1103BRN.pdf (831.31 kb)

Calsonic Kanei UK Limited fined £400,000 after death

Defendant	Calsonic Kanei UK Limited		Reported	18 March 2011
Offence	S2 & 3 HSWA		Court	Swansea Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£400,000	Costs	£44,790.14

 Llanelli-based automotive manufacturer Calsonic Kansei UK Limited,  has been fined £400,000 after an employee died on the day he was to take voluntary redundancy.

 

Darren Small

Father-of-two, Darren Small, 35, from Loughor was struck by a forklift truck on 17 March 2008.

The HSE investigation found Mr Small had gone onto the factory floor to issue instruction to a forklift truck operator. As Mr Small finished speaking the forklift truck reversed into him, knocking him to the ground. He sustained fatal head injuries, and died in Morriston Hospital three days later.

Calsonic Kansei UK Limited, pleaded guilty to a charges under both Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) HSWA and ordered to pay £44,790.14 costs.

HSE inspector Stephen Jones said:

"It's fairly routine for forklift trucks to operate within the same area as pedestrians in this industry. However, working procedures and systems need to be in place to prevent vehicles colliding with people.  This tragic incident could have been avoided had all contractors and employees been aware of the risks, and had the safety procedures been taken to avoid such risks."

 

Firms fined after worker crushed to death by concrete

Defendant  (1)	Micor Ltd				Hearing	11 March 2011
Offence	S2 & 3 HSWA				Court	Basildon Crown Court
Penalty	Fine		£100,000		Costs	£20,000
Defendant (2)	Crane and Transport Services Limited
Offence	Reg8(1) LOLER
Penalty	Fine	£30,000		Costs			£10,000

Two companies have been fined a total of £130,000 after an Aylesbury worker was killed by a 31-tonne concrete beam on a building site in Thurrock.

The HSE prosecuted Micor Ltd of Stock Road, West Hanningfield, Chelmsford, and Crane and Transport Services Ltd of Hartley, Kent - after the incident on 6 April 2006.

The court heard that Gary Drinkald, 43, was working for Micor Ltd during the overnight demolition work of the A1306 Stifford Rail Bridge, West Thurrock, Essex. A 31-tonne concrete beam had been removed from the bridge and placed on the back of a low loader lorry. The chains securing the beam were removed from the crane before it was secured to the low loader. The beam then fell - crushing Mr Drinkald under it.

Micor Ltd was the main demolition contractor, and pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) HSWA.  Crane and Transport Services Ltd, was subcontracted to provide staff to supervise the lifting procedure and pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Nicola Surrey said:

"A family, including four children have had their lives devastated by this tragic incident. With adequate planning and supervision of how the concrete beam should have been secured on the low loader lorry, this outcome could have been avoided. This case is a warning to other employers that there are serious consequences for not protecting their workforce."

Ed-

Reg 8(1) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

(1) Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is -

(a) properly planned by a competent person;

(b) appropriately supervised; and

(c) carried out in a safe manner.

Ainscough Crane Hire Ltd, which was subcontracted to supply and manage the lifting operation and associated plant and materials was acquitted of all charges at a hearing at Basildon Crown Court in January 2011.

 

Dutch firm fined following amputation

Defendant	Coolrec UK Ltd		Hearing	9 March 2011
Offence	S6(1)(a) HSWA		Court	Basildon Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£60,000	Costs	£22,000

Daniel Ali, 35, was working as a process operator at Coolrec UK Ltd, Basildon, on 4 April 2008 when his arm got caught in a conveyer belt. Doctors later had to amputate it.

The HSE prosecuted the parent company Coolrec Group BV, of Eindhoven in the Netherlands.

Coolrec Group BV was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £22,000 costs at Basildon Magistrates' Court after it admitted breaching Section 6(1)(a) HSWA.

The court heard that Mr Ali, of Laindon, was picking plastic off a recycling line which handled old computer monitors and television sets. A pulverising machine smashed the screens into smaller parts before operators removed materials from the conveyor.

Mr Ali had bent down to clear some wire from the ground when his glove became caught in an unguarded conveyor running underneath the one he was working on. He was trapped for approximately 45 minutes until emergency services freed him, but doctors could not save his arm and it was amputated between the elbow and shoulder.

HSE Inspector Vicky Fletcher said:

"This incident was completely avoidable and has left a man in the prime of his life without his right arm. Coolrec Group BV could and should have ensured the conveyor belts on the recycling line were properly guarded in order to prevent incidents as this."

Ed-  Section 6(1)(a) HSWA states: "It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work... to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work.

I'm not sure whether the report of this case is entirely accurate.  The maximum penalty in the Magistrates Court for a s6HSWA prosecution is £50,000.  So were there other charges or was this case heard in Basildon Crown Court?

 

Aerospace firms sentenced over worker's death

Defendant  (1)	Brookhouse Composites Ltd				Hearing	25 March 2011
Offence	S2 & 3 HSWA				Court	Preston Crown Court
Penalty	Fine		£50,000		Costs	£35,000
Defendant (2)	Brookhouse Tooling Ltd
Offence	S2 HSWA
Penalty	Fine	£25,000		Costs			£35,000

Two aerospace firms have been fined a total of £75,000 after a worker was crushed to death.

Allan Sanderson and Gerald Powderley were helping to push a trolley carrying more than two tonnes of steel when it collapsed on them. Both workers were seriously injured and Mr Sanderson, a father of two and grandfather of one, later died in hospital.

The HSE prosecuted Brookhouse Composites Ltd and Brookhouse Tooling Ltd following an investigation into the cause of the incident at Holme Mill,  Darwen on 17 December 2008.

 

The trolley and steel which crushed Mr Sanderson and Mr Powderley

Preston Crown Court heard that five workers had been pushing the trolley into an autoclave, when one of the pedestrian walkway panels under it collapsed.

Gerald Powderley suffered severe injuries and is still undergoing treatment. He broke both his legs, his right foot and ankle, and needed skin grafts to his legs.

Allan Sanderson, 50 from Rishton, died in hospital the following morning as a result of his injuries.

The HSE investigation found that the trolley, which weighed nearly 2.8 tonnes, was not wide enough to fit on both the load-bearing rails inside the autoclave. Instead the wheels on the right-hand side of the trolley were rolled along the pedestrian walkway in between the rails.

The court was told workers at the site had regularly rolled the trolleys along the pedestrian walkway for nearly two years, despite the panels not being designed to carry their weight.

The panel that collapsed had been repaired by Brookhouse Tooling a month before the incident after becoming bent, but the repair method was inappropriate and the quality of the welding was poor.

The owner of the factory, Brookhouse Composites Ltd, and Mr Sanderson's employer, Brookhouse Tooling Ltd, both admitted putting worker's lives at risk.

^[2]Brookhouse Composites Ltd now trades as Kaman Composites-UK Ltd.  Brookhouse Tooling Ltd now trades as Kaman Tooling Ltd.

Alex Farnhill, the investigating inspector at HSE, added:

"Allan Sanderson has tragically lost his life and Gerald Powderley is still very badly injured, two years after the incident, because neither of the companies responsible for their safety picked up on the warning signs.

"The walkway panels were bent out of shape over several months but no one appeared to be concerned about what was causing this. The situation was exacerbated by the poor choice of repair technique and standard of welding on the panel.

"This ultimately led to the collapse of the panel and the two workers being crushed. If the companies had thought more about the risks workers faced, then Mr Sanderson would still be alive today and Mr Powderely would not have been seriously injured."

Ed - 25 workers were killed and more than 4,000 suffered major injuries in the manufacturing industry in Great Britain last year.

 

Roofing firm fined following electrocution

Defendant	Blackford (Newbury) Ltd		Reported	14 March 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Southampton Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£50,000	Costs	£20,000

A Newbury-based roofing company has been prosecuted after a new employee was electrocuted while operating a lorry driven crane.  Anthony Milani, 26, of Greenacres, Newbury, died when the crane touched overhead power cables at West Horton Farm Industrial Estate, near Eastleigh on 14 August 2007.

Blackford (Newbury) Ltd, of Hambridge Road, Newbury, formerly Harris Roofing Supplies Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA at Southampton Crown Court.

The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs in the case brought by the HSE.

The court heard that Mr Milani had been employed by Blackford as an HGV driver and warehouseman in April 2007.  He was shown how to use the Hiab crane by the senior warehouseman who was not a competent trainer.

The men had visited West Horton Farm Industrial Estate prior to the incident, and the senior warehouseman said Mr Milani had operated the crane without incident. Although the senior warehouseman was aware of the overhead electric cables at the site, he said he did not consider them to be a hazard. He was unaware of health and safety guidance about overhead power lines or the necessary training of crane drivers.

Signs warning of overhead cables had been removed several weeks earlier by the site owners.  Mr Milani was delivering roofing materials to the premises of SBM at the industrial estate on his own when he parked directly underneath the three overhead 11Kv cables.

He deployed only the nearside stabiliser when both sides should have been used. After unloading the second pallet he brought the jib of the Hiab across the rear of the flatbed when it struck one of the cables. He was killed instantly.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Dennis MacWilliam, said:

"Proper training, simple checks and procedures could have prevented this horrific incident. Tragically, Mr Milani had been booked-in to do a professional course in handling lorry mounted cranes in the month he died.  The company failed to provide suitable and sufficient training and supervision for Mr Milani in the used of Hiab cranes and especially the risk from overhead power lines. They also failed to ensure lifting operations were properly planned and hazards identified.

"Delivery arrangements at clients' premises should also have been checked from time to time."

Ed Although Hiab is a trade name it has become a generic term for a lorry-based crane. Hiab were not involved in the HSE prosecution case.

 

Construction companies fined after exposure of asbestos

Defendant  (1)	Mansell Construction Services Ltd				Hearing	25 March 2011
Offence	Reg 22(1)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007				Court	Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)
Penalty	Fine		£50,000		Costs	£20,690
Defendant (2)	Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd
Offence	5, 8(1) and 11(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
Penalty	Fine	£50,000		Costs			£20,690

 

A plant hire company and a construction services firm have been fined for exposing employees and members of the public to asbestos.

An investigation by the HSE found Mansell Construction Services Ltd of Croydon and sub-contractor Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd of Ickleton, South Cambridgeshire, put workers and the public at risk by failing to properly manage the presence of asbestos during the refurbishment of a residential block of flats, between 24 November and 8 December 2009.

During the work in an occupied London Borough of Hackney block of flats, asbestos insulation board was disturbed and removed by unlicensed contractor, Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd, potentially releasing the fibres into the air.

A previous survey, identifying the presence of asbestos insulation board in a number of the properties, had been provided to Mansell, but had not been acted upon or passed to their sub-contractors.

Mansell Construction Services Ltd pleaded guilty and was fined £50,000 at the Old Bailey for breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd pleaded guilty of breaching regulations 5, 8(1) and 11(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and was fined £50,000. The companies were ordered to pay joint costs of £20,690.

HSE Inspector Dominic Ellis said:

"Despite recent high profile campaigns on the dangers of working with asbestos, this case sadly illustrates some companies are still failing to manage the risks robustly.  Mansell had information that asbestos was present, yet neglected to act on it, meaning a licensable asbestos material was removed in an uncontrolled manner, needlessly risking the health of contractors and members of the public."

Ed - Regulation 5 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states that: An employer shall not undertake work in demolition, maintenance, or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose his employees to asbestos in respect of any premises unless either

• (a) he has carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos, what type of asbestos, contained in what material and in what condition is present or is liable to be present in those premises; or
• (b) if there is doubt as to whether asbestos is present in those premises;
• (c) assumes that asbestos is present, and that it is not chrysotile alone, and;
• (d) observes the applicable provisions of these Regulations.

Regulation 8(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: An employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he holds a license granted under paragraph (2) of this regulation.

Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "Every employer shall... prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable."

Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "The principal contractor for a project shall plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety"

 

Lorry driver killed by falling steel gates

Defendant (1)	James Paterson Haulage Ltd		Reported	30 March 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Inverness Sheriff Court
Penalty	Fine	£13,300	Costs	N/A Scotland
Defendant (2)	Mackay Steelwork and Cladding Ltd
Offence	S3 HSWA
Penalty	Fine	£40,300	Costs	N/A Scotland

A lorry driver was killed when he was hit by steel gates falling off his vehicle as it was unloaded by a forklift truck.  Andrew Brown was hit by two gates, weighing 153kgs at Simpsons Garden Centre in Inverness.

The HSE found that the 58-year-old had been able to gain access to an area close to the side of his lorry while the gates were being unloaded.

Inverness Sheriff Court was told that Mr Brown had picked up 20 steel safety gates from Mackay Steelwork and Cladding Ltd's yard in Delny, near Invergordon, on 27 August 2008.  He then drove them to the garden centre where they were to be unloaded by workers from MacKays using a forklift truck.

Mr Brown removed the securing straps from his load, and assisted the forklift truck driver during the unloading by ensuring the forks were positioned correctly before moving from his position behind his lorry. Four of the gates fell off the lorry as they were being unloaded, with two of them hitting him.

Paramedics were called but could not revive Mr Brown, and he was taken to Raigmore Hospital where he was pronounced dead. He had suffered a serious neck injury.

Both companies admitted failing to adequately liaise with each other or obtain enough information to ensure a safe system of work was in place, particularly in relation to the role Mr Brown would play in unloading the gates.

Mackay Steelwork and Cladding Ltd also admitted it had failed to make cones and tape available to create a safe place of work around the lorry during the unloading operation.

Following the case, HSE Inspector Graeme McMinn said:

"This was a horrific and entirely avoidable incident. If proper safety measures had been taken, Mr Brown could still be alive today.  Those involved in arranging and carrying out deliveries should exchange and agree information to ensure lorries can be loaded and unloaded in a safe manner.  They must make sure a safe way of working is in place and that workers have clear responsibilities so everyone involved in the lifting operation knows what everyone else is meant to be doing and where they are meant to be.

"They must also make sure that, when loading and unloading is taking place, adequate measures are taken to keep workers away from this work."

Ed - ^[1]In Scotland the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has sole responsibility for the raising of criminal proceedings for breaches of health and safety legislation.

The criminal courts in Scotland do not impose costs in addition to other penalties such as fines as elsewhere in the UK.

 

China clay company prosecuted after fall into machinery

Defendant	Imerys Minerals Ltd		Hearing	31 March 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Truro Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£30,000	Costs	£45,124

A man was seriously injured when he was drawn into machinery used to flatten bags, Truro Crown Court heard. 

China clay company, Imerys Minerals Ltd, pleaded guilty to a charge brought by the HSE after failing to ensure the safety of staff engaged in manually loading bags onto conveyors at the European Milling Centre site at Par Docks.

The company was fined £30,000 for breaching Section 2(1) HSWA by failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. The company was ordered to pay costs of £45,124.

The accident happened on 14 August, 2008, when Gerald Dahlstrom (then 45 years-old), was loading bags of china clay onto a conveyor belt when he was drawn into a gap of approx 6" between the conveyor and another belt mounted above, which was designed to flatten bags of china clay. He suffered multiple injuries including serious head, shoulder and chest injuries. He was off work for over a year and is still suffering from the effects of the incident.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector, Jo Fitzgerald, said: "The serious injuries suffered by Gerry Dalhstrom could easily have been avoided by Imerys if they had carried out an assessment and looked at the risks being taken by employees at the site."

 

Worker breaks back in lift fall

Defendant	Brighton Construction Ltd		Hearing	3 March 2011
Offence	Regulation 22(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007		Court	Lewes Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£25,000	Costs	£15,000

Brighton Construction Ltd has been fined after a man fell 6m down a lift shaft at a construction site in Brighton.  David Homewood, 53, from Eastbourne, was delivering a kitchen unit to a new block of luxury flats in Ocean Heights, Roedean Road, Brighton, when the incident happened on 3 November 2009.

Mr Homewood was walking backwards upstairs while carrying one end of the unit while a colleague supported the other end, but as they reached the second floor landing, he stepped over a roll pack of insulation and fell down the unguarded lift shaft.

The HSE prosecuted principle contractor Brighton Construction Ltd for failing to manage the construction site properly.

Lewes Crown Court was told Mr Homewood suffered a fractured spine, bruised lungs and a fractured pelvis. He was in intensive care for six days and was in hospital for four weeks. His walking is now impaired and he has been unable to return to work since the incident.

The court heard that advice had been given to Brighton Construction Ltd after a HSE inspection five months before the incident. The inspector wrote to the company requiring that any openings in the floors were protected with guardrails.

Brighton Construction Ltd, of Maria House, Millers Road, Brighton, pleaded guilty.

Amanda Huff, HSE Inspector, said:

"As principal contractors, Brighton Construction Ltd was responsible for the safety of everyone on the site, including suppliers. Erecting guardrails across the lift shaft would have been easy and shows that simple precautions could have prevented this needless incident.  Mr Homewood has suffered life-changing injuries because simple measures were not taken to ensure the lift shaft was guarded at all times."

Ed- Regulation 22(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "The principal contractor for a project shall

(a) plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety, including facilitating,

(i) co-operation and co-ordination between persons concerned in the project in pursuance of regulations 5 and 6, and

(ii) the application of the general principles of prevention in pursuance of regulation 7.

 

Fall from youth centre roof

Defendant	Dodd Group (Midlands) Ltd		Hearing	24 March 2011
Offence	Regulation 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005		Court	Solihull Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£3,511

A Telford construction firm has been prosecuted by the HSE after a man shattered his wrist when he fell from a youth centre roof in Solihull.

Dodd Group (Midlands) Ltd's employee Matthew Dutton fell more than 4m from the unprotected edge of a flat roof at Coronation Youth Centre on Green Lane in Shirley.

Solihull Magistrates' Court heard the 36-year-old and a colleague had been moving a piece of silver ducting up a ladder to the roof on 12 November 2009 when he fell.

He shattered his wrist, where two bones disintegrated, and he will never regain full use of his hand. He also suffered concussion, a black eye and other facial injuries and was off work for four months.

The HSE investigation found that the company had failed to plan a safe system of work, assess the risk, supervise Mr Dutton adequately or provide any safety barriers or other means to prevent a fall.

The company was aware that work would have to be carried out from the roof at height but had not considered the risk of an employee falling from height, or taken any steps to reduce the risk.

HSE Inspector Paul Thompson said:

"This entirely preventable incident is a very sad consequence of Dodd Group Midlands's failure to plan and execute a safe system of work.  If the company had taken proper precautions, both while the work was in the planning stage and when the work was being undertaken, Mr Dutton's fall and resulting injuries could have been completely avoided."

Ed- Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005 states: "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe."

 

Company fined after worker injured by fork lift truck

Defendant	Polypipe Ltd			Hearing	9 March 2011
Offence	Regulation 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005			Court	Skegness Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£4,765	Compensation £5,000

A Lincolnshire pipework company Polypipe Limited has been fined after a fork lift truck that had been lowering a cage containing two workers to the ground, hit one of the men.

The man had been standing on top of a lorry loading coiled plastic pipes at Polypipe Ltd's site in Horncastle, Lincolnshire.

Skegness Magistrates' Court was told that to get from the 14 feet high lorry, he and a colleague stepped into a cage supported on a fork lift truck to be lowered to the ground.

However, the cage caught on the side of the lorry and started to fall. The fork lift driver tried to catch it by piercing the side of the cage with the forks but unfortunately a fork hit one of the men. He was hospitalised with fractured ribs and unable to work for three weeks.

After the 16 June 2009 incident the HSE investigation found the company had failed to ensure the work was properly planned or carried out safely.

Polypipe Ltd, of Broomhouse Lane, Edlington, Doncaster pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 (1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £20,000. The company was also ordered to pay compensation of £5,000 to the injured person and £4,765 costs.

HSE inspector Emma Madeley said:

"This incident was completely avoidable and stems from Polypipe's entire system of work being fundamentally unsafe. There should have been a system for loading that didn't involve unsafe work at height and employees should have been provided with a safe method of getting back down to the ground.

The positive thing to come from this incident is that the company has now taken steps to resolve these issues and has introduced an acceptable system of work."

 

Steel firm fined after worker crushed

Defendant	Tata Steel Ltd (formerly Corus UK Limited)		Hearing	3 March 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Northampton Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£24,052

Tata Steel Ltd has been fined £20,000 after a worker sustained serious crush injuries while fixing a packing machine at Corby Steel Works, Northamptonshire.

The 34 year old employee was called to the machinery enclosure to repair a broken strapping machine which had brought production on a line at the Weldon Road site to a halt.

After undertaking the repair the man, who with other employees was working inside the machinery enclosure, noticed another maintenance matter on an adjacent packing machine. Whilst they were attending to this the second machine started up and completed its movement cycle, crushing him between a large electromagnet and fixed parts of the machine structure.

He suffered serious chest and abdominal crush injuries including a number of broken bones. Happily, he made a good recovery and several months later returned to his job at the Works. Other employees who were working in the machinery enclosure escaped injury.

The HSE investigation found the company did not have effective guarding around the machines and despite having a written procedure to ensure machines remained isolated until maintenance work was complete, this was not implemented.

HSE inspector Roger Amery, who led the investigation said:

"This totally avoidable incident could easily have ended in tragedy. The worker was extremely fortunate to have survived and his colleagues were lucky to escape unharmed.  Employers need to understand how vital effective guarding is on these complex and powerful machines that can quickly inflict serious or fatal injuries.  When maintenance is undertaken, robust isolation procedures need to be kept in place until work has been completed and employees are clear of any danger.

"Many major injuries such as those sustained in this particular incident, and the fatalities that happen during maintenance each year, are wholly avoidable and most definitely not a price worth paying for operating a manufacturing business."

 

Cheshire car parts maker fined over crane injuries

Defendant	Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd		Reported	31 March 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA Regulation 7(a) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998		Court	Chester Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£8,792

Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd has been was prosecuted by the HSE following an incident at its factory in Winsford on 21 May 2009 when a 31-tonne load was dropped from an overhead crane.

 

The load which fell from the crane, crushing Mr Burrell's leg

Chester Crown Court heard that Andrew Burrell and two other employees were working the night shift when chains on the overhead crane gave way. Part of the crane was pulled from roof mountings and fell nearly 5m to the ground. The crane's hook landed on Mr Burrell's left leg, shattering his thigh bone.

The 43-year-old from Winsford had to have a metal rod inserted in his leg as a result of his injuries. His two colleagues escaped unharmed.

The subsequent HSE investigation found the chains were only designed to lift a maximum of 17 tonnes - just over half the weight of the load - and the crane itself was only capable of lifting a 27-tonne load.

Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd admitted failing to ensure the lifting capacity of the chains was clearly marked, and failing to look after the safety of its workers. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £8,792 in prosecution costs on 31 March.

Martin Paren, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"A worker has been badly injured as a result of this completely avoidable incident, but the consequences could easily have been catastrophic. It's incredible no one was killed.  Mitras regularly expected its workers to lift loads well over the lifting capacities of both the chains and the overhead crane. It was only a matter of time before something went wrong, which is why Mitras Automotive was in court today.

"Lifting capacities exist for a reason and it's vital that manufacturers who use overhead cranes make sure employees aren't put a risk from falling loads."

Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd was charged with breaching Regulation 7(a) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Ed - Regulation 7(a) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states: "Every employer shall ensure that...machinery and accessories for lifting loads are clearly marked to indicate their safe working loads."

Construction company fined after worker blinded in fall

Defendant	Balsham (Buildings) Ltd		Reported	30 March 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005		Court	Watford Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£14,000	Costs	£8,832.30

Balsham (Buildings) Ltd, a construction company from Cambridgeshire has been fined after one of its employees suffered severe head injuries which blinded him in one eye.

On 3 March 2010, builder and fitter John Ingram was working outside on a project to refurbish an agricultural building in Newgate Street, Hertfordshire. He was using a tower scaffold erected on top of a freight container and fell to the ground while trying to climb down.

 

The freight container from which Mr Ingram fell

Mr Ingram, 55, of Lode in Cambridgeshire suffered facial fractures, cuts and bruising and was in a coma for several days. He was unable to work for eight months after the incident and has since only returned to work on a part-time basis.

Balsham (Buildings) Ltd, structural steel fabricators and cladding contractors, of High Street, Balsham, Cambridge, appeared at Watford Magistrates' court and admitted to two breaches of health and safety legislation:

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for which is was fined £7,000

Work at Height Regulations 2005 - Regulation 4(1) for which it was fined £7,000

The Magistrates also ordered the company to pay £8,832.30 in costs.

While investigating Mr Ingram's fall, HSE inspectors found that the internal works on the project had been planned and undertaken safely, with a scissor lift provided to enable employees to work at height - the same had not been provided for the external works.

HSE Inspector John Berezansky said:

"Incidents like Mr Ingram's fall are entirely avoidable. Falling from height is one of the most obvious and well-known dangers on a construction site.  Unfortunately, Mr Ingram is not alone. More than 4,000 British employees suffered serious injury after falling from height in 2008/09.

"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when so many incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As always, HSE will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting lives at risk."

Ed - Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risk to their health & safety."

Work at Height Regulations 2005 - Regulation 4(1) - failure as an employer to ensure that work at height is properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe.

 

Construction firm fined for demolition site asbestos failings

Defendant	Quarnmill Construction Ltd		Reported	23 March 2011
Offence	Reg 4(1)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007		Court	Derby Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£13,000	Costs	£2,700

 

A construction company has been fined for its role in exposing workers to asbestos in Derby.

Quarnmill Construction Ltd was preparing the former Allens Printers building in Webster Street for demolition in October 2009 and had employed a contractor to remove asbestos-containing materials.

The company provided the contractor with a survey detailing the work to be done, but did not check his suitability to carry out the work, or that he held a licence to remove asbestos, as required by law.

Once work was underway, Quarnmill informed the HSE that they thought the site had become contaminated with asbestos as a result of the work the contractor had carried out.

Quarnmill Construction Ltd, of Derby Road, Aston on Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for allowing such failings at a site it controlled. The company was today fined £13,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,700 by Derby magistrates.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Carol Southerd commented:

"Quarnmill did not check the competence of the contractor to do this job nor that he had a suitable licence. This check is required by law.  His unsuitability was eventually discovered after a consultant checked the HSE website and reported him, but by this time it was too late.

"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. Employers need to protect their workers now to prevent them contracting an asbestos-related disease in the future."

Ed - The contractor cannot be named as proceedings against him are still active.

Regulation 4(1)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "No person on whom these Regulations place a duty shall appoint or engage a CDM co-ordinator, designer, principal contractor or contractor unless he has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person to be appointed or engaged is competent."

Roofing firm put town at risk from asbestos

Defendant	Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd		Hearing	1 March 2011
Offence	Reg 16 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006		Court	Leicester Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£12,000	Costs	£22,375

A roofing company spread asbestos fibres around a Leicestershire town when using pressurised water washers to clean roof panels on industrial units.

Hampshire-based Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd was contracted to carry out repairs to a dozen industrial units in Bath Street, Market Harborough, between December 2008 and January 2009.

Leicester Magistrates' Court heard the problem was discovered when asbestos was found outside the units by a Leicestershire County Council health and safety consultant on 22 January.

The HSE told Leicester Magistrates' Court that the company used pressure washers to clean asbestos cement roofing panels, which blasted the harmful material into the environment.

When it became apparent what was happening, work was stopped immediately and local traders had to close for several months while a qualified asbestos removal company carried out a safe programme of removal causing major disruption in the town.

During the subsequent clean-up operation, traces of the material were found on walls, in drains and at a bus stop.

Concept Roofing and Cladding Services Ltd, of Venture House, The Tanneries, East Street, Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £12,000. The company was also ordered to pay costs of £22,375

HSE inspector Stephen Farthing said:

"This company showed a wilful disregard for the safety of its employees and the general public.

"Concept Roofing and Cladding knew the roofing panels contained asbestos and should have known that the use of a pressure washer was entirely inappropriate.

"The actions of this company caused a great deal of worry and inconvenience for local people and business, some of whom had to leave their premises for a considerable amount of time.

"Yet the distress, inconvenience and cost of remedial action could have been easily avoided had the company taken sensible steps to ensure the right tools were used and the spread of potentially dangerous material was prevented."

 

Builder fined over collapse of St Neots' Christmas lights

Defendant	Broadland (Builders) Limited		Hearing	9 March 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Huntingdon Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£12,000	Costs	£4,250

A Buckinghamshire based builder has been fined after Christmas decorations spanning the High Street in St. Neots collapsed, injuring two members of the public and narrowly missing a baby.

Broadland (Builders) Limited was sub-contracted to install anchor bolts to secure festive decorations at several locations within St. Neots town centre.

 

The building from which the lights fell

Huntingdon Magistrates' Court heard that on 29 November 2007 the decoration pulled out a large piece of masonry from near the top of the building housing the Norwich and Peterborough Building Society causing the decoration, fixing and masonry to fall to the pavement below. A passing car was hit by the masonry and the metal frame.

Elena Giddens, 39 at the time of the incident and formerly of Eynesbury Manor in the town was knocked unconscious when masonry landed on her. She had five stitches to her head and suffered three broken ribs and a punctured lung.

Her friend, Anne Beck, then 35 and also of Eynesbury Manor, had been pushing her seven-month-old son, Myles, in his pram along the High Street. She dived on top of the pram to protect Myles before she and Mrs Giddens pushed the pram away from the falling debris. She sustained three broken fingers and bruising to her arm, hand and back.

The HSE investigation found that the decoration, which weighed approximately 50kg and was suspended on two catenary wires, had been attached via an anchoring bolt that was fixed into an unsafe part of the building.

The mortar was also known to be weak, and no survey had been carried out - such a survey may have identified the poor choice of fixing location.

At Huntingdon Magistrates' Court Broadland (Builders) Limited, pleaded guilty to breaching section 3 (1) HSWA.

The company was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4250 costs.

HSE Inspector Paul Hoskins said:

"Incidents like this are entirely preventable. Guidance on suitable and safe locations for this type of fixing is freely available from trade associations, and could easily have been referred to.  Furthermore, had a suitable building survey been performed, it too could have highlighted the unsuitability of the chosen fixing location.

"Contractors should ensure that they are competent to carry out the work for which they have been contracted, and ensure that they have access to relevant, up to date information and relevant guidance.

"Since the incident, the company involved has undertaken further staff training and is now a member of the relevant trade association."

Landlord fined for failing to meet gas safety regulations

Defendant	Peter Brown		Hearing	24 March 2011
Offence	Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 x2 Failure to comply with Improvement notice - s21 HSWA		Court	Porstmouth Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£11,500	Costs	£4,500

A Portsmouth landlord has been fined for endangering lives after consistently failing to provide safety records for gas appliances at a property he rented out to a family.

The HSE prosecuted Peter Brown for breaching two counts of the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 and one count of failing to comply with the requirements of an Improvement Notice served on him in August 2010.

Portsmouth Magistrates' Court heard that Mr Brown, of Cavendish Drive, Waterlooville, Hampshire, rented out a property at Queens Road, Portsmouth. In July 2006 a mother and her children moved into the residence with the support of Portsmouth City Council.

An inspection of the property in February 2009 by the council uncovered various defects, including damp and mould caused by leaks in the kitchen, which Mr Brown was required to remedy. The council was forced to take formal enforcement action against Mr Brown on 29 June 2009 when he did not action the improvements.

In addition, the council requested a copy of the Landlord's annual Gas Safety Check Record, which he had failed to provide for over two years. At this stage the Health and Safety Executive was informed to ensure his compliance with Gas Safety Legislation.

Mr Brown pleaded guilty to three charges relating to his safety breaches. He was fined £11,500 and ordered to pay costs of £4,500. He was also ordered by the court to provide a Gas Safety Check Record for the property within two months.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Dozie Azubike commented:

"Mr Brown flagrantly disregarded his duties as a landlord, putting at risk the health and safety of his tenant and her children. He has received a significant fine and now has two months, in line with the Court Order, to provide a Gas Safety Check Record for the property. It is potentially an imprisonable offence to neglect gas safety and this should serve as a warning to other landlords.

"Every year approximately 20 people die and many others suffer ill health from carbon monoxide poisoning. It is common knowledge that unchecked gas appliances can become unsafe over time, exposing tenants to possible serious injuries or even fatality. Landlords have a legal obligation to provide tenants with an annual Gas Safety Check Record, verifying that gas appliances have been checked and comply with regulations."

Paul Johnston, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register said:

"Landlords have a legal responsibility to keep all gas appliances working safely and efficiently by having an annual gas safety check and ensuring that only a Gas Safe registered engineer carries out the gas work, no matter how big or small the job. Whether you are a landlord or a tenant, it's important that you understand the laws about gas safety otherwise you could be putting your life or the life of others in danger."

Ed - Reg 36 (3) (a) of the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 states: "Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (2) above, a landlord shall- (a)ensure that each appliance and flue to which that duty extends is checked for safety within 12 months of being installed and at intervals of not more than 12 months since it was last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to these Regulations or not)" Mr Brown was prosecuted for two separate breaches of this regulation between July 2006 and July 2008. ^[3]

Section 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "Improvement notices. If an inspector is of the opinion that a person-

(a) is contravening one or more of the relevant statutory provisions; or

(b) has contravened one or more of those provisions in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated,

he may serve on him a notice (in this Part referred to as "an improvement notice") stating that he is of that opinion, specifying the provision or provisions as to which he is of that opinion, giving particulars of the reasons why he is of that opinion, and requiring that person to remedy the contravention or, as the case may be, the matters occasioning it within such period (ending not earlier than the period within which an appeal against the notice can be brought under section 24) as may be specified in the notice."

Section 42 (1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: " Where a person is convicted of an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions in respect of any matters which appear to the court to be matters which it is in his power to remedy, the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment, order him within such time as may be fixed by the order, to take such steps as may be specified in the order for remedying the said matters."

 

Two companies fined after scaffold collapse

Defendant (1)	Skyline Scaffolding Limited		Hearing	24 March 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA Reg 8(b) Work at Height Regulations 2005		Court	Newcastle Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£4,182.30
Defendant (2)	Ashbrook Construction Services Ltd
Offence	S3 HSWA
Penalty	Fine	£3,000	Costs	£2,091.15

Two North East companies have today been fined after a member of the public was seriously injured when scaffolding collapsed during high winds.

A 68-year-old woman was out shopping with relatives when the scaffolding in Shields Road, Byker, Newcastle collapsed on 14 March 2009.

She suffered double fractures to her right hip joint and right femur, puncture wounds to her right ankle and severe bruising and was in hospital for 12 days following the incident. Almost two years on she is still unable to carry shopping bags and is limited in what housework she can do.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that Skyline Scaffolding Ltd had not erected the scaffolding properly by failing to ensure it was adequately secured to the building. The scaffold had been reduced in height to a single working platform with the wooden hoardings and sheeting still attached. In reducing the scaffold, the scaffolding company removed the arrangement that retained the scaffold to the building.

The HSE also found that Ashbrook Construction Services Ltd had failed to ensure that the scaffolding was properly inspected both before work began and at regular intervals as it progressed.

Skyline Scaffolding, of Drum Industrial Estate, Birtley was found guilty, in absence, to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 between 14 January and 14 March 2009 and a second offence of breaching Regulation 8(b) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 between 11 and 14 March 2009 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,182.30 at Newcastle Magistrates' Court today (16 March 2011).

Ashbrook Construction Services Ltd, of Leeholme Industrial Estate, Cowpen Lane, Billingham pleaded guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 between 14 January and 14 March 2009 and was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2091.15.

After the case, HSE Principal Inspector Rob Hirst said:

"This incident could, and should, have been prevented. The lady was seriously injured and was lucky not to be killed as a result of this incident. And things could have been even worse had the scaffolding collapsed when workers were using it.

"Skyline Scaffolding Ltd failed to erect the scaffolding properly by not securing it adequately and Ashbrook Construction Services Ltd failed to ensure the scaffolding was inspected before work began and then regularly once it was in progress.

"Each company had varying responsibilities, but were complicit in failing to ensure the scaffold remained stable. Both parties should have been aware that the addition of wooden hoardings and impervious sheeting increased the loading on the structure.

"I would urge all those involved in the supply and use of temporary work platforms such as scaffolding, to ensure that they are erected by competent persons and are subject to inspection before work starts and then at least every seven days or following alteration or effects of adverse weather."

Ed - reg 8(b) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states: "A working platform shall be of sufficient strength and rigidity for the purpose for which it is being used."

Skyline Scaffolding Ltd is now in liquidation.

 

Roofing firm sentenced after worker's life put at risk

Defendant	M & D Roof Coatings Ltd		Hearing	14 March 2011
Offence	Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005		Court	Halton Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£7,269

A roofing firm has been fined after a worker was spotted balancing dangerously on a house roof in Lymm.

The employee at M & D Roof Coatings Ltd was seen power washing the sloping roof while standing at the edge, without any safety precautions in place to stop him falling to the ground below.

The company was prosecuted by the HSE following routine inspections in the town on 5 May 2010.

 

The employee power washing the sloping roof

Halton Magistrates' Court in Runcorn heard the employee was photographed working nearly 5m above the ground on the roof of a semi-detached house on Grasmere Road in Lymm, Cheshire.

Inspectors immediately issued a prohibition notice, ordering the work to stop, until scaffolding, edge protection or other safety equipment had been provided.

M&D Roof Coatings Ltd was found guilty of breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to make sure the work was planned and carried out safely.

The company, formally of Bridge Street in Swinton, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £7,269 on 14 March 2011.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector John Ellis said:

"It's incredible that workers were expected to power wash a roof while standing on it, without any scaffolding or edge protection to stop them falling.

"Working on a roof without safety precautions is dangerous enough, but the risk of falling was increased by the fact that moss and other detritus were being washed off the roof. One slip and the worker would have fallen to the ground, resulting in him being seriously injured or even killed."

 

Workers exposed to asbestos fibres at Topshop

Defendant (1)	Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd		Hearing	17 March 2011
Offence	Reg 22(1)(a) and 23(2) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007		Court	Liverpool City Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£10,769
Defendant (2)	Arcadia Group Limited
Offence	Regulation 16(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007
Penalty	Fine	£5,000	Costs	£10,769

 Retail giant Arcadia has been sentenced, alongside a shopfitting firm, after construction workers were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos fibres at a Topshop store in Liverpool.

The HSE prosecuted the clothing shops' owners, Arcadia Group Ltd, and the principal contractor for the site, Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd, following an investigation.

 

Specialists dealing with asbestos-contaminated materials at the Topshop store in Liverpool

Liverpool Magistrates' Court heard that workers were exposed to asbestos fibres as they removed air conditioning, sprinklers and other equipment next to ceiling beams, which had previously been coated with sprayed asbestos.

The refurbishment work was allowed to go ahead despite a survey, carried out before the project started, identifying asbestos as being present in the building on Church Street in the city centre.

Attempts were initially made to seal off access to the first floor of the building on 9 June 2008, when the sprayed asbestos on the ceiling beams was disturbed. But work was allowed to continue elsewhere in the six-story building, which also houses Topman and Miss Selfridge.

A total of 45 construction workers were eventually asked to stop work on 20 June 2008 after a contractor alerted HSE that the contamination had spread outside the sealed area.

Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd, of Newton Street in Norwich, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £10,769 in costs. Arcadia Group Ltd, of Berners Street in London, was fined £5,000 with costs of £10,769 on 17 March 2011. Both fines were the maximum that could be issued by the magistrates' court.

Warren Pennington, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"It is shocking that workers were exposed to deadly asbestos fibres, and that the refurbishment work was allowed to happen without the proper control measures in place.

"Neither company took adequate action to prevent workers being exposed despite a survey alerting them that asbestos was present in the building. The refurbishment work on the first floor was likely to disturb the asbestos and so a licensed specialist contractor should have carried it out.

"Instead, up to 45 individuals, who were working in the building, now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with a life-threatening lung disease."

Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 22(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for failing to properly plan, manage and monitor the project, and for not identifying the risks from asbestos and taking action to address them.

Arcadia Group Ltd admitted breaching Regulation 16(a) of the same regulations by failing to prevent work starting on the site until Vincents had produced a construction plan, outlining how if would deal with the asbestos.

The ceiling beams in the Topshop store would originally have been sprayed with asbestos to protect the building in a fire, before the dangers of the material were widely known. The asbestos only became a threat when it was disturbed and its fibres were released into the air.

Ed - Regulation 16(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "Where the project is notifiable, the client shall ensure that the construction phase does not start unless the principal contractor has prepared a construction phase plan..."

Regulation 22(1)(a) states: "The principal contractor for a project shall plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety..."

Regulation 23(2) states: "The principal contractor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the construction phase plan identifies the risks to health and safety arising from the construction work (including the risks specific to the particular type of construction work concerned) and includes suitable and sufficient measures to address such risks, including any site rules."

 

Site manager sentenced after worker exposed to asbestos

Defendant	Henry Bohlen	Hearing	10 March 2011
Offence	S7(a) HSWA	Court	Newport Magistrates Court
Penalty	Suspended Prison sentence	2 months  and 150hrs Com Serv

 

A construction site manager from Barry has been sentenced after directing a bricklayer to demolish a wall that contained asbestos, which put him at serious risk.

On 22 May 2009, Henry Bohlen, 63 was in Newport, supervising the refurbishment of the Monwel Hankinson facility which manufactures equipment for people with disabilities.

A full site survey for asbestos had been carried out, but Mr Bohlen failed to check the warnings it gave and instructed Justin Jones, a bricklayer from Pontypridd, to manually demolish the known asbestos-containing fascia boards from the building.

Mr Jones used a hammer and chisel to break up the board into fragments, which generated plumes of dust, releasing asbestos fibres into the air.

When these fibres are inhaled they can cause serious diseases which are responsible for around 4,000 deaths a year. There are four main diseases caused by asbestos, all of which can develop much later after exposure - they are mesothelioma (which is always fatal); lung cancer (almost always fatal); asbestosis (not always fatal, but it can be very debilitating) and diffuse pleural thickening.

Mr Jones continued working as he had been asked to until another manager realised the danger and told him to stop. Mr Jones had to undergo emergency decontamination as a result.

Architects employed by Newport City Council, which partly runs the Monwel Hankinson facility, had specifically designed the refurbishment work to avoid disturbing any of the asbestos-containing materials. As site manager, Mr Bohlen was aware of this element of the refurbishment plan.

Mr Bohlen later informed Newport City Council that additional work was needed on the building and, rather than waiting for the authorisation or amended plans from the architects, he went ahead and told Mr Jones to carry out the work which led to him being exposed to the potentially deadly asbestos.

Henry Bohlen pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974 and was given a suspended sentence of two months. He was also ordered to carry out 150 hours of community service.

Inspector Liam Osborne said:

"Henry Bohlen was a very experienced construction site manager and, by his own admission was aware of asbestos, the risks to health and the correct procedures that ought to have been followed.

"Rather than wait for the architect's plans, consult the site survey, or if that was not available, to have taken a few minutes to check with other parties, Mr Bohlen went ahead and instructed Mr. Jones to do the work, which ultimately exposed him to the potentially deadly asbestos.  This is something Mr Jones will have to live with for the rest of his life - wondering whether his site manager's lack of consideration might lead to him contracting a deadly disease."

Ed - Section 7(a) of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act states 'it shall be the duty of every employee to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.

Defendant	Offence(s)	Penalty		Notes
Neal Brothers (Leicester) Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	9,000 3,289.20	Working at height over 4m over 4 years without appropriate safeguards
Surya Rice Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	9,000 3,214	Employee broke leg struck by fork lift truck
Emmett UK Ltd	Reg 12(1) COSHH 2002	Fine:  £ Costs:£	8,500 2,478	Employee gassed when two cleaning chemicals mixed
Harpers Transport (partnership)	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	8,000 NA Scot	Unsafe arrangements for moving wood in yard - equipment in poor condition
Burnton Farms (partnership)	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	8,000 NA Scot	Employee trapped foot in fertilizer spreader he was inside to prevent jamming - toe had to be amputated
Tower Hire (Services) Ltd	Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine:  £ Costs:£	8,000 6,644	Employee fell through skylight - absence of planning and training
King's School Ely	Reg 4(3) Electricity at Work Regs 1989	Fine:  £ Costs:£	6,000 4,274.40	Groundsmen erecting rugby posts - struck 33kV overhead power line
Bruce Quarton	S3 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	6,000 1,530	Poor planning of work at farm buildings - fall from roof
Parkware Limited	Reg 11(1) & (2) PUWER	Fine:  £ Costs:£	5,000 NA Scot	Employee injured using unguarded rotating saw
Vincents Car Sales Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	5,000	Fork lift used as a lift - employee injured by fall Company now in administration
City Response Ltd	Reg 7(1) COSHH 2002	Fine:  £ Costs:£	5,000 2,965	Employee injured using conc sulphuric acid to clear drain - burns to face
Shay James	S36 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	5,000 2,348	Director of company carrying out asbestos survey - failed to spot asbestos - prosecuted personally
Associated Roofing & Maintenance Limited	Reg 9(2) Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,500 2,482	Employee fell through roof.
Shengxuan Company Ltd	Regs 11(1)(a) & 16 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,000 2,100	Shopfitters worked on  asbestos containing materials without realising
Intelligent Recycling Ltd	S2 HSWA  and Reg 22 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,000 2,832	Teenage employee injured using fork lift truck - untrained. No water for staff
Laing O'Rourke Utilities Ltd	Reg 7(1) COSHH 2002	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,000 15,062	Employee exposure to  isocyanate whilst in cab etc - contacted HSE directly
James Miller (Kelham) Ltd	Regs 29(1) & (2) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,000 2,114	Fall from 4m when dismantling farm buildings
BRC Industrial Roofing Specialists Limited	Reg 4 Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,500 1,000	Two workers working at height without safety equipment - both company and director prosecuted in linked case
Lee Berbridge	Reg 4 Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,500 1,653
Matrix Polymers Limited	Reg 11(1) PUWER	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,500 3,500	Employee hand severed in unguarded machine
UK Hops Ltd	Reg 5 PUWER	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,500 4,019.55	Employee's hand caught in hop press
Alpla UK Ltd	Regs 4(1) & 9(1)Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,200 4,145	Fall through skylight
Printwells Limited	Reg 11(1)(a) PUWER x2	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,000 2,500	Intentional removal of safety guards and interlocks
Brian Woods, t/ as Brian Woods Recycling	S1(1) Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 x2	Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,500 1,000	Failure to have Employer's Liability insurance
Simon Challis	S7(a) HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,000 1,071	Gas fire exploded on commissioning injuring partially blinding householder
Canova UK Ltd	Reg 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005.	Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,000 1,500	Working at height without edge protection or other suitable safeguards
Alan Fleischer Builders Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	1,500 1,320	School boy on work experience fell from ladder
Nathan Michell	S33(1)(g) HSWA	Fine:  £ Costs:£	1,200 800	Improvement notice served for unsafe equipment not complied with
John Marton	Reg 22(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007	Fine:  £ Costs:£	1,000 6,832	Failure to plan building work, scaffold collapsed when undermined with other works.  'Partners' from the Principal Contractor both prosecuted personally. Absence of appropriate site supervision.
John Marton	Reg 22(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007	Fine:  £ Costs:£	1,000 6,832
Michael J Smith	Reg 36 Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 x3	Fine:  £ Costs:£	400 1,000	Landlord failure to have gas installations checked and serviced - 5 at risk items found
Arthur John Tucker	S33(1)(g) HSWA	Costs:£	Con Dis 2,108	Breach of improvement  notice - scaffolding safety

 

Ed- the quoted breaches in the table are:

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work  etc Act 1974 states that 'It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.'

Section 3(1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Section 7(a) Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that being an employee he failed to take reasonable care of himself and other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.

Section 33 (1)(g) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that 'It is an offence for a person to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice (including any such notice as modified on appeal).'

Section 36 (1) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "Where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person."

Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 states: "Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled."

Regulation 12 (1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 states: Every employer who undertakes work which is liable to expose an employee to a substance hazardous to health shall provide that employee with suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training.

Regulation 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005 states: "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe."

Regulation 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005 states: "Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."

Regulation 9(1) of the Work at Height regulations 2005 states: "Every employer shall ensure that no person at work passes across or near, or works on, from or near, a fragile surface where it is reasonably practicable to carry out work safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions without his doing so."

Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states that 'Where it is not reasonably practicable to carry out work safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions without passing across or near, or working on, from or near, a fragile surface, every employer shall:

ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that suitable and sufficient platforms, coverings, guard rails or similar means of support or protection are provided and used so that any foreseeable loading is supported by such supports or borne by such protection;

where a risk of a person at work falling remains despite the measures taken under the preceding provisions of this regulation, take suitable and sufficient measures to minimise the distances and consequences of his fall.'

Regulation 4(3) Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 Regulation 4(3) states: 'Every work activity, including operation, use and maintenance of a system and work near a system, shall be carried out in such a manner as not to give rise, so far as is reasonably practicable, to danger.'

Regulation 5 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states: Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

Regulation 11(1) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states:(1) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective (a)to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or (b)to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.

Regulation 11(2) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states: The measures required by paragraph (1) shall consist of (a)the provision of fixed guards enclosing every dangerous part or rotating stock-bar where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then (b)the provision of other guards or protection devices where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then (c)the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances used in conjunction with the machinery where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then (d)the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision.

Regulation 11 (1)(a) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "Every employer shall prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable."

Regulation 16 Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "Every employer shall prevent or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the spread of asbestos from any place where work under his control is carried out."

Regulation 22 Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 states: "An adequate supply of wholesome drinking water shall be provided for all persons at work in the workplace."

Regulation 22(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "The principal contractor for a project shall (a) plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety, including facilitating, (i) co-operation and co-ordination between persons concerned in the project in pursuance of regulations 5 and 6, and (ii) the application of the general principles of prevention in pursuance of regulation 7.

Regulation 29(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "The demolition or dismantling of a structure, or part of a structure, shall be planned and carried out in such a manner as to prevent danger or, where it is not practicable to prevent it, to reduce danger to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

Regulation 29(2) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states: "The arrangements for carrying out such demolition or dismantling shall be recorded in writing before the demolition or dismantling work begins."

Section 1(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 states: "Every employer carrying on business in Great Britain shall insure, and maintain insurance, under one or more approved policies with an authorised insurer or insurers against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by his employees."

Regulation 36(2)(a) of the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 states: "A landlord shall ensure that there is maintained in a safe condition a) any relevant gas fittings; and b) any flue which serves any relevant gas fitting, so as to prevent the risk of injury to any person in lawful occupation of relevant premises."

Regulation 36(3)(a) of the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998 states: "A landlord shall ensure that each appliance and flue to which that duty extends is checked for safety within 12 months of being installed and at intervals of not more than 12 months since it was last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to these Regulations or not)."

Regulation 36 (6)(a) states that a landlord shall ensure a copy of the (gas safety record) is given to the tenant

 

Environment Agency prosecutions

Thames Water ordered to pay £345,000

Defendant

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Hearing

8 March 2011

Offence	S33(1)(a) EPA 1990 x 11 S85(3)(a) WRA 1991 x4		Court	Bromley Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £204,000	Costs: £139,689.98	Compensation (2 residents) total £2,250

Thames Water allowed thousands of litres of raw sewage to discharge on to gardens, allotments, homes and streams over a ten-week period has been fined £204,000 for 15 environmental offences by Bromley Magistrates' Court.

In addition Thames Water Utilities Ltd was ordered to pay the EA's costs of £139,689.98 and compensation totalling £2,250 to two badly affected local residents.

Thames Water had previously pleaded guilty to four offences under s85 Water Resources Act, 1991, in relation to sewage entering the St James Stream. However they had contested 11 charges of depositing waste in the gardens, garages and the allotments of local residents, under one house, and in the street. These offences were all contrary to section 33 Environment Protection 1990.

Ed - as the tale is long and involved bear with it as it is worth the effort!

Starting the investigation

Leaving aside the mess that was made, the result was an eight year prosecution saga with hearings in the High Court twice and the European Court of Justice as well as Bromley Magistrates Court.

The Magistrates' Court heard that on the evening of 10 February 2003 a couple living in Wimbourne Way, Elmers End, Bromley, saw sewage gushing from a manhole cover near their back door onto their lawn and an allotment at the end of their garden. They reported the sewage leak to Thames Water. Previously their property had been subject to sewage manhole discharges in very wet weather, but the weather was not the cause in February 2003. The history, however, did demonstrate their vulnerability to any problems with the sewer system in the locality and should have caused Thames Water to take urgent steps to resolve sewer blockages.

Contractors attended in the early hours of 11 February on behalf of Thames Water and told the couple that there was a blockage in the foul sewer in St James's Avenue and that a tanker was on the job. But by 7am the effluent was still gushing out and their garden was completely covered in raw sewage and waste water, which had spread to other gardens and more allotments.

The sewage stopped that day, but then continued to discharge intermittently over the next two months until 22 April. The volume peaked on the evening of 3 March when nine neighbouring gardens and an allotment were flooded by the waste water and sewage effluent. On a number of occasions sewage was coming out of the manhole because the pumps set up by the contractors had run out of fuel, completely stopped, or because sufficient pumps were not available.

EA officer Richard Maile first attended St James's Avenue on 11 February where he saw a large hole in the road containing liquid, some of which was flowing into a highway gully, which in turn flowed into the St James Stream. He also found sewage flowing from a manhole chamber into gardens and a residential area. He took pictures and video evidence of this and the affected land in Wimbourne Way.

Later that day a pump had been set up in St James's Avenue by the Thames Water's contractors, and when it was switched on a jet of sewage escaped from a fractured pipe, on to the ground and into the nearby St James's Stream.

The clear up

On 22 February sewage was found flowing across ground at the bottom of a trench 10 ft deep and 10 ft long. It was disappearing into a foul sewer at the end of the trench. On another occasion widespread sewage flooding was seen and also detected in St James Stream which was discoloured and smelled strongly of sewage.

The last major escape of sewage, which affected several houses in Wimbourne Way, was on the 22 of April, over two months after the first event.

Richard Maile, a leading investigating officer for the Environment Agency, said: "The underlying problem was a collapsed sewer pipe in the area that was not repaired quickly enough, and Thames Water and its' contractors failed to take reasonable steps to divert the waste water and sewage from the broken pipe.

"This was a deeply unpleasant experience for the families that had raw sewage flowing into their gardens, under their homes and into their allotments, making the produce inedible. It has taken a long time for these people to see justice."

Environment Agency prosecutor Angus Innes said: "We persisted with our prosecution, despite a strong legal challenge, because we believe it is unacceptable not to move legal mountains to protect householders from the effects of the flooding of their property with sewage and waste water.

"Pollution of rivers and streams is relatively easy to prosecute as the offences are subject to strict liability, without proving negligence or intent. But to prosecute the eleven waste deposit offences we had to first overcome Thames Water's  argument in superior courts to rule that the waste laws do not apply to them.

"Once the European Court had agreed that these laws did apply, we were able to prove in the magistrates' court that Thames Water did not act with due diligence in addressing the problems flowing from the collapsed sewer."

 

 Ed- The defendant pleaded guilty in 2009 to the four Water Resource Act offences, and sentencing on these charges had been held over until Thames Water's guilt on the 11 waste charges was determined.

Prosecution Time Line

2003, Feb - April:  Offences happened.
 
2003, November:  Prosecution commenced with issue of summons charging the above offences and some Health and Safety offences, which were subsequently dropped after legal objection by Thames Water.
 
2004, 16 September - Before the Magistrates Court , TWUL raised a preliminary legal argument that escaped sewage is subject to the European "Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive" only and not the European "Waste Framework Directive" and therefore cannot be "directive waste" or "controlled waste" - one of the elements of a s 33 EPA 1990 offence. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to decide a preliminary point of law. Thames Water judicially reviewed this decision to the High Court (Administration Court) asserting that the Magistrates' Court should have decided the preliminary point. 

2005, 18 May - The High Court ruled that the Magistrates' Court did have the power to rule on the preliminary legal point. However, instead of sending the case back to Bromley Magistrates' Court, and with the agreement of the EA that an important question of law was involved, the legal issue about whether escaped sewage was "directive waste" or "controlled waste", the case was referred to the European Court of Justice.

2007, 10 May - The European Court of Justice ruled that waste water escaping from a sewerage network did constitute waste for the purposes of the European Waste Framework Directive. However it also stated that it was possible that it might be subject to a specific exemption from the obligations of the Waste Framework Directive if there were laws applicable in the member country (ie England and Wales) that contained precise provisions organising the management of the waste in question to achieve the level of protection of the environment required by the Waste Framework Directive. In lay terms, if the legislation dealing with sewage undertakers, made for the purposes of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (eg the Water Act) had comprehensively dealt with the management of escaped sewage to achieve the level of environmental protection required by the WFD, then the WFD and laws made to implement it would not apply. It referred the decision on this latter point back to the High Court.

2008, 28th July  - The High Court (Admin Ct - Carnwath LJ and Bean J) ) ruled that there was no other system of rules or laws achieving the level of protection of the environment  required by the WFD except the general waste legislation and therefore escaped sewage is "controlled waste" for the purposes of s. 33 EPA 1990. They remitted the matter back to the Bromley Magistrates Court for the taking of evidence and a trial of the contested waste charges.
 
2009, June - Directions given in Bromley Magistrates Court for the future trial.
 
2010. January, May, June, September and November: the trial - evidence and  and closing submissions relating to the eleven, s 33 EPA 1990, waste offences.
 
2011, March 7th and 8th, - Delivery of reasons for judgement and sentencing.

 

Poultry smells ended in court

Defendant	Moy Park Ltd	Hearing
Offence	Regulation 38(1)(b) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007	Court	Boston Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £30,000	Costs: £12,123

Smells from a poultry unit in Sibsey, Boston affected neighbours for several months when the company failed to comply with its environmental permit condition or follow EA guidance'.

Moy Park Ltd, who ran the unit in 2009 at Main Road, Sibsey pleaded guilty at Boston Magistrates' Court and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay full costs of  £12,123 to the Environment Agency..

Magistrates were told that the company had failed to follow advice given by the Agency and did not follow guidance on odour management from poultry farms. "It failed to follow its own odour management plan," said Mrs Anne-Lise McDonald, prosecuting.

"The company did not maintain the site infrastructure, follow good housekeeping practice, carry out odour monitoring or properly investigate the cause of odours coming from the site," she said.

The court heard that Moy Park held an environmental permit authorising intensive poultry rearing of up to 200,500 broiler birds on a 35-37 day cycle. The permit contains conditions to protect the environment and local communities and requires appropriate management systems and infrastructure.

Mrs McDonald, prosecuting, said the company had failed to do that, resulting in a considerable impact to nearby residents and the enjoyment of their home life.

She said that between October 2007 and November 2009 the Environment Agency received 143 complaints about the smell from the poultry unit and officers investigated.

The court heard that during various visits to the poultry unit Agency officers saw a number of issues that would contribute to annoying odours detected off site, including shed doors being left open, litter (bedding) capped and visibly damp underneath, badly maintained hard standing and no method of segregating rainwater from dirty water. 

Standing water had been allowed to become contaminated with litter or manure, misting nozzles designed to keep smells under control were poorly placed - sometimes spraying hedges and in some places below the level of the shed roofs where smells emanated from. Complaints to the company did not appear to be investigated, said Mrs McDonald.

Local residents gave witness statements to the Environment Agency reporting the effect on their lives of the smell. Several are retired and they described the smell as 'nauseating' and stopping them using their gardens.  They said they could not hang out washing, had to re-wash clothes and could not open their windows in the summer. People had stopped visiting them and those who did, complained.

Mrs McDonald told the court that the company had declined a voluntary interview and two employees had been required to answer questions under the Agency's statutory powers.

Mr Stephen Chittenden said in mitigation the site was unsuitable for operations and needed knocking down. As a consequence, it was sold and decommissioned at the end of 2009.

Moy Park regretted the impact on residents.

After the hearing Environment Offiicer Rebecca Tremain said: "This was a case of poor site management that impacted on the community."

Area Environment Manager, Simon Mitchell said: "Moy Park has worked closely with the Environment Agency to ensure compliance with its permit conditions and to improve its environmental performance at its poultry farms in Lincolnshire with the aim of reducing the risks of such incidents happening in the future.  The company is investing in new plant and working methods to significantly reduce the risk of such incidents happening again."

Ed - the exact wording of the charge Moy Park Ltd pleaded guilty to:

Between 25 July 2009 and 11 November 2009 at Menzies Poultry Unit, Crane House, Main Road, Sibsey, Boston, Lincs PE22 0TT, as the Operator of a Environmental Permit MP3934MH you failed to comply with Condition 3.4.1 of the said Permit in that you failed to ensure that emissions from the activities were free from odours at levels likely to cause annoyance outside the site, as perceived by an authorised officer of the Agency, and that you failed to use appropriate measures, including those specified in schedule 1 table S1.4, to prevent or where that is not practicable to minimise the odour contrary to Regulation 38(1)(b) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

 

Depositing Waste offences

Defendant (1)	G P Properties Ltd	Hearing	14 March 2011
Offence	S33 EPA 1990	Court	Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £20,500	Costs: £2,250
Defendant (2)	Gary Abel
Offence	S33 EPA 1990
Penalty	Fine: £500	Costs: £750

G P Properties Ltd of Stourbridge was sentenced in relation to offences of storing waste and allowing waste to be deposited on land.

In addition, the company was sentenced in relation to failing to ensure that waste was transferred to an authorised person. All the offences related to waste from land at the rear of Central Garages, Kidderminster Road, Alveley.

Mr Gary Abel of Bridgnorth, Shropshire, was also sentenced in relation to one charge of failing to ensure that waste was transferred to an authorised person.

G P Properties Ltd was fined £20,500, ordered to pay £2,250 costs, along with a £15 victim surcharge.  Mr Abel was fined £500, ordered to pay £750 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

In January 2009 the EA visited land to the rear of Central Garages and witnessed waste which the land owner, G P Properties Ltd was subsequently requested to remove.

The site was revisited in March 2009 and June 2009. During the visit on 1 June 2009, a pile of waste, full skips and several builders' merchant bags were seen. It was suspected that some of the waste was asbestos. Samples were taken on 28 July 2009 and the result of the analysis confirmed the presence of asbestos.

Despite the waste being removed, it transpired that the asbestos was transferred to an unauthorised third party who was not registered with the Environment Agency as a waste carrier.

On 4 May 2010 Environment Officers attended at the site and saw a skip lorry carrying empty skips. Several skips containing assorted household waste were seen and waste construction and demolition materials were spread over the ground on part of the site. In additional to a mechanical screener there were several other pieces of machinery and wastes stored in bays. Such waste had been put on the site by a third party.

Speaking after the case, Environment Officer Alison John said: "It has not been possible to trace any company operating by the name of C & D Waste Services. It is important that we are able to trace where waste has come from and where it is being recycled or disposed of in order to ensure disposal treatments or routes do not cause a risk to human health or harm the environment."

 

Garden centre fined for burning waste

Defendant	Terence Bailey	Hearing
Offence	Environmental Protection Regulations 2007 x3 Environmental Protection  Act 1990	Court	Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £12,000	Costs: £3,713

The owner of a Somerset garden centre has been ordered to pay more than £15,700 in fines and costs for illegally burning trade waste.

On January 14, 2010 two Environment Agency officers visited the Rocky Mountain Garden Centre at Masbury near Wells to investigate a report of illegal waste burning. They found no evidence of burning, but noticed there were very few waste collection facilities on site.

Following their visit the officers wrote to the owner, Terence Bailey, asking him to provide the Environment Agency with all the waste transfer notes for all waste removed from the garden centre for the preceding two years. This was to establish whether waste had been collected and disposed of correctly.

Mr Bailey replied saying that as a small business with an annual turnover of approximately £550,000 and producing around 6 tonnes of waste a year, he didn't think he needed to keep waste transfer notes. He told the Agency he would 'be clearing a lot off the site very shortly.'

It was pointed out to Mr Bailey that the Rocky Mountain Garden Centre was located in an extremely sensitive area for groundwater and any pollutants entering the ground could contaminate public water supplies.

On January 27, 2010 Agency officers returned to the site and inspected land opposite the garden centre, also owned by the defendant. They found a large pile of burnt waste covering an area of ground approximately 8 metres by 2.5 metres and some 2 metres high. Nearby was a pile of unburnt waste and three end-of-life (scrap) vehicles.

However, when officers returned a month later with officers from Mendip District Council they saw the pile of burnt waste had increased in size. The ash contained electrical appliances, burnt batteries, mouse poison, holly wreaths, a shop display unit, barbeque tools, garden tools plus some household waste and paperwork from the garden centre.

Also visible were piles of scrap metal, plant pots and scrap cars including some buried in undergrowth.

'The illegal burning of commercial waste on this site posed a serious risk of contamination to soils and groundwater. The defendant continued to dispose of waste by burning despite being warned, on a number of occasions, that his actions were unlawful. The offences were deliberate and took place over a prolonged period of time. The defendant denied he was motivated by financial gain, although he would have saved a considerable amount of money in waste disposal costs,' said Rebecca Bomers for the Environment Agency.

Appearing before Frome magistrates, Terence Bailey, of The Cottage, Old Frome Road, Masbury, Wells, Somerset was fined a total of £12,000 and ordered to pay £3,713 costs after pleading guilty to four offences including depositing and disposing of waste at Rocky Mountain Nursery without a permit and transferring waste without waste transfer notes.

 

Doughnut company 'cream- crackered'

Defendant	Krispy Kreme UK Ltd	Hearing	11 March 2011
Offence	Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005	Court	Woking Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £8,000           Costs: £1,497  Compensation: £3,096

The renowned doughnut company Krispy Kreme UK Ltd has been ordered to pay more than £12,000 for failing to comply with the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 and 2007.

Woking Magistrates' Court fined Krispy Kreme UK Ltd £8,000 and ordered it to pay compensation of £3,096, representing the registration fees. It also ordered the company to pay £1,497 costs to the Environment Agency and a £15 government victim surcharge, a total of £12,608.
The company pleaded guilty to failing to register with the EA and failing to recover and recycle packaging waste in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 by purchasing Packaging Recovery Notes as provided by the Regulations or joining an approved compliance scheme.

Krispy Kreme sells hot and cold drinks at its retail outlets across the country. The products and packaging from these stores are distributed daily to kiosk and coffee bar locations in shopping centres and also to around 150 in-store cabinets in supermarkets and motorway service areas.

EA routine checks revealed that Krispy Kreme UK Ltd was not registered with a compliance scheme. The company then joined a compliance scheme in April 2010.
The company avoided costs of £6,710 by not registering and not purchasing the correct amount of Packaging Recovery Notes between 2006 and 2009. The company's main packaging activity is that of pack filling and selling. The packaging materials handled include paper and plastic.
Matt Higginson, investigating officer for the Environment Agency, said: "The Producer Responsibility Regulations are in place to encourage a reduction in the amount of packaging used by businesses and to decrease the disposal of packaging waste to landfill.
"Although these regulations have been in place for over a decade, many businesses still remain unaware of their responsibilities. The money that Krispy Kreme UK Ltd has saved by not purchasing Packaging Recovery Notes would have directly supported the recycling industry."

Ed- Krispy Kreme UK Ltd was charged under Regulation 41 of the Regulations for failing to register with the Environment Agency and failing to recover and recycle packaging waste.

Under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations, companies which have an annual turnover in excess of £2 million and handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging per annum must register with the Environment Agency or a compliance scheme.  Each year, the company must also provide evidence of payment for recovery and recycling of a specified proportion of its packaging.  The types of packaging covered by this legislation are wood, aluminium, steel, cardboard and plastic.
The regulations are designed to make companies assess the amount of packaging they handle and, where possible, limit its use. The money raised from this legislation is directly invested in the recycling industry.

£7,000

Timber company fined following fish deaths on Glastonbury Canal

Defendant	Bradford Timber Supplies Ltd	Hearing	March 2011
Offence	S85 Water Resources Act 1991	Court	Frome Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £7,000                                  Costs:         £9,696

A Somerset timber firm has been ordered to pay £16,696 in fines and costs after wood preservative escaped into the Glastonbury Canal and killed hundreds of fish.

On 6 February 2010 an Environment Agency officer visited the canal to investigate reports of dead and dying fish. She saw hundreds of dead fish including roach, bream, rudd, chub and perch. Others were showing signs of distress and behaving erratically including jumping out of the water, swimming in circles and on their sides.

Evidence of pollution was visible downstream to the point where the canal meets the South Drain. Distressed fish were observed as far as Burtle -  6 miles from the source of the spill.

Analysis of dead fish revealed the presence the pesticides Permethrin, Tebuconazole and Propaconazole - chemicals commonly used in wood preservatives. Investigations traced the pollution to Snows Timber, Porchestall Drove, Glastonbury. The pollution had drained into the Glastonbury Canal via an underground pipe and small watercourse.

Samples taken along the route from Snows Timber (the new name of the company)  to the canal were contaminated with wood preservative chemicals that, when tested, were found to contain 'extremely high' levels of pesticides.

Tests carried out at EA's Starcross Laboratories showed that some fish had more than seven times the lethal limit of chemicals in their gills.

The pollution occurred close to Shapwick Heath Nature Reserve, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that forms part of the Somerset Levels and Moors - a Special Protection Area (SPA).The nature reserve is a popular recreation area used by walkers, birdwatchers and anglers. Fortunately, this important site was not affected by the pollution.

 'This was a serious pollution incident that had a major effect on water quality in the Glastonbury Canal and caused the death of hundreds of fish. Businesses using potentially lethal chemicals such as pesticides must ensure they are stored and handled safely and do not escape into environment,' said Dave Sharp for the Environment Agency.
                                                                                                                          
Bradford Timber Supplies Ltd of 96 Hendford Hill, Yeovil, Somerset was fined £7,000 and ordered to pay £9,696 costs by Frome  Magistrates after pleading guilty to causing or knowingly permitting poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, namely wood preservative, to enter a controlled water, the Glastonbury Canal contrary to the Water Resources Act 1991.
The case was heard on February 18, 2011.

Poultry farm fined over 'plague' of flies

Defendant	W J Watkins & Son Ltd	Hearing	March 2011
Offence	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007	Court	Barnstable Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine: £6,000                                  Costs:         £2,100

On June 29, 2009 two Agency officers visited Worden Farm, Milton Damerel to discuss complaints about flies. They were accompanied by officers from the Environmental Health department of Torridge District Council. The farm is run by W J Watkins & Son Ltd and consists of five buildings housing some 390,000 chickens.

On arriving at the farm the officers were met by a 'plague' of flies. One of the Agency officers said he had to continuously swat insects away from his face as he was speaking to a site manager.

During the meeting the operator disclosed it had changed the type of chicken feed used at the unit. The new feed, that contained sunflower seeds and a higher level of soya acid oil, caused the chicken faeces to have a much higher moisture content. This had created ideal breeding conditions for flies.

Chicken manure from the unit is used by local farmers as a fertiliser and spread on surrounding fields. The company routinely treat manure with a chemical called Neporex which can prevent the larvae from developing into adult flies. They also employ additional fly control measures at the farm. However, these failed to control the explosion in fly numbers in June 2009.

Earlier in the year poultry manure had been removed from Worden Farm and spread on farmland around Milton Damerel. Around the same time Torridge District Council and the EA started receiving calls from distressed residents who found large numbers of flies in their homes.

'This was a huge fly infestation that caused major distress to the local residents and businesses of Milton Damerel. The operator failed to notify the Agency of the problems it was experiencing as required under a condition of its permit. Poultry litter should be regularly inspected to ensure it does not become excessively wet and a breeding ground for flies. Appropriate steps should be taken to deal with any problem. Failure to do so can cause the local fly population to escalate to 'plague' proportions,' said Alison Gidlow for the Environment Agency.

'Once we were aware of the scale of the problem we worked with the operator to isolate the fly-affected manure by covering it in plastic sheeting to prevent more flies from hatching. The fly problem at the farm was brought under control within a few days of our visit,' said Alison Gidlow.

W J Watkins & Son Ltd, of Highfield, Holsworthy Beacon, Holsworthy, Devon were fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £2,100 costs by Barnstaple magistrates for failing to notify the Environment Agency of any malfunction, breakdown or failure of equipment or techniques that might adversely affect the environment. The company pleaded guilty to breaching a condition of its Environmental Permit. The case was heard on February 22.

Defendant	Offence(s)	Penalty		Notes
CH4 Power Ltd	S85 WRA 1990 x2	Fine:  £ Costs:£	5,000 7,284	7km stretch of river polluted by rotting vegetable matter
Hutchings & Carter Ltd	Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 x2	Fine:  £ Costs:£	4,000 10,500	Operating waste transfer station without authorisation (or planning permission)
Paul Phillips	S33 EPA 1990	Fine:  £ Costs:£	3,500 3,500	keeping waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
Barry James Jackson and Lisa Jackson   Jacko Skips	12 & 38(1) (a) Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2007	Penalty Each   Costs:£ Fine:  £ Costs:£	28 days susp & curfew 1,000 2,000 6,000	Operating waste transfer station without authorisation
Lee Warner	S85 WRA 1990	Fine:  £ Costs:£	1,500 2,459	Overflowing slurry lagoon polluted local river
James Edward Andrews		Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,500 2,459
Issac Ngalle	S1(1) Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989	Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,000 1,280	Carrying waste without carriers licence
Michael Ashley		Fine:  £ Costs:£	2,000 1,695	Carrying waste without carriers licence

 

£2,000

New online directory to increase confidence in health and safety advice

A new online directory to help businesses find a health and safety consultant has been launched.

More than 1,600 qualified consultants in the UK have signed up to the online Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR). It has been created to increase employers' confidence that they are receiving good quality, proportionate health and safety advice should they need external help.

Before consultants can join the register they must prove they can meet strict eligibility criteria. Each must belong to a professional body, have a degree-level qualification, at least two years' experience and have demonstrated a commitment to continuing their professional development.

Many employers do not need external consultants to help them comply with their legal obligations. The register is aimed at those businesses that want extra support from a trusted source - and will make it easy to find a local consultant with relevant industry and topic expertise.

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said:

"We have launched an official Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register for those health and safety practitioners who are properly accredited to one of the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do not have the requisite expertise and experience will be excluded from the register, making it easier for employers to access reliable, reputable advice."

 OSHCR has been established by a number of professional bodies representing general safety and occupational health consultants, with support from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in response to the Government-commissioned Common Sense Common Safety report into Britain's health and safety system, which called for improved competence in health and safety advice.

The register is now freely accessible and searchable at www.oshcr.org

Ed -

The register covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Health and Safety is devolved in Northern Ireland but the Northern Ireland regulators HSENI have joined the UK-wide scheme.

2. The HSE supported a number of participating professional bodies and other stakeholders as they established OSHCR Ltd as a not-for-profit company.   The HSE is currently administering the register; the intention is that once it is up and running, the professional bodies will take this over.

3.The register, which is voluntary, is open to individuals who provide commercial advice on general health and safety management issues and who have achieved at least one of the following:

Chartered status with IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health); CIEH (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health); or REHIS (Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland) with health and safety qualifications

Fellow status with IIRSM (International Institute of Risk and Safety Management) with degree level qualifications

Member or Fellow status with BOHS (British Occupational Hygiene Society) Faculty of Occupational Hygiene

Registered Member or Fellow status with IEHF (Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors).

In addition, all consultants wishing to join the register will be asked to declare that they will:

Demonstrate adequate continuing professional development;

abide by their professional body's code of conduct;

provide sensible and proportionate advice;

and have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent.

4.The Government-commissioned report on the UK health and safety system, Common Sense Common Safety, was published on 15 October 2010. OSHCR meets several of the report's aspirations for improved competence in external health and safety advice.