Leeds Crown Court heard how, on 18 August 2014, the now-liquidated Hallmark Design and Shopfitting began refurbishment works for Berry’s jewellery outlet owned by Berens and Company Ltd when it disturbed materials containing asbestos. Once Hallmark Design and Shopfitting realised it had disturbed asbestos they arranged for a licensed asbestos contractor to remove it under controlled conditions.

During a routine HSE inspection of the licensed asbestos removal works being carried out, it was found that the plan of work for the notifiable asbestos removal works was not suitable. This was because it was evident that more would need to be removed than what was originally planned, therefore the licensed contractors agreed to stop work.

A further investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the client (Berens) had failed to provide the principal contractor (Hallmark) with relevant information regarding the asbestos on-site and did not have a suitable refurbishment and demolition survey for the premises. A Prohibition Notice served on Hallmark Design and Shopfitting Ltd because the company had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos was present or was likely to be present in the premises.

Hallmark Design and Shopfitting of Harden Beck Mill, Harden, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and has since been liquidated leading to a fine of £1.

Berens and Company Ltd of Albion Street, Leeds pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Jayne Towey said: “Asbestos still kills around 5,000 workers each year and any building built or refurbished before the year 2000 may contain asbestos.

“The companies in this case did not take account of the risks associated with the disturbance of asbestos and put not only their workers but also the general public at risk of inhaling fibres.”

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We seek to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise. hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has accepted a Crown Censure after a worker at its laboratory was injured when conducting an experiment at a testing facility.

On 4 October 2016 a worker at HSE’s Laboratory in Buxton suffered serious burns while setting up an experimental hydrogen test rig. He has since returned to work.

The incident happened when a prototype hydrogen storage vessel was being tested to determine if the design would be suitable for its intended use. While filling the vessel a connector failed and a quantity of hydrogen escaped under pressure. The hydrogen ignited and the HSE employee who was close to the vessel was injured.

HM Inspectors of Health and Safety investigated the incident and served a Crown Improvement Notice requiring HSE to provide a system of work for proof testing and leak testing an assembled hydrogen line and test tank to ensure, so far as is reasonable, the safety of employees and other people in the vicinity. HSE complied with the Notice.

The investigation by HM Inspectors concluded that the pressure testing went wrong because of failings to assess, plan, manage and control a well-known risk of death or serious injury.

The investigation team found the incident could have been prevented by putting in place recognised control measures available in longstanding published guidance.

Director of field operations, Samantha Peace said: “The Act is not intended to stop people from doing work that may be inherently dangerous, such as pressure testing. It is about ensuring that where work involves danger then this is reduced as much as it properly can be.

“In this case, HSE bear this responsibility as an employer. They fell below the required standard and as the failings exposed workers to the risk of death or serious injury, a Crown Censure is the right course of action. HSE has co-operated fully with the investigation and we are satisfied that action has been taken to put matters right.”

Richard Judge said “As chief executive of HSE, and on behalf of my colleagues on the Management Board and the HSE Board, I very much regret this incident happened, and especially that our colleague was injured. On this occasion, we did not meet the standards we expect of others and that is deeply disappointing. HSE accepts the Crown Censure.

“We took early action to resolve the immediate issues identified by the regulatory and internal investigations. In line with our spirit of continuous improvement, we are using the findings from the investigations as an opportunity to learn and to do significantly better.”

By accepting the Crown Censure, HSE admitted to breaching its duty under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in that it exposed employees to risks to their health, safety and welfare.

As a Government body, HSE cannot face prosecution in the same way as private or commercial organisations and a Crown Censure is the maximum sanction a government body can receive. There is no financial penalty associated with Crown Censure, but once accepted is an official record of a failing to meet the standards set out in law.

Notes to Editors

1. The breach of law the Censure is being issued over is: Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which states: “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.”
2. More information on Crown Censures can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/approving-enforcement.htm^[1]
3. The Code for Crown Prosecutors ^[2] sets out the principles for prosecutors to follow when they make enforcement decisions. HSE’s approach to Crown Censure is set out in its enforcement policy statement^[3].
4. Guidance referred to is Safety Requirements for Pressure Testing GS4 (Fourth Edition)
5. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 set out the enforcement responsibilities of local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. Regulation 4 provides that the Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority for “the Crown” which would include non-departmental public bodies such as itself. Regulation 4 also provides an exception that “regulation 3 shall apply to any part of premises occupied by the Executive and to any activity carried on there.” Regulation 3 makes the local authority the enforcing authority where the main activity in the premises is specified in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The type of activity undertaken at the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), namely laboratory and testing activity, is not specified in the Schedule. This means the Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority for Science Division, which includes HSL. In accordance with existing policy, the circumstances surrounding the incident that took place at HSL leading to this Censure have been investigated by inspectors of Field Operations Division. This has ensured the independence of investigation, reporting and regulatory decision-making arrangements.

HSE is reminding companies of the necessity of monitoring workers’ health after a South Wales Housing Association was fined for exposing workers to Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS).

Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court heard how Charter Housing Association Ltd. reported six cases of HAVS following a health surveillance programme launched in June 2015. The affected employees were all part of the maintenance team.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the six workers’ conditions were likely to have been caused or worsened by the use of vibratory power tools while in Charter Housing’s employment. It was also found that staff in the maintenance and refurbishment departments at Charter Housing experienced significant exposure to hand arm vibration in their daily work which put them at risk of developing or exacerbating existing HAVS.

The investigation also found the company neither adequately planned its working methods nor trained or informed employees on the risks to their health. Furthermore, Charter Housing did not limit the duration and magnitude of exposure to vibration and failed to put in place suitable health surveillance to identify problems at an early stage.

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a serious and permanent condition caused by regular and frequent exposure to hand-arm vibration. HAVS results in tingling, numbness, pain and loss of strength in the hands which may affect the ability to do work safely and cause pain, distress and sleep disturbance.

Charter Housing Association Ltd (now part of Pobl Group Ltd) of High Street, Newport pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. The company was fined £100,000 and was ordered to pay costs of £9,896.88.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Joanne Carter said:
“An individuals’ health should not be made worse by the work they do. If Charter Housing had correctly implemented its health surveillance earlier, it would have ensured the right systems were in place to monitor workers’ health. The six affected employees’ conditions may have been prevented from developing or developing to a more severe stage.

“How people work today can affect their health and wellbeing tomorrow. This case serves as an important reminder of the necessity of task based risk assessments to establish the level of exposure, control measures to reduce that exposure to as low as is reasonably practicable and effective health surveillance systems. In the case of Charter Housing this realisation came too late.

“All employers need to do the right thing to protect workers’ health.”

Notes to Editors:

1. 
   The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We seek to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]

2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3.  HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

An Essex based food manufacturer has been fined after a worker had four fingers amputated while operating a metal working lathe.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard how Mr Mark Goodge an employee of Marcantonio Foods. Ltd had been using an emery cloth to clean steel shafts on a metal working lathe at the company’s site in Barking, Essex. He was holding the emery cloth by hand when his gloves became entangled in the lathe. Mr Goodge lost four fingers on his right hand, broke several bones in his left arm and dislocated his wrist as a result.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 13 October 2016, found the company failed to ensure the work to clean the metal shafts was carried out safely. It wasn’t an isolated incident and their employees had been applying emery cloth directly by hand on the lathe for several years prior to the accident.

Marcantonio Foods. Ltd of Thames Road, Barking, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The company has been £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8571.08.

Speaking after the incident HSE Inspector Owen Rowley said: “Mr Goodge suffered life changing injuries in an accident that could have easily been prevented.

“The risks involved with applying emery cloth by hand on metalworking lathes are widely known and Marcantonio Foods. Ltd should have done more to ensure that they carried out the work in a safe manner.”

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We seek to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]

3.             HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

A plastic and paper manufacturing company has been fined after a worker suffered crush injuries from trapping his hand in an unguarded printing machine.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee of Euro Packaging UK Limited was injured at the company’s site in Yardley, when his hand was drawn into the print rollers while he was attempting to clean the running machine resulting in partial amputation of two fingers.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 5 December 2016, found that the lack of guarding on the machine was the root cause of this incident together with a lack of training and supervision.

Euro Packaging UK Limited of Brickfield Road, Birmingham pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company has been fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1503.05.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Karl Raw said “This case serves as a reminder to industry that planning and guarding of machinery requires regular reviews and monitoring to ensure workplace safety. The need to review machinery guarding is a positive benefit to improving workplace safety”.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We seek to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

A recycling company has been fined £880,000, and two people have been given suspended prison sentenced after the death of an agency worker who was drawn into machinery while cleaning in the area.

Nottingham Crown Court heard how Karlis Pavasars working at Mid –UK Recycling Limited at the Barkston Heath site near Ancaster lost his life whilst cleaning near a conveyor. The recycling line was started up and the worker was drawn onto the conveyor, along the line through a trommel and into an industrial waste shredder.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident that occurred on 19 July 2013 found that the fixed gate that fenced the area off and prevented access to the conveyor had been removed for a number of weeks prior to the incident, which meant that workers could freely gain access to the area. Management were aware that the gate was not in place just days before the incident.

The investigation also found the company failed to design and provide a recycling line which was safe for those that worked on and around it, including separation on wheeled vehicles and pedestrians, they also failed to maintain adequate guarding of the line to prevent access to it while it was in operation and failed to train and supervise agency workers.

Mid-UK Recycling Ltd of Summit House, Quarrington, Sleaford pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and has been fined £880,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,000.

Christopher Mountain, Managing Director, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. He has been given a 20 week prison sentence suspended for two years and fined £50,000.

Alan Munson former Operations Director, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of Health and Safety at Work Act and was given a 20 week prison sentence suspended for two years.

After the hearing HSE inspector Dr Richenda Dixon commented “This horrific fatality could so easily have been avoided by simply installing and maintaining physical guards around conveyors and ensuring that safe working practices were in place. Employers should make sure they properly assess, apply and maintain effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery”.

Notes to Editors

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We seek to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

A clothing and textile recycling company has been prosecuted after an 89-year-old worker was fatally injured by a reversing delivery vehicle.

The Magistrates’ Court in Mansfield heard today how on 26 April 2016 the woman, working for Savanna Rags International Limited, was walking from the weighbridge towards the smoking shelter in the rear yard during her afternoon break. A delivery vehicle driven by a visiting driver reversed from the weighbridge towards the rear yard to deliver goods when she was struck by the rear of the vehicle sustaining fatal injuries.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed the company had failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks arising from vehicle movement. It was custom and practice for vehicles to reverse from the weighbridge, which was also used by employees to access the factory. There were no measures in place to adequately segregate pedestrians from moving vehicles, and there wasn’t a safe system of work in place to ensure that vehicles could manoeuvre safely.

Savanna Rags International Limited of Forest Road Mansfield pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The company was fined £650,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £3300.25.

Speaking after the hearing Aaron Rashad, HSE Inspector, said “This was a tragic and wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of the company to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks arising from the movement of vehicles and implement safe systems of work. This meant the company failed to put in place a number of simple safety measures including segregating vehicles and pedestrians and reducing the need for vehicles to reverse.

“Sadly, this is the most common cause of fatal injuries in this sector. HSE is currently in the middle of targeting waste and recycling premises with an inspection initiative that will look at certain activities to ensure effective management and control of risk.

“We are calling on anyone working in the industry to take the time to refresh their knowledge of our advice and guidance, available for free on our website. Every worker has the right to return from work safe in the knowledge that their employer takes their health and safety seriously.”

Notes to Editors

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. hse.gov.uk^[1[1]]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2][2]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk^[3][3]

A self-employed tree worker has been fined after a worker suffered serious head injuries.

Peterborough Magistrates’ Court heard that on 10 November 2015, Perry Regan (trading as Toppers Garden Services) climbed a ladder to a height of six metres, and cut branches from a tree with a chainsaw. One large branch fell from the tree and landed on his employee’s head, severely injuring him. The worker needed to be placed in an induced coma and suffered multiple injuries, including skull fractures and the loss of sight in one eye.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Perry Regan was not competent or qualified to carry out, manage or supervise such work. Mr Regan was using a chainsaw without being qualified to do so, the work was not properly planned to identify risks, nor was adequate training or instruction given to the operatives.

Perry Regan pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months. He was ordered to pay costs of £2,000 and a victim surcharge fee of £115.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Unwin commented: “This incident could have been prevented by the provision of appropriate training for both Perry Regan and his employees. Personal protective equipment had not been made available to the workers, and there was a complete lack of any safe system of work.

“This case highlights the need for tree work to be carried out by suitably trained and competent persons, and that it should be planned and organised correctly.”

Notes to editors 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. gov.uk^[1][1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk^{[2 [2]]}
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk