT driver is put in a position by the manager to act in suich away.
biker1  
#7 Posted : 22 February 2016 10:40:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Not an industry generally considered to be at the forefront of good health and safety practice, unfortunately.

Such a nominal fine is usually imposed if the company is effectively bankrupt, as there would be little point in imposing a higher fine, but it doesn't state if this is the case in the report.

There have been cases of fines being imposed that effectively put the company out of business, on the basis that they are so bad they shouldn't be in business anyway. That this hasn't been done in this case suggests that perhaps they aren't that bad, although the lack of response to advice to report under RIDDOR does raise suspicions that this incident may be the tip of the iceberg.
RayRapp  
#8 Posted : 22 February 2016 11:02:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I would not mind a betting the company did not have proper h&s management system with suitable and sufficient RAs, etc. I am amazed at the amount of organisations, some quite large, that still are nowhere near compliant with general h&s legislation. The problem in part is so few enforcement agency visits, when they are visited and non-compliance identified all they get is a slap on the wrist.
David Bannister  
#9 Posted : 22 February 2016 11:27:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

I take the view that this is a good outcome.

The company director was personally prosecuted, found guilty and received a 6 month prison sentence, albeit suspended.

The company itself probably has no resources to pay the fine so imposing anything significant would be futile.

This case appears to have been sentenced after the new court sentencing guidelines came in to effect so the full circumstances of the offence, its outcome and the guilty party will have been taken in to account, along with any other relevant factors such as co-operation, early guilty plea etc.

If the injury to the unfortunate individual had been as a result of a fight it is unlikely that the guilty party would have received such a stiff sentence.
Ron Hunter  
#10 Posted : 22 February 2016 14:14:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Disgusted. Look at the Emergency Services resources expended - who pays for that then?

Suspended sentence should have been placed against the payment of a substantial fine.
simon73  
#11 Posted : 22 February 2016 14:31:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
simon73

So a waste metal company is cash poor??
I cynically wonder if the company swiftly closes and then reopens under a slightly different name in the near future...
David68  
#12 Posted : 23 February 2016 09:49:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David68

I agree Simon. This chap has a range of interests from scrap metal to daycare!

It feels like he has played the system and will continue to have little or no interest in ensuring the H&S of his employees.

chris42  
#13 Posted : 23 February 2016 12:16:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Agree with you all, but what should happen to him ?

A larger fine will just not be paid, as I guess the fine he did get was based on his income /assets. He flouted the law, broke someone's arm, so should he be in prison ?

Then every time someone gets a work related broken arm, then someone in the organisation should go to prison.

Perhaps there is no appropriate deterrent.

Chris
chris42  
#14 Posted : 23 February 2016 12:22:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Ok just checked it was a bit more than a broken arm, but you get my point.

HaHa just had you can't post in the next zero seconds.
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.