Posted By Carl West
The regs ???

Posted By Carl West
Yeah

sometimes its difficult with international clients, especially as the law over here is much more enforced than in other places

Hope you get on well with it

Carl

Posted By colin james clark
Hi Ritchie,
Ok its time to put the cat amongst the pigeons, the country is England!as usual the health and safety to blame!as you hinted i should be a salesman.

Posted By Homer
A viist from the friendly HSE would do it, seriously it would!!!

Posted By Phil Grace
Lifted from the Architectural Technologies website...

HSE Warns Firms that they will Prosecute for Poor Construction Site Management - 16/04/2007 Visit website >>

Release type: News


The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has today warned companies that they risk enforcement action if they continue to pursue poor management systems. The warning follows the prosecution of two companies at Nottingham Crown Court. Bau GmBH, of Angelburg in Germany and Re-Construction UK Ltd of Quebec Quay in Liverpool were both sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court following poor management during the construction of the Lidl store on Mansfield Road in Nottingham during November 2005.



Bau GmBH were fined £100,000 and costs of £6,188. Re-Construction UK Ltd were fined £50,000 and costs of £6,188



HSE Inspectors visited the Lidl site on 11 November 2005 and on three further occasions following nine complaints from members of the public. Investigations revealed the site was not being effectively managed. Three prohibition notices were served to stop the most hazardous activities from being carried out including dangerous working at height and vehicle and pedestrian segregation, safety of excavations, failure to wear the correct PPE, movement of loads around the site and fire safety. As well as the obvious risks to the safety of those on site, there were also potential risks to members of the public.



HSE Inspector Martin Giles said: "Our inspections revealed a number of areas that were highly dangerous. The site was not being effectively managed and the contractors had highly cavalier attitudes which showed a reckless disregard of health and safety procedures and requirements. Workers were being left to do work without adequate supervision, untrained workers were having to make important decisions and there was no proper coordination to ensure that they would be working together safely. The contractors should have ensured scaffolding was safe and ensured suitable edge protection - this had been removed in some areas whilst there was still roof work taking place. Scaffolding was also set up in an excavation and there was a risk it might collapse with a worker underneath it. There were also areas that were not adequately protected to prevent anyone falling in. They should have ensured workers were wearing head protection while on the site, ensured all emergency exits were clear and ensured safe use of ladders."



"What makes this site so unusual and so dangerously unsafe is the sheer number of the hazards - all of which would have been simple to resolve. Contractors are expected to organise health and safety effectively and take appropriate measures. Where standards are poor, HSE will prosecute those responsible, even if there has been no injury, as in this case." Appearing in court, Bau GmbH were sentenced for contravening Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The total fine was £100,000.



Reconstruction UK Ltd were sentenced for contravening Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The total fine was £50,000.



The costs for both firms were £12,376



In the two years from July 2003 to November 2005 the two companies were served with seven prohibition notices between them covering working at height, vehicle/pedestrian segregation, electrical matters and excavations.