A construction company has told a court it could not afford to put adequate safety measures in place during the development of two apartment blocks in Liverpool.
Liverpool magistrates’ heard that Retro Future Ltd had put the lives of up to 30 workers at risk during the construction of waterfront apartments at Kings Dock. The HSE visited the site in October 2009 and found a number of fall-from-height risks. It issued four enforcement notices, which required edge protection to be installed in numerous parts of one of the buildings. Work was only allowed to restart once the company had complied with the notices.
On 29 April, an HSE inspector returned to the site and found that several areas in the other apartment block had no barriers to prevent workers from falling out of the building. This included an open lift shaft, a staircase landing between the fourth and fifth floors with no walls or rails, and an empty floor-to-ceiling window frame on the sixth floor with a rubbish chute attached. The window frame had doors attached and these had been wedged open with a plank of wood, which workers could have tripped on and fallen out of the building.
The HSE issued two Prohibition Notices, which required edge protection to be installed. HSE inspector, Kevin Jones, said: “This is one of the worst cases I have ever dealt with and Retro Future is extremely lucky that no one was seriously injured. The company was managing a major construction project in Liverpool city centre, but the conditions on the site were appalling.
“There were several instances where Retro Future had failed to do anything to prevent falls, and put lives in danger as a result. We issued four enforcement notices, and offered written advice on managing the risks from falls, following a previous visit.
“Sadly, despite initially making improvements, the company appears to have fallen back into old habits within a few weeks.”
Retro Future appeared in court on 25 November and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to take measures to prevent workers being injured in a fall. It was fined £7000 and ordered to pay £1981 towards costs.
Retro Future’s managing director represented the company in court owing to the firm’s lack of financial means. In mitigation, she told the court that the poor state of the company’s finances meant it had not been able to afford adequate edge protection. She also stated that the company had no previous convictions.
The company has subsequently complied with the Prohibition Notices and removed the rubbish chute after it locked shut the window frame’s doors.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Fines are not enough, this is a serious and wilful negligent act. To actually make a decison on workers safety based purely on cost is appalling, in light of the previous enforcement action the responsible directors/ managers should not be allowed to have the responsibility for workers safety.
I know we must take a sensible approach but mitigation that they have no previous is a joke, they have been very lucky, sadly for their staff the luck will run out! Will the 9K be given to the widow?
Obviously, the ‘excuse’ was a perception/lie by the company/MD. This case is the ultimate in “by the grace of god go I”. Besides all the management failings mentioned in other comments, I feel the HSE also failed on this one. The WHOLE job should have been stopped at the first visit, the MD also issued with an improvement notice to attend training and the Inspector to re-visit monthly thereafter – NOT 6 MONTHS after the initial visit. Fatalities are inevitable while this situation continues
Clealrly a total lack of H&S awareness. The problems could have been very easily remedied and at liitle cost. This was just a case of the site agent having no concern for H&S. Why wasn’t the person in charge of the site prosecuted on an individual basis and given a community service punishment with a requirement for ongoing H&S training.
That defence is a refreshing new one and ranks with the standard defence that it was necessary to put the workers at risk. I’m afraid that some firms deserve to go bust and judges shouldn’t be afraid to pass sentences that bring this about.
After all if someone ran over this company directors children and killed them because they couldn’t afford an MOT or get the brakes fixed I’m sure she would say that’s all right it’s not their fault. Beggars belief!!
Presumably this was a notifiable project under CDM, so what did the CDM-C and Client have to say about these dangerous practices? I thought the purpose of the CDM Regs was to ensure that everyone involved had some responsibility for health and safety in order to ensure this type of scenario does not happen. It beggars belief.
Where are the references to CDM? If you can’t afford to implement adequate safety, you should not be on the contract.
A parallel situation has often arisen in respect of fire safety. Many small hotels have claimed they cannot afford to put in proper fire doors and other measures when visited by inspecting officers.
The answer is simple – don’t trade until you have all the required measures in place. Imagine a lorry fleet manager claiming he cannot afford to put new tires on his vehicles when they are too worn to be safe! VOSA or police officers would not wear that one.