Yes, possibly with a photo

If you were bothering I would recommend pictures of the operatives on the roof and the works van or similar because you can guarantee they will be long gone before an inspector appears.

Took five days for someone to come back when we reported works on an adjacent factory roof

firesafety, possibly, possibly not depending on a number of factors.

First the nature of the work might be such as to make "fall protection\" which means different things to different people not reasonably practicable.

Then there is the issue of how long the work is likely to take and whether it is realistic to expect a rapid HSE response given the stretched resources and an HSE poliey on complaints which means that follow up to a third party complaint much less likely than it once was.

However, noting what has already been said the online complaints system does include a feature to upload photos and if you can get the name of the or one of the Contractors from a van it does make HSE's life that bit easier.

To put the stretch on HSE resources into some sort of perspective, some years back I made a complaint a few years ago about two men on the sloping roof of a five storey building across the road from Glasgow Central station and just 200m from HSE's office. So, not only could either or both have fallen but they could have landed on a member of the public, or for that matter on a bus. Didn't even get an acknowledgement of the complaint from HSE.

Going back to the top of this response. I have investigated 10 fatal accidents involving roofwork or access to such work. In one of them I concluded that the nature and duration of the work was such that "fall protection" was NOT reasonably practicable.

Hi Damian

Quite possibly, YES.

The assesement of what is "reasonably practicable" is to be made in advance of work happening (though it might be necessary to change any decision in the light of what is actually found on site - so a dynamic risk assessment or whatever you wish to call it) NOT with the benefit of hindsight.

So, without an understanding of the actual circumstances where your friend has been injured it is impossible to comment on what would have been "reasonably practicable".

Those two words tell us that the law does NOT expect work to be risk free.

People can and do fall over "on the level" and sustain injuries comparable to those you have described, sometimes fatally. But we don't USUALLY require guard-rails and toe-boards to stop someone falling on the level.

...and for roofwork, what is reasonably practicable will depend on multiple variables INCLUDING the risks associated with whatever mitigations might be under consideration as protection from falls.

As example, the classic solution for edge protection is to erect scaffolding on one or more elevations. That puts scaffolders at risk when they are erecting and dismantling AND other risks that might not be as immediately obvious - e.g. the off site risks of getting a flat bed truck to and from site.

Another solution would be permanent protection - but that comes with its own problems. Increased need for access simply to inspect and maintain. I know of three sets of railings to protect against falls into basement wells from the footpaths that have failed within 200m of where I live, at least two with resultant injuries. Circa 1880 cast iron railings that had not been kept in good repair.

There is one regular speaker who talks about his accident when similar railings on a hotel failed, with the difference being that those railings were much higher up.