Here's one about the HSE.

Small builder has removed asbestos roof tiles in a dangers manner - dropping off roof and chucking in the back of a small flat bed truck. I go round to see him and (as is his want) I recieve a load od verbal abuse.

I report to the HSE via their long winded procedure on their web site (as you can't actually speak to anyone in authority any more). Get an email bak saying they can't look in to it as they don't have a name of the builder. Why do we have an HSE. Dangerous occurance , dangerous site, small builder, no large cash reserves, HSE not interested. Big site, big construction company, ladder tag out of date, heafty fine, HSE happy.

Even when you provide photographs of the builders van (c/w contact details) and the sign they place on the road advertising their work - in this case an open excavation immediately adjacent to a public footpath on a main road, no barriers or shuttering to prevent public falling down the hole and left open for three days - still no interest and that included the Local Authority.

HSE explains its procedure for dealing with Complaints on its website.

In effect it says that it is very unlikely to investigate anything from a third party.

Twas not always the case - one of the outputs from sharp cuts at the front line.

Haven't we all been there done that got the tee shirts.

I've had better luck when speaking to the fire safety officers about what I believe to be dangerour fire risks.  They usually go round right away and get back to me with what they have seen and done.

One occasion I was trying on shoes in a shop in Birkenhead precinct, they have patrolling security people.  I noticed lots of cardboard boxes stacked up against the fire exit.  Told the girl in the shop who said someone will be getting rid of it soon.

I phoned the fire service, within one hour I had a call back to say he had been round and given the shop workers a real good bollocking and the cardboard was removed while he watched.

HSE construction inspectors spend far more time on small (generally unnotified) sites than on larger major contractor sites when they actually get the opportunity to undertake proactive/concerns work.

The current concerns system relies on identification of duty holders as generally the concern will be dealt with by the concerns team initially which is a centrally based in Bootle. If evidence, like photographs and a positive identification of the duty holder is provided it can triaged to the principal inspector (PI) for the area to farm out to a member of their team. If the PI agrees that it is high priority it will be assigned.

Inspector time is a fairly valuble resource currently, and HSE tends not to send inspectors on concerns attendance where there is a high chance that the duty holder is unknown, a lot of the time the duty holder will not be present and the visit does turn out to be a waste of inspector time, at least with a duty holder identification the concern can be followed up in an "off site" manner.

If the concern is serious and is triaged as high risk, then the PI for the team will allocate it and it will be visited when the particular inspector has capacity.

I'm speculating here, but the original poster's overview may have indicated that the roof tiles are asbestos containing materials likely bound in a matrix and are thus a lot lower risk that asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for example and during the triage process the concern will have been downgraded, this combined with potentially no positive identification of the duty holder may have led to concerns team/local PI deciding a visit was not warranted in this instance.

Originally Posted by: Caboche33383

I'm speculating here, but the original poster's overview may have indicated that the roof tiles are asbestos containing materials likely bound in a matrix and are thus a lot lower risk that asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for example and during the triage process the concern will have been downgraded, this combined with potentially no positive identification of the duty holder may have led to concerns team/local PI deciding a visit was not warranted in this instance.

Promptly dumped in the nearest farm lane to save paying for legal disposal - still that is now the problem of the land owner / Local Authority. If the contractor cut obvious corners (throwing from roof to ground) then it is highly unlikely any subsequent activity would be compliant and it would greatly benefit society if our agentcies could be bothered to work in partnership - Just a thought for any HSE staff viewing.

Roundtuit - fully agree that asbestos materials being thrown into a skip tells you that they are likely to end up flytipped, but that's not within HSE's remit implying a need for a much more joined up approach by enforcing authorities.

Steve - agree that the quality of front line HSE Inspectors can vary signficantly and my own view is that the average has deteriorated partly as a result of continued cuts in HSE's budget. 

5 years now since i left my role as a LA inspector (which is what i did for over 30 years) so things may have changed. Worked alongside some amazing HSE inspectors - but also some very poor ones, was even duel warrented for that test peruiod they ran. One thing the HSE always isnsited on was that inspectors were not set a tarfet for FFI. But they did admit they were under scrutany frpom the minsiter as they were "expected to tagrget poor performers" so if visits did not result in FFI why were they there? For me consecutive governments have severly damaged the HSE and LAs ability to work with employers over the years following the Reclaiming health and safety for all, Löfstedt report back in 2011. Not that i think the report itself was bad just tehway it has been used.