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
list of safety breaches, appalling construction site
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
JohnW  
#1 Posted : 05 August 2015 11:12:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW
Just want to make some comments about a recent prosecution on the HSE press release site. I have been on sites with similar problems so this is of great interest to me.

http://press.hse.gov.uk/...nsafe-working-practices/

A long list of safety breaches, an appalling construction site, only brought to the attention of HSE by a member of the public.

An international construction company (who do not appear to have a functional website)

I'm trying to understand the conviction. Despite the long list of safety breaches, and that HSE inspectors served six Prohibition Notices and two Improvement Notices, the press release states the company was prosecuted for only two offences, for breaching Section 2(1) and 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - and was fined £40,000 (£20,000 per offence).

OK it's a big fine which is good. Breaching HaSaWA, OK. But would it not be useful to persons reading this press release to know what regulations were ignored by this company, in particular CDM, WAH, PUWER and the Workplace/Welfare regs? Would these regulations have been part of the discussions in court?
Back to top
JohnW  
#2 Posted : 05 August 2015 11:14:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW
And to add, it is very interesting to see such large fines in this case where there had not been an accident! A good case study to share with construction clients!
Back to top
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 05 August 2015 13:35:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
John

I suspect the HSE aggregated the offences to make a s2 and s3 prosecution. Each offence in itself hardly warrants a prosecution by HSE standards.

The site and management arrangements sound like a shower of .... So what about the client? Nothing mentioned as usual - until clients feel the full force of the law these situations will continue. Makes the CDM regs seem a bit pathetic post 2015 revision or not.
Back to top
Jimothy999  
#4 Posted : 05 August 2015 13:44:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jimothy999
By necessity the press release needs to contain factual information and the prosecution was under HASAWA rather than subservient regulations. Only the court could decide whether they had breached the regs you mention and they were not asked to make that judgement. It's pretty common for the HSE to stick to prosecuting under HASAWA as it is easier to do so successfully given its wording and previous case law I presume.

Always sad to see these sorts of things coming up. It's a strong reminder that not everyone thinks of the safety of their people as a high priority or is prepared to spend time and money on it. Agree with you that it is good to have cases showing that the lack of safety controls illegal, not an actual accident. Goes right to the heart of what we try to achieve.
Back to top
aud  
#5 Posted : 05 August 2015 14:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud
Good example, as said.
However, I was told by an HSE inspector back when the 'six-pack' of regulations arrived that the only actual difference these made, was that it was easier for them to prosecute under specific regulation than the all-encompassing HSWA, as the legal effort required is less.
One assumes that in this case there were so many breaches of a range of regulations that the reverse applied, and those breaches collectively became the evidence to demonstrate s2 & s3 failures.
Back to top
JohnW  
#6 Posted : 05 August 2015 16:04:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW
Good discussion, thanks all,

Good point made by Ray about absence (in the report) of any enforcement/prosecution against the client.

CDM2015 says something like:

Quote:

Client duties in relation to managing projects:

A client must make suitable arrangements for managing a project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources.

These arrangements are suitable if they ensure that the construction work can be carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks to the health or safety of any person affected by the project; and

A client must ensure that these arrangements are maintained and reviewed throughout the project.


!!
Back to top
SNS  
#7 Posted : 05 August 2015 22:27:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SNS
The breaches are listed on the notices served http://www.hse.gov.uk/no...p;SF=NN&SV=305752321

The client had an Improvement Notice served http://www.hse.gov.uk/no...p?SF=CN&SV=305752321
Back to top
RayRapp  
#8 Posted : 06 August 2015 08:57:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
Thanks SNS. I see the client got an Improvement Notice for a lack of welfare facilities - seems a bit of a cop out to me. The mantra from the HSE is that clients are head of the supply chain and therefore responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the project. They also select the PC and should ensure they competent for the role.
Back to top
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET