Rank: Forum user 
|
we are a construction company that takes health safety and environmental issues seriously and invest a lot of time and money in doing so. as with most construction companys we have sufferd in this ressesion. to add to this we are being under cut by various companys who do not give health and safety any respect at all. one contractor, who is a regular "under cutter" has had six prohabition noticed placed on various sites for the same issues ( working at height, inadequate welfare facilitys), within a period of less than a year. how may prohabition notices are required before HSE prosecute? I beleve that the HSE should come down hard on such contractors, this in itself would be reward for companys that put a lot of time and effort in to ensuring compliance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't think there is a rule on how many strikes and out?
As far as I know the HSE issue PNs and INs in an effort to improve the safety at the workplace. If the employer acts in accordance with requirements the HSE are usually satisfied.
I do agree however that there should be a system, perhaps yellow card then red card for a repeat of the same offence.
I know of contractors that deliberately disregard regulations because the tendering situation is so tight at present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Responsible Clients will scrutinise the INs and PNs on the HSE's public register when considering bids and prequalification processes. All else being equal, choice is unlikely to favour the contractor with several outstanding Notices.
I suggest you emphasise your own safety record in your tender applications.
I would say though that there has to be a recognition here of "there but for the grace of God....". We all get it wrong sometimes, and that 'sometimes' might just coincide with a HSE visit. Or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Unfortunately the bad guys often let the rest down and moreover, they seem to get away with just a 'slap on the wrist' when caught. I do believe that the regulators need to prosecute more than they currently do. Normally companies only get prosecuted following a serious accident or fatality. Yet, health and safety is all about being proactive - not reactive. I am not sure how the regulators measure non-compliance but presumaly there is a benchmark system.
There is currently an imbalance between those who apply good health and safety practices and the cost incurred. Even when prosecuted and convicted some of the fines handed out by the court are so paltry it beggars belief. This sends out the wrong message and anecdotal evidence suggests that non-compliance, particularly by SMEs, is ubiquitos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Similar to other areas of criminal law then:
Caught driving with no license / insurance = £80 fine & 6 points on license (non existent)!
Cost of passing driving test and first years insurance = £1,500 - £2,000 (approximate figures).
Doesn't make much sense to me. If the punishment is flimsy (as it often is), where is the deterrant?
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The HSE do prosecute for more than just fatalities and serious injury (I did), however, public expectation is that a prosecution occurs after such events. For the record inspectors are just as miffed with low level fines as everyone else.
The decision to prosecute or not is down to the individual inspector and their principal inspector. Each case on it's own merits. If the HSE prosecuted everyone for breaching the law (or in the case of PN's not a breach in law but risk of imminent danger) then they would never get out of the court. It's a balancing act.
Personally I would have at least looked at prosecuting a company that repeatedly is issued with PN's or IN's. However, maybe the case in question has been scrutinised for prosecution but the case is not strong enough (if it ain't a strong case they won't take it as losing a case in court goes down very badly with HSE managament). No one can comment on an individual case as we don't know the full facts.
However, I would agree there is a lot of inconsistency with enforcement, which (IMO) rightly causes frustration amongst businesses.
Personally I think the trouble arises because the HSE have 2 roles: to enforce and to advise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
i fully understand the position of the hse inspectors and the huge task they have, but surely there must be some thing a miss here as the company in question does not even have a written health and safety policy in place, dispite employing a conciderable ammount of operatives, these operatives largly being imegrant workers.he does not have any doccumented safe systems of work, no qualifed our compadent site managment staff, ect. having had the number of Pn's and In's he has and clearly operateing with total disregard of the law the hse should come down hard on such contractors for their continued ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As others have said above it is down to the Client to find out the rogue contractor by way of several tests. If the client is half decent then they should have searching health and safety questions set at PQQ stage. This should weed out poorer responses to the questions. Although of course the rogue contractor can appoint a health and safety consulatant to help them respond to the questions though !
Clients have several choices - they can appoint the cheapest contractor who may have several accidents at any one of their sites( from lack of health and safety resource ) resulting in damaged reputation for all parties or appoint a reasonably priced contractor who has the necessary health and safety management system in place and staff and be safe in the knowledge that they have made the right choice.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hall
Quite possible that your rogue contractor does not employ 5 people rather taking on subbies and the self-employed, hence not been required to have a health and safety policy.
You are of course entitled to a level playing field, so if you are being undercut by the rogue, I suggest you complain to HSE, who otherwise are unlikely to come across the rogue's sites.
As regards multiple notices, these may be getting issued by multiple inspectors who may not always see the global picture.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
peter,
This particular developer employes at least twenty staff directly and various sub contract companies,i have raised my concerns with the hse and hope that it is the case that he is on their radar , so to speak.as you quite rightly pointed out, a level playing field is all we ask for. my company alone has had to lay at least 10 highly skilled operatives ,of whom we invested time and money in training them.i should think that plenty of other companys are in the same position and would like to see justice .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hall,
If you directly contact me via the contact facilities, I will identify a case (on the HSE Prosecution Database) where they eventually got fed up after issuing five work at height prohibition notices.
The defendant fines totalled £21,000 with £10,156 cost awarded against them.
When the HSE did there last swoop in my area, the majority of sites they visited were issued with Prohibition Notices!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sadly just because the HSE can do and have done in the past it doesn't mean they will do on this occasion.
I guess that is part of the frustration of it all. A lack of consistencey between inspectors and regions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SP900308 wrote:Similar to other areas of criminal law then:
Caught driving with no license / insurance = £80 fine & 6 points on license (non existent)!
Cost of passing driving test and first years insurance = £1,500 - £2,000 (approximate figures).
Doesn't make much sense to me. If the punishment is flimsy (as it often is), where is the deterrant?
Simon
Not sure you have got this quite right Simon. Fines are based on income and even someone on benefits would be looking at a minimum of £100.00 with a guilty plea. As far as fines in general are concerned, it is not necessarily down to the Court as they have to follow sentencing guidelines that require taking the defendants income into account. Fines in respect of health and safety breaches look at the company turnover and profits. Your point is well made though, and I guess there are many out there who are taking the risk, both on the road and in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Unfortunately, until cliens actually regard Health & Safety as a critical element of the construction process we will continue to have "rogue" firms gaining contracts on a low price tender. Consider the majority of PQQ and tender documents and how Health & Safety is marked against price & quality! Generally H& gets a mere 10% of the marks. Price 50%. The old saying of "pay peanuts get monkeys" come to mind.The HSE are under resourced and are a bit like the police force, they depend on those within the industry to act responsibly and follow the guidelines. No matter how good a company is at H&S, at a certain time, usually when the HSE visit, someone has got it wrong somewhere.I think the HSE should perhaps rethink their modus operandi in respect of companies who are regularly being repeat PN's/IN's and look to prosecute the Directors etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.