Editorial

 

As can be anticipated every year there is the typical bumper crop of court cases after the slow-down in August.  The range in penalties for what , superficially at least appear to be similar matters seems as great as ever. 

To avoid clogging up BRN I don't normally quote the full reports of cases where the fines imposed are less than £10,000.  I have made an exception in this edition to report the case of Formac Electronics who was fined £600 for offences related to the exposure of blue asbestos.  Blue asbestos is considered to pose the greatest risk to human health. 

Compare what happened in the Formac case with the Marks and Spencer prosecution.  Now M&S were convicted after a trial and, in the words of the judge there was 'tension' between health and safety and profit which had caused 'lamentable problems' leading to dust possibly containing asbestos falling into the shop when it was open.

In Formac a worker was exposed to concentrations of asbestos fibres many times in excess of the control limit for around 5 hours.

I have to say, even taking account of the different circumstances of the companies and their financial standing I struggle with such a significant discrepancy.

We've other interesting news this month - the continued upswing in environmentally related imprisonments and confiscations continues this month.  Ironically it would appear being convicted is the least of offenders worries.  The confiscation proceedings with the threat of imprisonment for non-payment appears to be the greater incentive not to break the law in the first place.

And finally two important announcements - one regarding changes to reporting accidents to the HSE and what can be phoned in.  As you'd expect online reporting is now to be the norm save only in the most severe cases such as a work related death where a phone call will still be accepted.  The other change is to the prosecution of health and safety cases in advance of a coroner's inquest - a change from what had been accepted practice for many, many years.  As a defence lawyer I recognise immediately that such a change will tend to increase the number of prosecutions - as frankly I have known prosecutor's run out of steam with the inherent delays in waiting for inquests.

Also this change may make the job of the coroner somewhat easier - especially when holding an inquest following a conviction for a closely related health and safety offence.  This change may bring pressure to drop the need for an inquest jury on a work-related accidental death.  After all if you have a conviction where it is clear that one of the principal health and safety duties has been breached and death has resulted - do you need a jury in these circumstances?  I would have thought the Coroner would be able to produce a clear narrative verdict in such circumstances with the minimum of fuss - how the deceased came by his or her death is likely already to have been established.

 

Marks and Spencer fined £1 million

Defendant	Marks and Spencer plc			Winchester Crown Court (trial) Bournemouth Crown Court (sentencing)
Offence(s)	S2(1) & s3(1) HSWA			27 September 2011
Fine	£1,000,000	Costs	£600,000	Convicted after trial
Defendant	Styles & Wood Limited
Offence(s)	S2(1) & s3(1) HSWA
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£40,000	Pleaded guilty
Defendant	Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd
Offence(s)	S2(1) & s3(1) HSWA
Fine	£50,000	Costs	£75,000	Convicted after trial
Defendant	PA Realisations Ltd (in administration)
Offence(s)	S2(1) & s3(1) HSWA
Fine	£200	Costs	£600,000	Convicted after trial

 

Marks and Spencer plc and three of its contractors have been fined for putting members of the public, staff and construction workers at risk of exposure to asbestos-containing materials during the refurbishment of two stores in Reading and Bournemouth.

The sentencing hearing, at Bournemouth Crown Court, resulted in Marks and Spencer plc being fined £1 million and ordered to pay costs of £600,000, PA Realisations Ltd being fined £200, and Styles & Wood Limited being fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £40,000, all for breaches that took place at the Marks and Spencer plc store in Broad Street, Reading.

Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £75,000, for breaches that took place at the Marks and Spencer plc store in Commercial Road, Bournemouth.  Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd is applying for permission to appeal against conviction.

The work was carried out between 2006 and 2007 on shops in Reading and Bournemouth.

During the three month trial which ended in July 2011, Winchester Crown Court heard construction workers at the two stores removed asbestos-containing materials that were present in the ceiling tiles and elsewhere.

The court heard that the client, Marks and Spencer plc, did not allocate sufficient time and space for the removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Reading store. The contractors had to work overnight in enclosures on the shop floor, with the aim of completing small areas of asbestos removal before the shop opened to the public each day.

HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer plc failed to ensure that work at the Reading store complied with the appropriate minimum standards set out in legislation and approved codes of practice. The company had produced its own guidance on how asbestos should be removed inside its stores, and the court heard that this guidance was followed by contractors inappropriately during major refurbishment.

The contractor, PA Realisations Ltd, failed to reduce to a minimum the spread of asbestos to the Reading shop floor. Witnesses said that areas cleaned by the company were re-contaminated by air moving through the void between the ceiling tiles and the floor above, and by poor standards of work.

Styles & Wood Limited, the principal contractor at the Reading store, admitted that it should not have permitted a method of asbestos removal which did not allow for adequate sealing of the ceiling void, which resulted in risks to contractors on site.

The principal contractor at the Bournemouth store, Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd, failed to plan, manage and monitor removal of asbestos-containing materials. It did not prevent the possibility of asbestos being disturbed by its workers in areas that had not been surveyed extensively.

After the sentencing, Richard Boland, HSE's Southern Head of Operations for Construction, said:

"This outcome should act as a wake up call that any refurbishment programmes involving asbestos-containing materials must be properly resourced, both in terms of time and money - no matter what.

"Large retailers and other organisations who carry out major refurbishment works must give contractors enough time and space within the store to carry out the works safely.   Where this is not done, and construction workers and the public are put at risk, HSE will not hesitate in taking robust enforcement action."

Ed - A fifth company, Clarence Contractors Ltd, was prosecuted and sentenced in relation to asbestos removal in January 2010.  This company, which was in liquidation, was  fined £50 for each offence (total £200) and £100 costs. 

 

 

Duco International Limited fined after death in machine

Defendant	Duco International Limited			Reading Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA & reg s3(1)(a) MHSWR			8 September 2011
Fine	£200,000	Costs	£43,352

 

A Manchester-based company has been fined after a night shift worker died when he was trapped in a machine at a factory in Berkshire.

The HSE prosecuted Duco International Limited for failing to provide a safe system of work which led to a death at a site in Eastbourne Road on the Slough Trading Estate.

Reading Crown Court heard Mitesh Prashar, 24, of Slough, was operating an automatic inspection machine, which quality checks rolls of rubber and cloth printing blanket before sending to customers. The blanket moves through the machine from one reel to another via a photographic unit, checking the fabric for flaws.

Though nobody witnessed the incident, at about 2am on 15 January 2008 colleagues heard Mr Prashar cry out. His body was subsequently found with his left arm, shoulder, head and torso trapped between the rubberised blanket and the roller. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The HSE investigation found the company had not assessed the hazards of using the machine and it had not been checked after modification. Inspectors also found there was no guarding to prevent access to the dangerous parts of the machine and Duco International Ltd had failed to give adequate information, instruction or training to employees using the machine.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Ray Kelly said:

"This needless tragedy is typical of what can happen when health and safety management systems fail. Had the hazards been assessed, the lack of any guarding would have been highlighted, and this death could have been avoided.

"Companies should realise that when there are flagrant breaches of health and safety law HSE will prosecute."

 

Worker crushed in potato harvester

Defendant	GJ Orr			Cupar Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA			15 September 2011
Fine	£112,500	Costs	Nil - SCOT

 

A Cupar farming partnership has been fined £112,500 after a worker was killed when he was crushed between the rollers of a potato harvester.

Keith Wannan, 34, from Cupar, died as he was replacing rubber sleeves on the rollers of a potato harvester to prepare it for the new harvesting season.

His employers, GJ Orr of Foodieash, were sentenced at Cupar Sheriff Court after an investigation by the HSE following the death on 6 September 2009.

The court heard that to replace the sleeves, the rollers needed to be removed and reinstated in the harvester.  On the morning of 6 September 2009, one of the partners, George Orr, assisted Mr Wannan. In order to put the rollers in the correct place he turned on power to the harvester using the controls of the tractor to which it was attached at the time. He then left Mr Wannan to complete the work.

When Mr Orr returned approximately an hour and a half later, he saw the tractor was running but could not see Mr Wannan. As he got closer he saw Mr Wannan trapped between the rollers.

Mr Wannan was transferred by air ambulance to Ninewells Hospital in Dundee but was pronounced dead on arrival.

The HSE investigation found GJ Orr had not conducted a proper assessment of the risks involved in carrying out maintenance and testing work on the potato harvester. As the work Mr Wannan was doing required the removal of fixed guarding, GJ Orr should have identified the risk of exposure to dangerous moving parts.

The investigation also found that there was no safe system of work in place for maintenance to be carried out. There were no measures to prevent lone workers gaining access to moving parts of the harvester when the guarding was removed and the power was not isolated.

HSE Inspector Peter Dodd said:

"Mr Wannan went to work that day fully expecting to come home safe. But now his partner and his family have to come to terms with their loss.

"If GJ Orr had taken simple steps to protect their employees by thinking about hazards and risks, putting measures in place to prevent their employees being able to come into contact with dangerous parts of the harvester, this incident would not have happened.

"This case should act as a timely reminder to farmers of the very real dangers posed by their machinery when they are preparing it for harvesting, undertaking repairs or maintenance, or attempting to clear blockages."

 

County Durham firm fined after worker crushed to death

Defendant	Tallent Automotive Ltd-Gestamp Automocion			Durham Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA			30 September 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£44,000

A County Durham engineering firm has been fined £100,000 after a worker was crushed to death while clearing a jam on a production line.

Father-of-two Paul Clark, 52, of Newton Aycliffe, was a multi-skilled fitter at Tallent Automotive Ltd-Gestamp Automocion (formerly ThyssenKrupp Tallent Ltd), where he died on 8 July 2009 after becoming trapped between a moving carriage and its tracks.

Durham Crown Court heard that Mr Clark had been working in the press shop of the company's Newton Aycliffe plant, which manufactures components for the car industry.

An investigation by the HSE found that a pneumatically-powered carriage, part of a large press which produced chassis components, had jammed. The carriage, known as a de-stacker, was used to remove empty magazines which had previously contained metal blanks, away from the press.

Mr Clark was attempting to clear the jam after the carriage had stopped halfway along its tracks. He had opened the interlocked safety gates to gain access within the fenced enclosure of the machine. This isolated the equipment from the electricity supply, but did not isolate and make safe the pneumatic power element of the machine. The equipment for controlling movement of the carriage was located within the tracks the carriage ran on, which meant he had to work in a dangerous area in order to try and establish the cause of the jam.

Whilst working on the equipment between the tracks, the carriage moved suddenly and trapped Mr Clark between the carriage and the support structure at the end of the tracks. He died as a result of traumatic asphyxia due to crush injuries.

The HSE investigation found that there was no safe system for carrying out work within the destacker area, as the pneumatic power for the machinery was not isolated before entering the interlocked enclosure. Although the electrical hazards were recognised by the company, the risks from the pneumatically operated equipment were not.

It was also found that the controls for adjusting the de-stacker carriage were located in a position of danger. There was also insufficient information available to Mr Clark to show how the pneumatic supply worked and how he could safely make the necessary adjustments.

HSE Inspector Martin Baillie said:

"This tragic death could have been avoided had the company put in place a safe system of work in place which ensured that risks from all energy sources had been identified and made safe before employees could gain access to the enclosure where the equipment was located.

"It is vitally important that safe isolation procedures are developed and used before attempting to make repairs to equipment.

"In this instance, Tallent Automotive Limited-Gestamp Automocion has instead relied on the training and experience of individuals without providing a safe system of work or adequate information for them. This was a significant cause of the incident which led to Mr Clark's death."

Speaking after the case Mr Clark's wife Carole said:

"Paul was a tremendous husband, father, family man and friend to so many. What happened that fateful day has not only devastated the lives of those nearest to Paul but affected the lives of many others.

"We as a family remain of the view that Paul's death was completely avoidable. Paul was working in an isolated, hazardous area alone. When the accident happened his vital organs were not damaged, in fact he had only broken a few ribs and the Coroner felt his death could possibly have been avoided had he been extricated earlier. What he must have gone through in those minutes doesn't bear thinking about.

"We would hope that since this accident Tallent Automotive and other companies nationwide will introduce measures to have another worker close by to raise the alarm immediately when workers are in hazardous conditions. This could prevent further fatalities.

"We are pleased to now be able to draw a line under this process and try to re-build our lives. The final word has to be for Paul, who we miss so much. He leaves such a big void in our lives. He led such a full life but had so much more to live for, he has already missed his son's graduation, birth of family members and won't be present at his son's wedding next year. Nobody expects their husband to go out to work on an ordinary day and not come home."

 

Newport council fined following death of disabled man

Defendant	Newport City Council			Newport Crown Court
Offence(s)	S3 HSWA			13 September 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£60,108.32

 

Newport City Council has been ordered to pay over £160,000 after a disabled man died when he was trapped in a ceiling track hoist installed in his home.

Michael Powell, 53, suffocated when he attempted to hoist himself over his bed, on or around the evening of 20 January 2008, and was unable to call for help.

Mr Powell lived alone in a bungalow in Newport and had last spoken to his family via telephone that same evening. They became concerned when they were unable to contact him the following day, and his body was discovered by them in the early afternoon.

Mr Powell was paralysed from the chest down following a Speedway accident in the 1970s. He used a wheelchair and Newport City Council had installed ceiling track hoists in his bathroom and bedroom to help him to live independently.

Newport Crown Court heard both hoists were subject to regular maintenance inspections by the Council's in-house disability equipment providers, Monwel Hankinson.

However, an HSE investigation found that the handset control for the ceiling track hoist was on the floor next to his bed, and subsequent tests indicated that it could easily detach and fall off.

The HSE also found one of the directional control buttons on the handset was pointing in the wrong direction. The emergency pull cord that would normally lower the user to safety if trapped, was not working due to the corrosion of the battery terminals.

The court heard the hoists had been provided to Mr Powell to use on his own, without the aid of a carer. However, the manufacturer's guidance indicated the hoist should only be used when a carer was present. He had no alarm or call system to help him in the event of becoming trapped. Once trapped, Mr Powell had no means of summoning assistance.

Newport City Council, of Civic Centre, Newport, Gwent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA. They were fined £100,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £60,108.02 pence.

Following the case, HSE Inspector, Stephen Hanson-Hall said:

"This is a tragic incident. Mr Powell was a very independent person who relied on the equipment provided to him by Newport City Council to further assist that independence.

"Prior to this incident Mr Powell had contacted Newport City Council with concerns about becoming trapped, but the risk of entrapment and lone use went unchecked.

"Despite the best intentions of the council, he was provided with a hoist that was inappropriate for independent living without additional safeguards being put in place. This particular hoist had no means for the user to summon assistance and had been designed for use in the presence of a carer.

"HSE has had the full cooperation of Newport City Council during this investigation, and measures have now been put in place to help prevent any future similar incidents. HSE fully supports the valuable work of Local Authorities in supporting people to live independently in their own homes. Sadly, on this occasion some clear risks that arose from Mr. Powell's package of support went unidentified until after the incident."

 

Bus builder fined after Falkirk worker hit by steel platform

Defendant	Alexander Dennis Ltd			Falkirk Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	S2 HSWA			13 September 2011
Fine	£50,000	Costs	Nil - SCOT

 

A bus manufacturer has been fined £50,000 after a worker was injured by a bus floor platform which slipped while being lifted into position.

Samuel Murray, 56, from Plains, North Lanarkshire was working in the welding bays of bus body manufacturing firm, Alexander Dennis Ltd, in Falkirk on 16 September 2009.

He had requested a forklift truck driver to lift and transport a steel floor platform weighing nearly 120 kgs from the goods yard to the welding bays in the chassis shop.

Falkirk Sheriff Court heard that the forklift truck driver placed extensions on to the forks of the truck to move the platform but did not properly secure either the forks or the load. In the chassis shop, the platform was lowered and Mr Murray placed a sling underneath and around the uneven load for it to be manoeuvred onto the chassis. He then looped the sling around one of the extension forks.

Mr Murray, assisted by two other employees, began manually lining up the platform and chassis while the fork lift driver adjusted the angle the forks were tilted at and lowered them slightly. This motion resulted in one end of the sling coming loose causing one end of the platform to swing up and strike Mr Murray on the chin.

Mr Murray sustained a deep cut to his chin, which needed to be stitched and required emergency dental treatment for four broken teeth. He was off work for ten weeks.

Following the incident, an HSE investigation found Alexander Dennis Ltd had not properly assessed the risks in transporting, handling and positioning floor platforms onto bus chassis. HSE inspectors found workers simply relied on the weight of the platform as the only way of securing it to the forklift truck while transporting it.

The HSE investigation also revealed the company had not provided employees with a safe system of work for the operation. And despite it being a routine task at the firm, no formal training on lifting operations was given; instead it was left to individuals to decide on the method used to line up the floor platform and bus chassis.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Matthew Ramsey said:

"This incident was entirely foreseeable, and if Alexander Dennis Ltd had taken simple steps to identify the hazards in carrying out this routine lifting task, would never have happened.

"Moving the floor platforms and placing them on to the bus chassis was a regular task. Alexander Dennis Ltd should have ensured that their workers had been trained on a safe way of carrying out this routine operation."

 

Firm fined over cooling tower drowning

Defendant	Epsco Ltd			Mold Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			21 September 2011
Fine	£35,000	Costs	£120,000

A maintenance contractor must pay a total of £155,000 after a man drowned after falling into a water filled sump at a North Wales power station.

Michael Benn, 37, from Glenrothes, Fife was one of a team of three working to remove sludge and debris from part of a cooling tower at Connah's Quay Power Station on 27 August 2007.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found he was working in poorly lit conditions inside the cooling tower, and had entered an enclosed culvert to check the depth of water in the sump.

Colleagues working nearby heard Mr Benn's distressed shouts, but when they got to the sump he had disappeared from view. His body was subsequently recovered from the bottom of the sump.

His employers, Epsco Ltd, of Arran Road, Perth, Scotland, were prosecuted by the HSE for failing to have a safe system of work in place.

HSE Principal Inspector Colin Mew said:

"This incident was entirely foreseeable and yet it was still allowed to happen. Epsco Ltd would have known Mr Benn or one of his colleagues would need to approach the sump in the course of their work. The inherent risk of working in this manner should have been obvious to any diligent employer.

"This company failed to put a safe system of work into place. The enclosed area where this work was taking place was poorly lit, noisy and conditions were wet and slippery.

"The cost of providing barriers or other measures to prevent this incident and the time and effort involved would have been minimal.

"The real tragedy here is the human cost that has resulted from the death of Michael Benn and the ease with which his death could have been prevented - I hope that other employers take heed of this message"

 

Langford mushroom firm fined after worker's arm crushed

Defendant	Drimbawn (UK) Ltd			North Somerset Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Regs 9 & 11 PUWER			7 September 2011
Fine	£32,000	Costs	£3,624.59

A Langford mushroom farm worker's arm was broken in two places when he was dragged into a net cleaning machine, a court in North Somerset has heard.

Krysztof Moskalik, 32, from Poland, was using the machine for the first time while working for Drimbawn (UK) Ltd, part of the Monaghan Mushrooms Group, when the incident occurred on 18 November 2010.

The HSE prosecuted Drimbawn after investigating the incident.  North Somerset Magistrates Court heard Mr Moskalik was using a specialist washing machine to clean the nets used to cover the mushroom beds at the farm. The nets were fed through the machine to be washed, but the clamping mechanism which held them in place as they went in was ineffective.

HSE discovered safety devices were deliberately removed to allow workers to hold the nets in place by hand as the machine was running, with the safety cover open. This practice had become customary at the farm.

Using the same method as his colleagues, Mr Moskalik guided the net into the machine but within moments his hand got entangled in the dangerous moving part and his arm was dragged into the rotating mechanisms. He suffered a double break to his arm and extensive soft tissue damage.

In addition to the safety devices on the machine being disabled and the practice of operators holding the net in place while the machine was running, HSE also found Mr Moskalik had received no training for using the machine.

Speaking after sentencing, HSE inspector, Christine Haberfield, said:

"Mr Moskalik suffered a severe injury and, nine months on, he is still not in a position to return to work.

"Machines of all sizes can cause serious injury if not used correctly. By disabling the safety mechanisms on this machine and allowing workers to feed it by hand, Drimbawn not only failed Mr Moskalik but all the other workers who used the machine and who could also have easily been injured.

"It is vital that safety devices on machines are used and checked to make sure they work properly all the time, and that anyone operating them is trained beforehand so that they know how to use them safely."

 

Shetland firm fined after worker injured in fall

Defendant	Ness Engineering Ltd			Lerwick Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	Regs 9 & 11 PUWER			21 September 2011
Fine	£26,700	Costs	Nil-SCOT

 

A Shetland engineering company has been fined after a worker was severely injured when he fell while dismantling a redundant aerial mast.

David Thomson, 22, was working as part of a team removing the mast at the former RAF remote radar head at Unst, Shetland, when the incident happened on 23 August 2010.

Mr Thomson and his colleagues were working from inside the mast and were unbolting pieces of metal and wood and loading them into a telehandler with a bucket attachment, so that they could be safely lowered to the ground.

When they encountered some difficulty unbolting a piece of metal they could not fully reach from inside the mast, the men agreed to stand in the bucket attachment so that they could be lifted up and unbolt the metal from the outside.

They then balanced the piece of metal, which was about four metres long, on the bucket as it was lowered to the ground. But when they were still eight or nine feet off the ground the metal slipped, and a smaller piece of metal caught the back of Mr Thomson's boiler suit, catapulting him out of the bucket to the ground below.

Mr Thomson fractured a vertebrae in his back, broke his left arm in two places, broke his thumbs and received multiple abrasions to his face and neck. He was off work for nine weeks and still has some residual pain in his back.

An investigation by the HSE found that although Ness Engineering Ltd had carried out a risk assessment for the dismantling operation, it was not part of the planned system of work to use the bucket attachment on the telehandler, nor to access the mast from the outside.

HSE Inspector Alan MacKinnon said:

"The bucket attachment on the telehandler was not suitable for transporting people and as soon as Ness Engineering allowed their employees to be lifted up in it, the risk assessment they had carried out became meaningless.

"It was entirely foreseeable that there was a risk of either the men or the metal falling from the bucket, yet the company did nothing to ensure they had the right equipment on site to allow Mr Thomson and his colleague to carry out their work safely."

 

Kent factory fined after worker suffers severe head injuries

Defendant	W.E. Roberts (Corrugated) Ltd			Dartford Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			28 September 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£12,190

 

A cardboard box manufacturer in Kent has been fined after an incident in which a delivery driver suffered severe head injuries after a fall.

As a result, the HSE brought a prosecution against W.E. Roberts (Corrugated) Ltd which is based at Thames Works, Grove Road, Northfleet, in Kent.

The incident took place on 27 August 2009 when the worker was delivering flat-packed cardboard boxes to an address in Eastbourne.

The man was trying to pull a pallet of cardboard boxes across his trailer from the driver's side to the curb side. The pallet strapping snapped and the worker fell nearly three metres backwards and 1.5m down onto the pavement.

As a result he suffered severe head injuries, which have had life-changing effects and have meant he is still not able to return to work.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Michelle Taylor said:

"The company failed to adequately consider the risks that delivery drivers face when they are not on site. This led to this severe and entirely preventable incident which has had such a long-lasting and devastating effect on this worker.

"The outcome of this case reinforces the responsibility that employers have to all of their workers, wherever they are, not just those on site under constant supervision."

 

Scaffold firm fined after putting workers at risk

Defendant	Totalscaff (GB) Ltd			Hastings Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 28(1) CDM 2007			19 September 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£10,000	Convicted after trial
Defendant	Christian Ball
Offence(s)	Reg 28(1) CDM 2007
Fine	£2,500	Costs	£2,274	Pleaded guilty

 

A Hastings firm has been fined after handing over unsecured scaffolding to a client, putting builders at risk.

An HSE inspector visited a site at Claremont, Hastings, on 20 April 2010 where building repairs and external work were being carried out.

The inspector noted that scaffolding erected by Totalscaff (GB) Ltd, trading as Total Service Group (TSG), around the building had not been adequately tied, meaning it was unstable.

By law, all scaffolding must be inspected by a competent person before it can be used.

Hastings Magistrates' Court was told the worker who undertook safety checks, Christian Ball, had been previously been advised of the need to adequately tie scaffolding but had overlooked this advice. He was also fined.

Totalscaff (GB) Ltd, of Ninfield Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, was found guilty and Christian Ball, 35, of West Hill Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 28(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Totalscaff (GB) Ltd was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 in costs, and Mr Ball was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £2,274 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Melvyn Stancliffe said:

"Scaffold collapses can have serious consequences and tying the scaffold - or something similar - is essential for stability and ensuring it does not collapse while being erected or being used. Its importance cannot and should not be overlooked.

"HSE and the scaffolding industry have worked together to produce guidance to help scaffolding contractors ensure their scaffolding is safe. It is easy to follow. By not following it, people's lives were put at risk unnecessarily.

"HSE will take firm action against individuals and contractors who ignore their health and safety obligations. It is essential that contractors and contract managers equip themselves with the necessary information and guidance material and apply it each and every time a scaffold is built."

 

Asbestos exposure leads to fine

Defendant	Belton Developments (a firm) Each partner prosecuted personally			Grantham Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	10(1)(a) & 16 CoAR2006			7 September 2011
Fine	£3,003	Costs	£900
Defendant	South Kesteven District Council
Offence(s)	4(1)(a) & 10(1)(b) CDM 2007
Fine	£16,600	Costs	£3,486

 

A Grantham building contractor and a local authority have been fined after a spread of asbestos during bathroom renovation work at a flat in the town.

The HSE brought the prosecution after workers from Belton Developments disturbed asbestos at the property in Kinoulton Court, owned by South Kesteven District Council (SKDC), on 30 March 2010 while converting a bathroom into a wet room.

The workers removed asbestos insulation board from around the bath and then carried it through the flat and communal areas of the housing complex in an open wheelbarrow before loading it into an open-topped van.

The dangerous work was spotted by an asbestos surveyor working on behalf of the council in the flat above. He was aware that many of the flats in the complex contained asbestos and stopped the men working. A licensed asbestos contractor was brought in to decontaminate the area and carry out air clearance tests.

The incident was reported to HSE by the council which, together with the three partners in Belton Developments, was today prosecuted by Grantham magistrates.

HSE told Grantham Magistrates' Court the council had failed to provide adequate information on asbestos in the property to Belton Developments before work began, and failed to ensure that Belton Developments were competent to carry out work with asbestos. The three partners had failed to prevent the spread of asbestos or ensure that their employees were properly trained to deal with it.

The court was also told that the partners of Belton Developments had been served a Prohibition Notice preventing refurbishment work at a property in Manners Street on 18 March 2010, which was also an SKDC-owned building, as a suitable asbestos refurbishment and demolition survey had not been undertaken.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Mhairi Lockwood said:

"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. This case emphasises the importance of clients providing contractors with information on the presence of asbestos-containing materials including an appropriate asbestos survey in order that the significant risks from asbestos can be managed and controlled.

"Contractors need to be aware of the potential for asbestos to be disturbed while carrying out building work and provide their employees with adequate information, instruction and training so they can protect themselves and others."

South Kesteven District Council pleaded guilty to breaching regulations 4(1)(a) and 10(1)(b) of the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2007. They were fined a total of £16,600 and ordered to pay costs of £3,486.

Trevor Hague, of South Hycombe Road, Albourne, Lincolnshire, his son Neil Hague, of Holmfield Avenue, Arnold, Nottingham, and David Couth, of West Willoughby, Grantham, each pleaded guilty to breaching regulations 10(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. They were fined a total of £3,003 and ordered to pay costs of £900.

 

Pitmachie garage worker fatally injured

Defendant	Pitmachie Garage Ltd			Banff Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			6 September 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	Nil-SCOT

A Pitmachie garage has been fined after one of its workers was fatally injured when a metal oil drum he was working on exploded.

On 18 June 2010, Martyn Massie, 23, from Forgue, was cutting a metal drum that had previously stored used engine oil at the premises of Pitmachie Garage Ltd, in Insch.

Mr Massie was using a plasma cutter to remove the lid from the drum. As the blade started to cut through the metal, it generated a shower of sparks which ignited the flammable vapours inside the drum. The drum exploded, causing the lid to strike Mr Massie on the head, knocking him unconscious.

He was airlifted to hospital with multiple head injuries which were unsurvivable and he died the following morning.

An HSE investigation found that the cutting operation had not been properly risk assessed by Pitmachie Garage Ltd. The drum had not been completely emptied of waste engine oil, and this would have been contaminated with petrol, causing the drum to be filled with petrol vapours.

The investigation also found that the system of work employed for cutting the drum was such that a lack of information, instruction and training resulted in the worker using an unsafe method to carry out the task. Although it was known by workers at the garage the used engine oil could be contaminated with fuel, they were not fully aware of the dangers of using a heat source such as the plasma cutter to remove the drum lid.

At Banff Sheriff Court Pitmachie Garage Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching S2 HSWA and was fined £15,000.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Joanne Nicholls said:

"Drums that have contained flammable material and seem to be empty often still have residues in them. Just a teaspoon of petrol can be enough to cause an explosion.

"This incident was entirely foreseeable, and could and should have been avoided. It was not essential for the drum lid to be removed at all, and in asking him to do so, Pitmachie Garage Ltd failed to protect Martyn Massie - costing him his life.

"The company failed to provide a safe system of work which included cleaning and checking the drum prior to work starting, and using a cold cutting method.

"If Pitmachie Garage Ltd had taken steps to identify what hazards there were in cutting the oil drums, and ensured that their workers had the right information and training to do the work safely, this incident would never have happened."

 

Liverpool dock workers injured in high voltage shock

Defendant	Carrylift Materials Handling Ltd			Liverpool Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Regs 4, 11,16 Electricity at Work Regulations 1989			8 September 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£14,568

A crane maintenance firm has been sentenced after two dock workers suffered injuries in a high voltage electric shock at the Seaforth Container Terminal in Liverpool.

 

 

The crane platform where the workers suffered high-voltage electric shocks

One of the men was temporarily blinded and both were burned in the 6,600 volt surge after climbing up a dockside crane to check the electricity supply on 12 March 2008.

Their employer, Carrylift Materials Handling Ltd, was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation revealed the workers wrongly believed that just 415 volts were running through a junction box on a crane platform six metres above the ground.

Liverpool Magistrates' Court heard that Lee McFadden, a maintenance worker at the site, was asked to look at the crane to investigate why there had been a power failure.

The 33 year old from Aintree, Liverpool, decided he needed the assistance of an electrician to fix the fault and climbed back up on the crane platform with three electricians. All four men thought that it was a low voltage crane, similar to the one next to it, and had not been given any information or diagrams that said otherwise.

After undoing the bolts on the junction box, Mr McFadden used his low-voltage multimeter to test the electricity supply. There was an immediate flash and bang, causing him to be blinded for approximately 15 seconds.

Mr McFadden sustained severe burns to his face and hands, and was permanently scarred as a result. One of the electricians also suffered minor burns to his face.

The HSE investigation found that none of the men had received adequate training or been given sufficient information about the electricity supplies to the dockside cranes.

Carrylift Materials Handling Ltd admitted three breaches of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. The company, of Peel Road in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £14,568 in prosecution costs on 8 September 2011.

Speaking after the hearing, the investigating inspector at HSE, Dave Guyers, said:

"Two of the men suffered burns as a result of this incident, but all four could easily have been killed.

"They should never have been allowed to work on the crane without being given proper information and training by their employer, and without confirmation that the power supply had first been cut.

"Mr McFadden was not trained as an electrician and therefore should not have been allowed to carry out electrical work on the crane.

"In this case, all four men were put at risk because their employer did not have procedures in place to ensure electrical work was carried out safely. Mr McFadden was very fortunate that this incident did not have more serious consequences."

 

Two Sheffield companies in court over worker's injury

Defendant	JF Finnegan Ltd			Sheffield Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	9(2)WHR 2005			6 September 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£5,179.90
Defendant	Lilquest Asbestos Management,
Offence(s)	9(2)WHR 2005
Fine	£3,000	Costs	£2,000

 

Two Sheffield firms have been fined after a worker fell through a fragile rooflight while removing asbestos at the city's now-demolished college.

Mr Nikitas Coulson, 40, from Middlesbrough, broke his arm after falling three and a half metres from a flat roof to the ground below. He needed surgery to insert a plate into his arm following the incident at the former Sheffield College in April last year.

He was part of a team stripping asbestos from Sheffield College before its planned demolition and re-build, and was working on a former teaching block when the incident happened.

The HSE prosecuted both Mr Coulson's employer, Lilquest Asbestos Management, and the principal contractor for the project, JF Finnegan Ltd, who were responsible for access to the roof.

Sheffield Magistrates heard that immediately after the incident, the remaining ten rooflights on the flat roof were boarded over, making them safe. The court heard this should have been done prior to any work starting on the roof.

Magistrates fined JF Finnegan, of Ecclesall Road, £15,000 with £5,179.90 costs for failing to provide suitable protection for any fragile surfaces on the roof under the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Lilquest, of Hoyland Road, were fined £3,000 with £2,000 costs for the same offence. Both companies pleaded guilty.

HSE Inspector Dave Bradley said:

"This was an obvious and known risk, and one that should have been dealt with before any work went ahead.  Falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injuries in the workplace and are also responsible for many serious injuries.

"The control measures needed to avert these risks are cheap and simple and widely-known throughout the construction industry.

"Mr Coulson has been unable to work since this happened so the impact on him has been significant.  The HSE will not hesitate to use the enforcement powers we have to protect people from injury at work."

 

Worker's fingers severed by wood cutting machine

Defendant	Richard Griffiths,			Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S3(1) HSWA; reg 5 PUWER			30 September 2011
Fine	£14,000	Costs	£8,500

 

The thumb and fingers on a worker's right hand were cut off while he was using a firewood processing machine at a Shropshire farm, a court heard.

The HSE prosecuted farmer Richard Griffiths, of Town Cottage Farm, Hughley, after the 16 December 2010 incident that left 26-year-old agency worker Stuart Tomlins with life-changing injuries.

Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court heard that Mr Tomlins, from Craven Arms, was trying to straighten a log that had become twisted in the machine's splitting chute.

As he put his right hand inside the chute, the hydraulic splitting ram, which pushes logs onto a blade activated, pushing his hand through the blade along with the log, severing his thumb and all four fingers.

He was airlifted to hospital, where surgeons reattached his thumb but could not reattach his fingers. The court heard he is still undergoing medical treatment and it is not known what use he will have of his injured hand.

HSE's investigation into the incident found that the splitting control lever on the machine had previously been forced, enabling the machine to run with the splitting chute guard open. This meant that the operator could reach the machine's dangerous moving parts.

Mr Tomlins, who had no previous experience of working on firewood processing machines, was not properly trained or supervised. He had only been working at the farm for a couple of weeks before the incident and had been instructed to use the machine with the guard in the open position.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Bowker said:

"A young man has been left with life-changing injuries, which are likely to cause permanent disability.

"Firewood processing machines are dangerous if they are not maintained properly and used safely.  The defect on this machine was obvious and had been there for many months. If Mr Griffiths had carried out even a basic safety check, he should have identified the problem.

"Employers and individuals must make sure that firewood processors are suitably guarded and operators are fully trained and supervised so that they work to an agreed safe system of work."

 

Aberdeen company fined after man falls from scaffolding

Defendant	Spark's Mechanical Services Ltd ,			Peterhead Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			22 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	Nil-SCOT

 

Spark's Mechanical Services Ltd, an Aberdeen electrical and refrigeration services company, has been fined £10,000 after a worker was seriously injured when he fell 2.6 metres from a scaffolding tower.

On 19 October 2010, Charles Howie was working on a scaffolding tower at Iceberg Ltd fish processing factory in Fraserburgh to remove two ceiling mounted refrigeration units from the coldstore.

The units were attached to the ceiling by eight bolts; four had been removed and Mr Howie continued to work on the unit before a forklift truck was in place to support it.

An HSE investigation found that at least one of the four remaining bolts fractured while Mr Howie was working on it, causing it to fall and strike the scaffold tower, throwing Mr Howie to the ground. Mr Howie suffered a collapsed lung and five fractured ribs and was unable to return to normal work duties for five months.

The HSE investigation found that Spark's Mechanical Services Ltd, Mr Howie's employer, had not ensured that suitable equipment was in place to support the refrigeration unit while it was being removed. The court was also told that the top guard rails were missing from the working side of the scaffolding platform.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector John Radcliffe said:

"The company's method of carrying out this type of work appeared to have evolved from custom and practice devised by employees rather than what was actually safe.

"A safe system of work might have included the use of a forklift truck as a support, but it needed to have been underneath the panel before any bolts were removed. It is also crucial that guardrails are always in place around the working platforms of scaffolds to avoid potential falls, often with catastrophic consequences."

Falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injuries in the workplace and are also responsible for many serious injuries. In 2009/10, 38 people in Britain died after work-related falls from height.

 

Construction company fined after worker suffers severe burns from electrical explosion

Defendant	Pineview Interiors Ltd,			City of London Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			15 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£4,183

 

A worker sustained serious burns in an electrical explosion after a North London company failed to carry out basic Health and Safety checks.

On the 30th April 2010, the injured man was working on a construction site at Leonard Street, Islington, when the electrical blast occurred. City of London Magistrates' Court heard that the explosion was caused when a main electrical supply cable to the site was cut during its removal.

The employee was working as a subcontractor on a large construction project which involved the refurbishment of three adjacent buildings at Leonard Street to include apartments and commercial use.  The man, 35, from East London, worked as sub-contractor for Pineview Interiors Ltd in Havering, London.

At the time of the incident, a 415 volt 3 phase temporary electrical supply had been provided to the site. The Court heard that on the morning of the incident the worker approached his supervisor, to explain that the electrical cable would need to be removed so that plaster board could be installed.

The HSE investigation revealed that Pineview Interiors Ltd undertook very limited enquiries as to whether this cable was in fact still live. Pineview workers then proceeded with its removal on the false assumption that the cable being described must have been one of the old, redundant cables from the pre-existing installation.

The worker climbed a step ladder with a hammer and chisel to attempt to remove the cable. After a couple of hits, the court heard that the worker recalls waking up on the floor with another employee putting flames out from the top half of his body. The worker was taken to hospital, suffering burns to between 30 to 35 percent of his body. He has had to have a skin graft from his legs to his body and arms. It is expected to take up to two years for his skin to recover.

Pineview Interiors Limited of Rainham, Havering, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA. It was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,183.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Dominic Elliss said:

"Refurbishment works continue to contribute a high proportion of the serious and fatal injuries reported within the construction industry. The defendant company were aware that their works within 9-15 Leonard Street would require the removal of an electrical head. They were, or should have been, aware that this well labelled system remained live at the time that they instructed their employees to commence work in this location.

"They were made aware of the intention to remove this electrical head by their employees who held no electrical training or relevant experience. The defendant company then allowed these operatives to attempt to remove the live electrical system with nothing but the most cursory attempt at seeking confirmation that the system was in fact dead.

"As a direct result of the defendant's failure to identify or control the risk of short circuit their employee suffered extensive burn injuries from the resulting explosion."

 

Derby firm fined for unsafe roof work

Defendant	Aquacoat Ltd			Derby Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Regs 4(1) & 6(3) WHR 2005			8 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£4,177.65

Two roofers were caught working on a Swadlincote roof without any safety equipment, a court heard.

Derby Magistrates' Court today fined contractors Aquacoat Ltd after the men were seen risking their lives on the roof of the house in Oldfield Drive, Swadlincote on 15 June 2010.

Passing HSE Inspectors noticed the men using no safety equipment to prevent falls whilst cleaning the roof of the property. This unsafe system of work risked injury to the roofers themselves and the homeowner.

Aquacoat Ltd of Pride Park, Derby, were found guilty of breaching sections 4(1) and 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. It was fined £10,000 with £4,177.65 costs.

HSE inspector Martin Giles said:

"Fortunately no one was injured on this occasion, but this was a blatant disregard for health and safety which put both workers and members of the public in danger.

"Roofing work requires careful planning and assessment of the risks involved. In this case employees were working without the correct equipment to protect them from falls or to protect passers by from falling material.

"Falls from height are the biggest cause of workplace deaths and it's crucial that employers make sure work is properly planned, appropriately supervised and that sufficient measures are put in place to protect staff and members of the public from the risks."

 

Cannock firm fined after worker dragged into machine

Defendant	Stakapal Ltd			Stafford Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 11(1) PUWER			14 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£5,500

 

A Cannock company has been fined after a man was pulled into unguarded rotating parts of a machine.

The HSE prosecuted storage equipment manufacturer Stakapal Ltd following the incident on 20 December 2010, when employee Adrian Taylor, 41, was working on a multi-roll forming machine, which makes metal shelving components from steel coil.

Mr Taylor was adjusting the rollers to produce brackets from an unusually thick steel sheet when his high-visibility vest and jacket became caught in the machine's spindle.

He was pulled forward into the machinery and sustained a number of injuries including a cut to the back of his head, cuts above his right eye and on his back, a swollen cheek bone, bruises on his right arm and a puncture hole in his right elbow.

Stafford Magistrates' Court heard the married father-of-two from Cannock, who has returned to work, still suffers from headaches and pain in his muscles.

HSE's investigation into the incident found that a fixed guard, which would have protected workers from dangerous parts of the machine, had been removed at least two to three years previously.

There were no interlocking guards around the rolling mills and there was only one emergency stop button.

The court also heard the company had left Mr Taylor to operate the machine on his own and had not supervised him properly or assessed the risks arising from adjusting the rollers during productions.

Stakapal Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Reg 11(1) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,500 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Wai-Kin Liu said:

"It is fortunate that Mr Taylor did not suffer more serious injuries in this needless incident that highlighted the safety failings at Stakapal's premises.

"The risks from machinery are well known and the standards in guarding are well established. Failing to ensure that suitable guards are installed and properly maintained is unacceptable and illegal.

"Employers must also review their risk assessment when unusual materials or processes are introduced to the workplace."

Employer prosecuted after teenage employee loses fingers

Defendant	Nigel Ashley			Stafford Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			5 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£7,376.40

 

A Somerset man has been prosecuted after an 18-year-old employee lost four fingers while working on a milling machine.

Nigel Ashley, a partner at the precision engineering firm, Ashley's of Yeovil, appeared at the town's Magistrates Court in a prosecution brought by the HSE over the incident.

Kyle Bishop was injured on 1 March 2010 while working at the firm's premises where machinery spares and engineering components for the tobacco industry are manufactured. He had been employed by the firm for six months.

The court heard apprentice machinist Kyle, who worked with lathes, grinding and milling machines, was changing a cutter on a milling machine when he inadvertently switched the machine on while the cutter was still in his hand.

Half an index finger, most of his middle finger, and both his ring and little finger of his left hand were severed during the incident. Surgery to re-attach the fingers was unsuccessful.

HSE told the court the system of work for changing cutters was not safe and risks from operating the milling machine and changing cutters had not been adequately assessed.

The HSE investigation also found there was insufficient guarding around the machine to protect body parts during its operation. There were no interlocks and the start buttons were not covered, which would have prevented inadvertent activation during setting up and maintenance.

HSE Inspector Leo Diez said:

"For a young man to lose four fingers in an incident like this at the start of his career is serious and severely affects his future employment prospects.

"If safe systems of work, sufficient guards on the machinery and adequate supervision had been in place, this would not have happened.

"Every year there is between 40 and 50 major injuries in England arising from milling, turning and drilling activities in manufacturing industries and these could be avoided if safe systems of work were put in place and proper risk assessments carried out."

Nigel Ashley of Lower Horton, Ilminister, pleaded guilty to Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,376.40

 

Safety breach led to teenager's fairground trauma

Defendant	Terry Reynolds			Selby Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S7(a) HSWA			5 September 2011
Penalty	Conditional Discharge	Costs	£7,376.40

A fairground attendant has been in court after a teenage girl plunged head-first onto concrete when a restraint bar opened on the ride she was on at a York carnival.

The 13-year-old girl escaped serious injury despite falling around four metres from the 'Cliffhanger Miami Trip' ride as her friends watched helplessly.

The HSE prosecuting, told Selby Magistrates' Court that attendant Terry Reynolds, 28, of Dewsbury, failed to make sure the safety bar on the young girl's seat was locked in the closed position, despite being told the same bar had opened two rides earlier.

The teenager, who has asked not to be named, was at the popular Copmanthorpe Carnival with friends last July. She was among a group of 16 people to get on to the Miami Trip ride, brought to the annual event for the first time.  The riders sit in a row as the ride takes them up, down and round at speed.

Less than a minute after the ride started, the restraint bar opened and the girl slid underneath, just missing moving steelwork below and hitting the ground. She was taken to hospital but was discharged later suffering bruising and abrasions.

The HSE discovered Mr Reynolds had been warned just two rides earlier there had been a similar problem in that seat. Luckily the earlier rider had been able to hold the bar down with help from friends on either side.

HSE Inspector Julian Franklin said:

"Mr Reynolds' job was not difficult, but it was crucial, and had he been doing it properly, this would not have happened. His cavalier approach to safety could have cost the girl untold damage.

"He failed in his prime responsibility of locking the restraint bars securely on every single seat and then checking, with a shake, to be 100 per cent certain. This young girl was immensely lucky not to have been seriously injured.

"What beggars belief is that he failed to act when told of the near-miss experienced by another fair-goer only two rides before. All attendants on fairground rides need to be aware that they are the last link in the safety chain as lives depend on them."

Terry Reynolds of Showman's Ground, Wakefield Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act by failing to take reasonable care of those affected by his work activities.  He was given a three-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £750 compensation to the injured girl.

 

Worker exposed to dangerously high levels of asbestos

Defendant	Formac Electronics Ltd			Bath Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 10 CDM Regs 2007			13 September 2011
Fine	£600	Costs	£6,013.45

A company in Bath has been fined after a builder was exposed to high levels of a type of asbestos linked to malignant and incurable cancer.

Jonathan Arnold, 49, of Castle Cary was fitting pipework for a new central heating system at Oxford House, in Combe Down, Bath when he was exposed to high levels of blue asbestos (crocidolite).

 

 

Loose fill blue asbestos insulation material was found in the area where Mr Arnold had been working

In a prosecution brought by the HSE against the building's owners, Formac Electronics Ltd, Bath Magistrates' Court heard the airborne substance was disturbed and spread within the building during refurbishment.

The court was told that, for a five-hour period on 4 August, Mr Arnold was estimated to have been exposed to a high concentration of airborne asbestos fibres many times over the control limit.

The HSE investigated the incident and found Formac Electronics Ltd had failed to carry out a refurbishment and demolition survey, to establish the presence and condition of asbestos in the building.

It also failed to provide suitable information to contractors prior to the start of the refurbishment works which resulted in uncontrolled disturbance of the loose fill blue asbestos located within the fabric of the building.

When an HSE Specialist Inspector visited Oxford House under controlled conditions, loose fill blue asbestos insulation material could be clearly seen in the area where Mr Arnold had spent a long time on his hands and knees fitting pipework on the 3 and 4 August 2010.

Asbestos exposure is linked to a range of serious diseases including lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, a malignant, incurable cancer. Of the three main asbestos types, crocidolite is associated with the highest risk of developing mesothelioma.

HSE inspector Helena Tinton said:

"Asbestos is a potent carcinogen and is especially common in buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980. As Oxford House was built in the 1960s, Formac Electronics Ltd should have been aware of the risk of asbestos being present in the building and should have carried out an appropriate level of investigation to prevent any workers from being exposed to the substance.

"The damage to Mr Arnold's health after being exposed to such a high concentration of this potent carcinogen could be very serious and he now has to wait to find out what the long-term effects of this exposure will be."

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
Block Scaffolding Limited	S3(1) HSWA	£8,000	£7,370	Scaffolding underpinning a wedding marquee collapsed during the wedding breakfast - 150 guests falling over 1m
Copper Alloys Ltd	Reg13(5) Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regs 1992	£8,000	£4,798	Foundry worker fell into unfenced pit of molten metal - at 900 degrees C
Terence Hayes	Reg 14 Electricity at Work Regs 1989	£8,000	£4,766	Workers injured when working on electrical systems which had not been isolated
Elegance Building Contractors Ltd	Reg 10(1) WHR 2005	£6,000	£4,733	Worker suffered serious head injury when 10kg stone fell on his head at a building site - failure to fit brick guards to scaffold
Brigg and Humberside Roofing Services Ltd	Reg 6(3) WHR 2005	£5,000	£1,887	Workers witnessed working at height without appropriate guarding and protection
Richard Curteis	S3(2) HSWA	£5,000	£3,679	Tree surgeon left stump remover running - worker suffered severe injuries to leg
Walsh Plant Hire and Demolition Contractors Ltd	Reg 7(5) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.	£5,000	£6,828	Company failed to manage risk of spread of asbestos notwithstanding Prohibition Notice having been served requiring management plan to be devised.  Failure to follow management plan.
Solihull Supplies Ltd	Reg 6(1)(a) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006	£1,750	£1,091	Stripping of asbestos from school failure to manage effectively, workers and caretaker exposed to asbestos
Birmingham City Council	S2(1), s3(1) HSWA 1974	£5,000	£1,091
Berkshire Foods Ltd	Reg 11(1)(a) PUWER; reg 3(1) MHSWR 1999	£3,300	£2,400	Worker trapped in cutting machine damaging hand
Matthew Saville	Reg 13(2) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007	£3,000	£2,388	Worker tasked with using 34kg 1m high drill 'hand held' when warnings said this should not happen. Permanent arm damage. Prosecution of construction site manager.
Joseph Parker	S7(a) HSWA	£2,250	£2,888	Worker dropped street light onto a toddler walking beneath - failure to erect surrounding barriers prosecuted personally
Stephen Martin	S1(1) Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969	£1,200	£2,620	Failure to purchase employer's liability insurance
Karen Martin		£1,200
Serviceplan Contracts Ltd	Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005	£1,000	£1,000	Worker knocked unconscious failure to plan work - used forklift not ladders
Anthony Smith	S2(1) HSWA	£705	£2,500	Packaging firm owners prosecuted failing to guard machines after ignoring previous warnings
Yvonne Barrett	S2(1) HSWA	£360	£1,500

 

Environment Agency Prosecutions

Trago Mills fined for 'reckless' waste offences

Defendants	Trago Mills (South Devon) Limited and Charles Robertson (Developments) Limited			Truro Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	5 x s33 EPA 1990			28 September 2011
Fines	£185,000	Costs	£14,558

 

One of the West Country's leading retail businesses has been ordered to pay almost £200,000 in fines and costs for illegally dumping and burning waste at two of its out-of-town shopping complexes.  The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

Several thousand tonnes of mixed waste including asbestos was illegally tipped and disposed of at Trago Mills stores and leisure parks near Newton Abbot and Liskeard.

 

On September 14, 2009 Agency officers visited the Newton Abbot store and found that waste had been illegally landfilled. Materials found at the site included soil, stone, plastic, electrical goods, plumbing pipes, broken paving, tiles, concrete, wood, packaging, pots of paints and chemicals and broken dustbins.  Also dumped was discarded office equipment, unsold stock, former shop displays and containers of hazardous materials such as paint, timber preservatives and adhesives. The waste was behind a bund of earth and waste tyres.

 

A larger area of landfill, containing an estimated 6,200 tonnes of waste, including 200 sheets of asbestos, was found on an adjoining part of the site. Materials were also disposed of by burning in a large pit.

 

In June 2009, video footage taken from a helicopter showed a huge and previously unknown stockpile of waste in a wooded valley near the River Fowey on land belonging to Trago Mills. The stockpile contained substantial amounts of wood including pallets and furniture, timber, tree cuttings, rubble and cardboard packaging.

 

The area was one kilometre from the main Trago Mills store at Liskeard and was out of sight of the public. During a visit later in the year, Agency officers found the remains of a huge fire. The illegal burning of waste had taken place over an area measuring 20m x 10 m and in places the ash was waist deep. Burnt materials included plastics, tyres and treated wood that would have produced polluting and toxic smoke.

 

The court heard Trago Mills had an annual turnover of £85 million in 2008 and made a pre-tax profit of £4 million. The company has worked with the Environment Agency to remove the illegally dumped waste. It employed extra staff to help recover and sort the waste and claims the clean-up operation has cost the business almost £500,000.

 

'Trago Mills uses its location in the unspoilt Devon countryside to market its out-of-town stores and leisure parks. You would think such a company would do all it could to protect these locations. Instead, it dumped thousands of tonnes of waste and showed an unacceptable disregard for the environment,' Dave Brogden for the Environment Agency.
 
'From our investigations it was clear these illegal operations had taken place over a lengthy period of time and involved thousands of tonnes of waste The company had recycling schemes in place, but avoided costs by illegal dumping,' said Dave Brogden.

The clean-up costs at the Newton Abbot site had been high because the mixed wastes had to be segregated and any contaminated material disposed of separately. The operation took several months. There was no system for recycling wood from the Liskeard site after 2005. Instead of paying for skip hire, waste timber generated over a 12 month period was burnt on a huge bonfire.

 

Appearing before Torquay magistrates today, Trago Mills (South Devon) Limited and Charles Robertson (Developments) Limited were fined a total of £185,000 after pleading guilty to a five offences of illegally depositing and disposing of waste at sites near Newton Abbot and Liskeard. They were also ordered to pay £14,558 costs and ordered to pay £30 victim surcharge.

 

The court imposed fines of £37,000 for each of the five offences, two of which related to the illegal disposal of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. All five offences breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

Chairman of the bench, Chris Rodgers, said, 'We believe these offences were a reckless breach of the law and not an isolated lapse. The company failed to respond to advice it was given by the Environment Agency.'

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Rodgers said it 'beggared belief' the site manager at Newton Abbot did not walk the site on a daily basis to see what was happening. He said it was 'unacceptable' that senior management did not know about the landfilling at Newton Abbot and burning of waste at Liskeard.

 

 

 

Southern Water pays for Southampton sewage spill

Defendant	Southern Water plc			Southampton Crown Court
Offence(s)	Not stated			28 September 2011
Fines	£25,000	Costs	£5,467

 

Southern Water will pay £30,467 after being prosecuted by the Environment Agency for allowing unscreened sewage to be illegally discharged for nearly 26 hours from its Southampton sewage treatment works which did not operate correctly for a year.

The water company, of Yeoman Road, Worthing, West Sussex pleaded guilty to the offences at Southampton Crown Court on Friday 30 September. Southern Water were fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs totalling £5,467.

Southern Water is the sewage undertaker for the area around eastern Southampton.  All sewage from this area is treated at Woolston Sewage Treatment Works before full secondary treatment and then being discharged to the Itchen Estuary via long sea outfall.

 

The Itchen Estuary is a highly protected and environmentally sensitive area and is a very popular location for water sports and leisure activities. The harbour also contains several commercial shellfish beds designated under the EU Shellfish Waters Directive.

 

The Court heard on 17 November 2009, Southern Water reported to the Environment Agency that there had been a failure of the screens at the Woolston site that caused the majority of sewage to bypass any treatment and be discharged into the harbour.

This incident took place between 16 and 17 November and lasted nearly 26 hours, spilling into the river within the intertidal zone where there is significantly less dilution than if it had gone out via long sea outfall. The Environment Agency estimates that a large quantity of untreated effluent was discharged over the 26 hour period during the incident.

 

The cause of the spill was debris in the screens and an alarm system at the site was in operation to warn the water company of the problem.  A Southern Water operative should have visited the site immediately the alarm sounded to fix the problem but they did not attend. The incident was only discovered during a routine visit by a Southern Water officer who noted the limited flow going to treatment in the correct way.

 

Due to potential contamination, shellfish beds were closed at Southampton Water south of Itchen Bridge.  Tests in late November and early December found that levels of E. coli present were above the safe threshold for shellfish. The shellfish beds did not reopen until 14 December 2009 when the E. coli levels were below the threshold.

 

Following this incident the Environment Agency did a full inspection of the sewage treatment works and that, coupled with information given by the water company themselves, showed that the storm overflows were activating prematurely and at lower levels that they should have. This resulted in more frequent and longer discharges than might otherwise have been the case.

 

Commenting on the case, Bill Scott from the Environment Agency said: "It is clear that the situation at Woolston sewage treatment works could no longer be tolerated. The discharges continued over a period of a day without anything being done to prevent them and without the Environment Agency being informed about the problems at the site.

"It is very disappointing that Southern Water did not have planned maintenance programmes, contracts and spare parts available to deal with such a major breakdown with their systems, particularly when they were fully aware how environmentally sensitive the harbour is.

"I hope this case sends out a clear message to Southern Water that any pollution must be avoided or stopped as soon as possible."

 

Waste crimes confiscation

Defendant	John Gary Friedlander			Newcastle Crown Court
Offence(s)	Regs 12 and 38 (1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and section 2 and schedule 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1999.			15 September 2011
Fines	£200	Costs		Confiscation	£14,000

 

A skip hire boss from County Durham has been ordered to pay back £14,000 after he was prosecuted by the Environment Agency for illegally dumping and burning waste.

John Gary Friedlander, 44, of Whitwell South Farm, Bowburn, County Durham, pleaded guilty to two offences part way through his trial at Newcastle Crown Court in August 2010.   However he was back at the Crown Court on 15 September 2011 where he was told to pay back the money which had been acquired through his illegal activity.  Friedlander has six months to comply with the confiscation order otherwise he faces nine months in prison. He was also fined £100 for each offence.

 

Lee Fish, prosecuting counsel for the Environment Agency, said Friedlander ran two illegal waste sites in County Durham and ignored repeated warnings to stop.

 

The court heard that Friedlander was the director of AAA Skip and Plant Hire Limited and operated from his home at Whitwell South Farm in Bowburn, and on land that he leased at Mainsforth Terrace, off Mainsforth Road in Ferryhill.

Mr Fish said that although the defendant was registered to carry waste, neither site was licensed by the Environment Agency as a waste facility.

 

Waste stored and burnt

Environment officers first visited Whitwell Farm, which is on green belt land, in March 2008 and saw demolition waste being stored and burnt. Around 30 skips were seen on site and Friedlander was warned that he needed an environmental permit to continue keeping and treating waste.

 

In May 2008, officers visited again and found a large mound of soil around the farm with rubble on the top. There was also a skip half full of waste and a smouldering fire.  The court heard that Friedlander was told that the soil bank and all the skips, including those with waste in them, should be removed, and he must stop tipping immediately.

Mr Fish said that when Environment Agency officers visited the site again in August they found the soil mound next to the farm was ten feet high and made of inert material, soil, gravel and bricks. A JCB and a collection of full and empty skips were parked within the mound.

 

Further visits between August 2008 and March 2009 found more waste being brought and dumped on the site, and large quantities burnt.

 

Mr Fish said Friedlander was determined to ignore Environment Agency advice and continued to burn and deposit waste on the land illegally.

 

In October 2008, environment officers were alerted to burning waste at Mainsforth Terrace in Ferryhill. They found the site being used as an illegal waste transfer station, with mixed waste - including plasterboard, polystyrene, scrap metal and rubble.

 

Friedlander was told to stop tipping and burning waste immediately and when they returned the following month some of the waste had been moved.

The court heard controls exist to ensure waste is treated and disposed of without harming human health or damage to the environment. For this reason, an environmental permit is required.

 

Some activities are exempt under the law and although Friedlander registered exemptions for operations at both sites, these were not relevant and he still needed an environmental permit.  The court heard that Friedlander's offending would have given him an advantage over competitors, as he avoided costs that legitimate operators would incur.

 

Proceeds of Crime Act

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, Friedlander was ordered to pay back £14,000 because the only assets he had left were the equity in his own home. Judge Guy Whitburn QC ruled that he benefited from his criminal activity to the sum of £175,000 and if his financial situation changes in future he will have to pay more back.

 

The Judge commended the Environment Agency on its investigation which resulted in the removal of an illegal operator who caused considerable nuisance in the Durham area.

 

Speaking after the case, John Robertson from the Environment Agency's Environmental Crime Team in the North East said: "Waste crime puts the environment and human health at risk and undermines legitimate business. Our team is here to make sure that waste crime doesn't pay."

 

Waste director fined £12,500

Defendant	Jeffery Graham Cox			Harlow Magistrates Court
Offence(s)	Regs 12 and 38 (1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and section 2 and schedule 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1999.			20 September 2011
Fines	£12,500	Costs	£5,747

 

Jeffery Graham Cox as director of Skip It (Essex) Ltd ran two illegal sites during a 10-month period where waste was stored and set alight, Harlow Magistrates' Court heard today

Cox was fined a total of £12,500 and ordered to pay £5,747 costs after pleading guilty to two offences of breaching Environmental Permitting Regulations at one site in Brentwood and one in Kelvedon Hatch.

 

Mrs Sarah Nicholson, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that officers had made nine visits to the two sites - one of which was operating for only two weeks - during the 10 months and on each occasion saw stored waste and on most, signs of burning.

 

Waste on the ground included white paint, household items, rubble and metals and there was rubbish stored in skips.   

 

Since their first visit on 12 April 2010, Cox was aware of the need to have a permit, she told magistrates. "Despite this, the bringing of further waste onto the site seems to have been commonplace".

She said the activities were financially motivated as the cost of permitting the site would have been significant. Before a permit could be granted, the sites would have to be altered.

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Peter Cooke said: "We spoke and wrote to Jeffrey Cox several times but he ignored our advice and continued to offend.

"Unregulated waste operators pose a risk to the environment and undermine legitimate business creating an imbalance."

 

Suspended prison sentence and seizure of lorry for illegal waste operation

Defendant	Timothy Leslie Birchenough			Derby Crown Court
Offence(s)	Regs 12 and 38 (1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and section 2 and schedule 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1999.			16 September 2011
Penalty	51 week Susp sentence	Costs	£23,784	Forfeiture	Skip lorry

Buxton man, Timothy Leslie Birchenough, has been given a 51 week prison sentence, suspended for two years, banned from handling waste at two sites and ordered to undertake 180 hours of unpaid work.

 

At Derby Crown Court on Tuesday 16 August 2011, Mr Birchenough, 53, of Wibbersley Farm, Doves Holes pleaded guilty to three counts of illegally operating a waste site at Wibbersley Farm and nearby Meadow Farm. He was sentenced on 16 September 2011.

 

Nicholas Cole, prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency, told the court that Mr Birchenough had a long history of involvement in the waste business and operated a skip company called Victory Skips. He had been imprisoned for similar offences in February 2009 and was released in July 2009.

 

Within weeks he had started his waste operation again. The Environment Agency started its investigation after complaints from local residents about illegal waste activities at Wibbersley Farm and Meadow Farm, Beech Lane, Dove Holes.

Covert surveillance was carried out at Wibbersley Farm and Meadow Farm following these complaints. These sites were being operated by Mr Birchenough.

 

On a number of occasions environment officers witnessed waste being brought into the site and dumped on the land, including builder's rubble, plastic bags, mattresses and sofas. On many occasions waste at Wibbersley Farm was burnt as a way of disposing of it and to recover the metals, which were then sold.

 

Officers also saw vehicles on site, including the blue skip lorry from the business he ran under the name of Victory Skips. This vehicle has now been made subject to a forfeiture order and will be seized and disposed of by the Environment Agency.

 

Large quantities of rubble and soil waste, contaminated with plastic and metal were also tipped next to a stream at Meadow Farm and later covered in topsoil.

 

The court was told that Mr Birchenough had never had a licence or Permit to dispose of waste at either site and that he gained a financial advantage by not having to pay the tipping fees at a properly licensed site and not paying for a Permit. The offences had been committed over a period of over 14 months.

Mr Birchenough had been prosecuted by the Environment Agency on previous occasions for similar offences.

 

In mitigation it was said that there was no evidence of dumping noxious or toxic waste and that not all the waste had come from his skip business.

In sentencing, the Judge, Recorder Burns, said: "You have been fined and sent to prison before for similar offences. You are not a stupid man and you know you will collide with the authorities. You knew perfectly well when you started up again, within four weeks of your release, doing the same thing. It is not necessary to send you straight to prison as that would cost the community more money and I think you can be controlled in other ways."

 

The Judge sentenced Mr Birchenough to 51 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years, with requirements to perform 180 hours unpaid work, a 12 month supervision order and a prohibited activity requirement that Mr Birchenough must not allow or cause the burning of waste or the bringing of waste onto Wibbersley Farm or Meadow Farm for two years. Mr Birchenough was also ordered to pay the prosecution costs of £23,784.

Speaking after the case Peter Rutherford, Environmental Crime Team Leader, said:

 "This has been a long and difficult investigation. Timothy Birchenough has demonstrated complete disregard for the environment and local community. The courts have recognised the seriousness of the offences that have been committed in the sentence that they have passed. I would urge companies and individuals in the Buxton area to ensure that their waste contractors are suitably authorised to transport and dispose of their waste. Anyone found to be using Birchenough's services in the future may be liable to prosecution."

West Yorkshire family sentenced for "persistent flouting" of the law

 

 

Family punished

Defendant	Brotherton family			Leeds Crown Court
Offence(s)	Regs 12 and 38 (1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 , 2010			23 September 2011
Penalty	See report

 

A West Yorkshire couple were today (23 September) given jail sentences by Leeds Crown Court for illegally dumping waste.

In a case brought by the Environment Agency, the couple and their two sons pleaded guilty to charges dating back to 2008 relating to their business, Brotherton's Skip Hire in Menston, near Otley.

 

David John Brotherton, 57, Julie Mary Brotheron, 52, and their sons Daniel Brotherton, 23, and Sean Brotherton, 20, of Ghyll Mill, Bradford Road, Otley pleaded guilty to a series of waste offences spanning three years.

David Brotherton was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment. Julie Brotherton was given a 12 month prison sentence suspended for 12 months and 200 hours of community payback work.

 

Sons Daniel and Sean Brotherton were each given a 6 month prison sentence suspended for 12 months, and 150 hours each of community payback work.

Craig Hassall, prosecuting for the Environment Agency told the court that the Brothertons ran their skip hire business from three locations in Menston and Otley. Ghyll Mill on Bradford Road in Otley is the main base for their skip hire business. Tan House Farm in Otley was the family home and they also owned land to the south of Tan House Farm at Newall Carr Road, Otley.

 

Mr Hassall told the court that the Ghyll Mill site used to have an environmental permit, which set a limit of 60 tonnes of waste as the maximum amount that could be stored there.

 

Repeated warnings

However, the Environment Agency found that the actual amount of waste on the site exceeded the limit and there was estimated to be more than 300 tonnes when the site was inspected. Despite repeated warnings to David Brotherton, the waste was not reduced.

 

The situation was exacerbated when the environmental permit ceased to exist in April 2009 when David Brotherton was made bankrupt. This meant that all waste activity carried out at the site from April 2009 was illegal.

The court heard that in September 2009 Environment Agency officers visited the family and told them that the site now needed to be totally cleared of waste. However, the defendants became angry and suggested that they could just lock up the site and leave it with all the waste still there.

 

Evidence was gathered throughout 2008, 2009 and 2010 which showed that the site continued to be used for storing waste and that a fence which should have contained waste on the site had fallen down.  Debris was seen blowing off the site and into a nearby stream. 

 

During this time, Environment Agency officers found that wood and green waste had been shredded and spread on the Brothertons' land at Newall Carr Road in Otley without the relevant permissions. There was evidence that waste had also been burnt at the farm.  David Brotherton was repeatedly warned that his activities were illegal and in January 2009 and enforcement notice was served requiring the waste to be removed.

 

By mid-April 2009 all four defendants had been charged with waste offences, however, observation of the Ghyll Mill site showed that it was still being used to tip waste.

However, after bail conditions ordered them not to tip waste at Ghyll Mill, the defendants moved their activity to the family home at Tan House Farm, with is in Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Some of the waste had been tipped over a stream, which runs through neighbouring farms.

 

Further, more stringent, bail conditions were imposed, which the defendants chose to ignore by continuing to tip waste at Ghyll Mill.

Previous convictions

The court was also told that David Brotherton has a number of previous convictions relating to his running of the business and Julie Brotherton also has a previous conviction for forging a waste carrier's licence.

In mitigation at a previous hearing, David John Brotherton claimed that he had made efforts to sort the site out, that the deadline given to sort out the site was unrealistic and that he only continued to operate the site in an attempt to get enough money to clear it.

 

Julie Brotherton claimed that a drainage system was installed on the site, which meant that the water that went into the beck from the Ghyll Mill site was purified before it being discharged and that this demonstrated Mrs Brotherton had worked with the Environment Agency in the past.

 

Daniel Brotherton claimed he had no previous convictions, that he had no part in the administration of the business and that although he admits continuing to work at the site, he only did it out of loyalty.

 

In mitigation Sean Brotherton accepted that he was present at the 17 September meeting when the implications of the permit disclaimer were explained, and that although he is now a director of the business, it is not going well.

 

At sentencing, Judge Wolstenholme said that the Brothertons showed a persistent flouting of the law despite and advice from the Environment Agency, bail conditions and previous convictions.

 

Speaking after the case, Ian Cowie, environmental crime team leader said: "We are pleased with the sentencing of the case today.

"This has been a long investigation, as the crimes have been going on for so long. Our case clearly demonstrated that this family was intent on making money by taking in waste, even after it was no longer legal for them to do so.

"The Brothertons didn't heed our advice or warnings, and showed their total disregard for the authority of the court by continuing to take waste on to their sites while their bail conditions expressly forbade it. By continuing to operate their business in this way they have not only made money, but have taken trade away from businesses operating legitimately."

 

Family of three sentenced to prison

Defendant	John Smith and sons David and George Loveridge			Cambridge Crown Court
Offence(s)	Regs 12 and 38 (1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, 2010 s33 EPA 1990.			30 September 2011
Penalty	See report	Costs	£23,784	Forfeiture	Skip lorry

 

A father and two sons accused of owning and operating an illegal waste site in Little Downham were sentenced to prison by Cambridge Crown Court.

John Smith and sons David and George Loveridge pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to running the illegal scrap metal yard at Cophall Farm in a manner likely to cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health.

They admitted five offences of breaching the Environmental Protection Act and Environmental Permitting Regulations.

 

David Loveridge, aged 50, of Plains Lane, Littleport, Ely was sentenced to prison for 15months on  each of the five charges to run concurrently; George Loveridge (alias George Smith), aged 45, of Ely Road, Stretham, Ely was sentenced to 9 months on each of the five charges to run concurrently; and John Smith, aged 78, was given a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years and put on a curfew between 9pm and 6am for three months,

 

The two-acre farm is owned by John Smith, who lives there, and he and his sons ran the operation.

 

The farm was raided by Environment Agency officers with the assistance of Cambridgeshire police on 25 March 2009. All three men were arrested. 

A directions hearing is listed for 8 December to determine whether proceeds of crime from the offending should be confiscated from the defendants.

The court was told that the three had made almost £330,000 from selling scrap metal and saved about £640,000 by not making the site suitable for their business.

 

The site was raided after meetings and letters had failed to get the three men to stop running the illegal scrap yard, the court was told.

Chris Badger, prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency, said Cophall Farm is connected to the trading names Pymoor (Pymore) Skip Hire, AB Scrap Metal Dealers and A-B Cars Wanted, which had all advertised in the local press for scrap vehicles.

 

These were collected, paid for and then dismantled at the farm before the scrap metal was sold, he said. Oils and other contaminants from the vehicles were not collected resulting in significant pollution.

 

During the raid officers found more than 100 waste vehicles being stored and dismantled. There were no working surfaces or areas set up to capture spills as oils and other fluids were drained from old vehicles. There was no equipment to clean up any spills and lead acid batteries were scattered on the ground.

Soil samples later showed the ground was contaminated with copper, lead and zinc and there was severe contamination of mineral oil and diesel, both classified as hazardous.

 

The site was not secure, Mr Badger told the court.

"This was an extremely profitable, financially motivated and wholly illegal operation in which all three of these defendants had a role.

"These defendants have operated on a large scale for a significant period of time with scant regard to the environment," he said.

 

He said the site had been used as an illegal waste site for a number of years and the three men had previous convictions for similar operations there. The Environment Agency had tried to work with them to stop the illegal activity.

"However, despite numerous meetings and letters between July 2006 and January 2008, no meaningful progress was made in stopping the continuing illegal activity at the Cophall Farm site," said Mr Badger.

 

All the defendants told investigators that they did not consider the vehicles to be waste as they were recycling them.

David Loveridge had three previous convictions and John Smith had two for similar offences related to illegal operation of a scrapyard at Cophall Farm.

After the hearing Environment Agency Senior Investigation Manager, Dafydd Williams said: "The Environment Agency wants to make sure serious waste crime doesn't pay. We have specialist crime teams to catch criminals and confiscate the assets they've gained from crime.

"This site had clearly been in operation over a number of years and despite several previous enforcement actions, the family continued to run the site illegally, which not only has the potential to harm the environment but also impacts on legitimate operators in the waste industry.

"The Environment Agency is actively targetting those who profit from the illegal waste business and damage the environment and will use all necessary powers at our disposal to end this trade. Throughout this investigation we have worked closely with Cambridgeshire Police."
 

 

Esso fined £10,000 for refinery leak

Defendant	Esso Petroleum Company Ltd			Southampton Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Not stated			23 September 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,586

 

Esso has been fined £10,000 after being prosecuted by the Environment Agency for causing 400 gallons of vacuum gas oil to leak from a faulty pipe into a highly protected Hampshire estuary.

Esso Petroleum Company Ltd, who operate the Fawley refinery which is the second biggest in Europe, appeared at Southampton Magistrates' Court on Wednesday 21 September 2011. The company pleaded guilty to the offence and was fined £10,000, ordered to pay costs totalling £2,586 and £15 victim surcharge.

 

The Hampshire based plant provides 20 per cent of the UK refinery capacity and has a mile long terminal and handled nearly 4,000 ship movements last year. It is situated at Southampton Water which is an environmentally sensitive location and an area of high conservation value, with a number of shell fish fisheries.

 

The Court heard that shortly after 9pm on Sunday 20 June 2010, vacuum gas oil was seen on the water near a vessel berthed at the terminal.  Esso immediately began an investigation and discovered a small corrosion hole under insulation in the pipeline carrying the vacuum gas oil.

 

This pipe runs alongside and below the deck level of the terminal and directly over the sea and it spilt around 400 gallons (or two cubic metres) of the pollutant into the estuary. Some of the oil escaped the pollution containment measures deployed by the company and was reported on the eastern shore of Southampton Water between Warsash and Hillhead.

 

Fortunately there were no reports of fish deaths or oiled seabirds as a result of this incident, but the shell fishery was closed as a precaution due to potential contamination.

 

Commenting on the case, John Massie of the Environment Agency said: "Esso put the environmentally sensitive surroundings at needless risk as a result of this avoidable incident.

"This incident is especially disappointing because there have been similar spills from this marine terminal before in 2005 and again in January 2010. Therefore the Environment Agency feels that Esso has not inspected and maintained these pipelines to the high standard which it expects."

 

At the Fawley marine terminal Esso has 70 supply, service and utility pipelines equating to over 270 kilometres of piping, many of which carry hazardous substances near some of the most highly protected and environmentally sensitive areas in the UK and Europe. 

 

The Environment Agency and the HSE work together to ensure refineries in England and Wales to do not pose a risk to people or the environment under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH).

 

The seven crude oil refineries in England and Wales are also regulated by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. These environmental permits control emissions to the environment and set limits of releases to air, land and water. 

 

Following the incident, under instruction from the Environment Agency, Esso carried out a full inspection of all the pipework at the Fawley marine terminal and completed this ahead of schedule. The company has also given the Environment Agency assurances that regular inspections and maintenance programmes will now take place to avoid further incidents at the site.

Magistrates presiding over the case noted that this was not the company's first offence and the Fawley facility was not maintained to the agreed high standard and that operational procedures were not followed.

 

Esso apologised for the leak and said they had spent £150,000 on the clean up of the pollution following the incident.

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
Sheiling Properties Limited	Reg 12 & 38 Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulation 2010 x2	£8,000	£2,370.06	Illegal burning of waste
Ideal Standard Manufacturing (UK) Limited	S85 WRA 1991	£8,000	£2,341.61	Polluting Bardy Lane Brook
Dock Management Services and Matthew Jackson	EP(EW) R 2010,s33 EPA 1990	£7,000 £700	£4,200 £2,000	Operating waste facility without a permit
Roger Sparling	EP(EW) R 2010	£4,000	£2,302	Pretend bonfire - rather than recycling waste

 

Laws and regulations quoted in the prosecutions

Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969

S1(1)

Except as otherwise provided by this Act, every employer carrying on any 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.

 

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

S2(1)	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.
S3(1)	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.
S3(2)	It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
S7(a)	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.

 

Environmental Protection Act 1990

S33

(1) Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below and, in relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not- (a) deposit controlled waste or extractive waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste or extractive waste to be deposited in or on any land unless an environmental permit authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence; (b) submit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be submitted, to any listed operation (other than an operation within subsection (1)(a)) that- (i) is carried out in or on any land, or by means of any mobile plant, and (ii) is not carried out under and in accordance with an environmental permit. (c) treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste or extractive waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

S34

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste or, as a broker, has control of such waste, to take all such measures applicable to him in that capacity as are reasonable in the circumstances- (a) to prevent any contravention by any other person of section 33 above; (aa) to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 6 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations;  (aa)to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 9 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those Regulations; (b) to prevent the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person; and (c) on the transfer of the waste, to secure- (i) that the transfer is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes; and (ii) that there is transferred such a written description of the waste as will enable other persons to avoid a contravention of that section or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those regulationsand to comply with the duty under this subsection as respects the escape of waste.

 

Water Resources Act 1991

S85

(1)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters. (2)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any matter, other than trade effluent or sewage effluent, to enter controlled waters by being discharged from a drain or sewer in contravention of a prohibition imposed under section 86 below. (3)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged- (a)into any controlled waters; or (b)from land in England and Wales, through a pipe, into the sea outside the seaward limits of controlled waters. (4)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged, in contravention of any prohibition imposed under section 86 below, from a building or from any fixed plant- (a)on to or into any land; or (b)into any waters of a lake or pond which are not inland freshwaters. (5)A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any matter whatever to enter any inland freshwaters so as to tend (either directly or in combination with other matter which he or another person causes or permits to enter those waters) to impede the proper flow of the waters in a manner leading, or likely to lead, to a substantial aggravation of- (a)pollution due to other causes; or (b)the consequences of such pollution

 

Electricity at Work Regulations 1989

Reg 4(3)	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.
11	Efficient means, suitably located, shall be provided for protecting from excess of current every part of a system as may be necessary to prevent danger.
14	No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or so near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless: it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for it to be dead; it is reasonable in all the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live; and suitable precautions (including where necessary the provision of suitable protective equipment) are taken to prevent injury.
16	No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.

 

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Reg 13(5)

So far as is practicable, every tank, pit or structure where there is a risk of a person in the workplace falling into a dangerous substance in the tank, pit, or structure, shall be securely covered or fenced.

 

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Reg 5	Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
9(1)	Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.
11(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.

 

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Reg 3(1)

Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.

 

Work at Height Regulations 2005

Reg 4(1)(a)	Every employer shall ensure that work at height is - (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised and (c) carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe.
6(3)	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.
9(2)	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.
10(1)	Every employer shall, where necessary to prevent injury to any person, take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object.

 

 

Control of Abestos Regulations 2006

6(1)(a)	An employer shall not carry out work which is liable to expose his employees to asbestos unless he has made a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk created by that exposure to the health of those employees and of the steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
7(5)	The employer shall ensure, that the work to which the plan of work relates is carried out in accordance with that plan and any subsequent changes to it
10(1)	Every employer shall ensure that adequate information, instruction and training is given to those of his employees who are or who are liable to be exposed to asbestos, or who supervise such employees, so that they are aware of                      i.            the properties of asbestos and its effects on health, including its interaction with smoking,                    ii.            the types of products or materials likely to contain asbestos,                  iii.            the operations which could result in asbestos exposure and the importance of preventive controls to minimise exposure,                 iv.            safe work practices, control measures, and protective equipment,                   v.            the purpose, choice, limitations, proper use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment,                 vi.            emergency procedures,               vii.            hygiene requirements,             viii.            decontamination procedures,                  ix.            waste handling procedures,                    x.            medical examination requirements, and                  xi.            the control limit and the need for air monitoring, in order to safeguard themselves and other employees;
11(1)(a)	Every employer shall prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable.
15	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.
16	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.

 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

Reg 4(1)(a)	No person on whom these Regulations place a duty shall appoint or engage a CDM coordinator, designer, principal contractor or contractor unless he has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person to be appointed or engaged is competent.
10(1)	Every client shall ensure that... (a)... (b) every contractor who has been or may be appointed by the client, is promptly provided with pre-construction information in accordance with paragraph (2). (2) The pre-construction information shall consist of all the information in the client's possession (or which is reasonably obtainable), including - (a) any information about or affecting the site or the construction work; (b) any information concerning the proposed use of the structure as a workplace; (c) the minimum amount of time before the construction phase which will be allowed to the contractors appointed by the client for planning and preparation for construction work; and (d)any information in any existing health and safety file, which is relevant to the person to whom the client provides it for the purposes specified in paragraph (3). (3) The purposes referred to in paragraph (2) are- (a) to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of persons - (i) engaged in the construction work, (ii) liable to be affected by the way in which it is carried out, and (iii) who will use the structure as a workplace; and (b) without prejudice to sub-paragraph (a), to assist the persons to whom information is provided under this regulation - (i) to perform their duties under these Regulations, and (ii) to determine the resources referred to in regulation 9(1) which they are to allocate for managing the project.
13	requires a contractor to plan, manage and monitor construction work under their control to ensure it is carried out without risks to health and safety
Reg 28(1)	All practicable steps shall be taken, where necessary, to prevent danger to any person, to ensure that any new or existing structure which may become unstable or in a temporary state of weakness or instability due to the carrying out of construction work does not collapse."

 

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010

Reg 12(1)	A person must not, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit - operate a regulated facility; or cause or knowingly permit a water discharge activity or groundwater activity is an exempt facility
38(1)	It is an offence to- contravene regulation 12(1); or knowingly cause or knowingly permit the contravention of regulation 12(1)(a)

 

Changes to HSE incident reporting and information services come into effect

Businesses are being reminded about new incident reporting arrangements being introduced from Monday 12 September.

Only fatal and major injuries and incidents will be able to be reported by phone to the HSE with all other work-related injuries and incidents reportable under RIDDOR to be reported via one of a suite of seven online forms available on HSE's website.

Said Trevor Carlile, HSE's Director of Strategy:

"This should not be a significant change for many, as more than half of reportable injuries are already notified to HSE through the website. The new forms are intuitive and quick and easy to complete. The most important thing is that there will still be somebody at the end of the phone to assist those who are reporting a traumatic event that has resulted in a death or major injury."

Later this month, HSE's Infoline telephone service which currently provides a basic information service to callers will end. Instead, from 30 September, those seeking information and official guidance will be directed to HSE's website - a huge knowledge bank where they can access and download resources and use interactive web tools free of charge.

Various improvements have been made to HSE's website to coincide with the closure of Infoline. There is clearer information on what HSE does and doesn't do, so people can check that HSE is the right organisation to assist them, and expanded 'question & answer' sections for the most frequent health and safety enquiries such as those on RIDDOR reporting and First Aid.

Added Trevor Carlile:

"HSE's website is already overwhelmingly the most popular option for accessing health and safety information. We're confident that our web services can be efficient and effective at a fraction of the cost per contact compared with telephone services. We'll continue to make improvements to make the website as intuitive and easy-to-use as possible."

HSE continues to provide information and guidance to employers and workers in a range of other ways: through direct work with organisations and trade associations, face-to-face at workshops and safety training days and via books and eBulletins. A comprehensive suite of health and safety advice is also available via the Government's website for businesses "Businesslink.gov", and DirectGov.

People will still be able to make complaints about health and safety in the workplace. For more information on how to do this visithttp://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/workplace-complaints.htm (to be updated from 30 September)

 

Changes aim for swifter justice over workplace deaths

Issued on behalf of the Work Related Deaths National Liaison Committee

 

More health and safety prosecutions will take place before Inquest as changes to a key agreement between those who investigate and prosecute work-related deaths seek to speed up justice in England and Wales.

Only in exceptional circumstances are cases currently taken before an Inquest by regulators other than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Health and safety offences are only usually brought at this stage if they are being tried in conjunction with manslaughter-related charges.

The revised protocol will allow prosecution before Inquest where manslaughter or homicide charges are not relevant - if it is considered appropriate and in the interest of justice.

The changes to the Work-Related Deaths Protocol (WRDP), which take effect on 1 October, should mean that bereaved families see a swifter resolution to some prosecutions. They are being announced by the Work Related Deaths National Liaison Committee (NLC) and are supported by the Coroners' Society. 

Richard Daniels, Chair of the NLC, said:

"All signatories are committed to seeking justice for bereaved family members, when a work-related death has occurred and someone should be held to account. The change will help us deliver this justice more effectively and sooner in less complex cases.

"The NLC has worked closely with the Coroners' Society to agree the changes and they support this swifter resolution of prosecutions in some cases. We also welcome the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Chief Fire Officers' Association as formal signatories of the revised protocol."

The change is not mandatory and it is up to each signatory organisation to decide how they will implement it

Set up in 1998, the NLC has greatly improved the communication and collaborative working between all members when involved with a work- related death. It will be welcoming the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Chief Fire Officers' Association (CFOA, on behalf of fire and rescue services) as new signatories as part of a number of changes to the protocol.