A construction company has been fined just £1 following the death of a contractor at a site in Lancashire.
The incident took place during the construction of three new office buildings at the Altham Industrial Estate, near Altrincham. Glenmill Group (Developments) Ltd was the principal contractor at the site and had sub-contracted Howorth Scaffolding Services Ltd to erect scaffolding during the construction of the buildings.
On 10 May 2006, two of the three buildings had been completed, and Peter Walton was working as a sub-contractor on the final building. He was fixing wall-plates to the building’s steel framework so that trusses could be installed to hold the roof in place. While he was working he stepped on an unsecured scaffolding board and fell five metres to the ground. He struck his head during the fall and died in hospital five weeks later.
The HSE attended the scene on the day of the incident and discovered that the scaffolding had numerous safety failings. Inspectors found that the board that gave way under Mr Walton had not been properly tightened. There was also a lack of adequate edge protection across the scaffold, and it had unsafe foundations.
A Prohibition Notice was issued immediately, which required the scaffold to be made safe before work could resume. HSE inspector Ian Connor said: “Both these companies contributed to Peter Walton’s death by failing to follow the proper safety procedures for putting up scaffolding.
“Howorth Scaffolding should have made sure that it constructed the scaffolding properly. And, as the principal contractor for the site, Glenmill Group should have ensured it was safe before allowing construction workers on to it.
“This is an extremely sad case, which, once again, shows how important it is to follow health and safety regulations. It’s vital that construction companies do more to prevent deaths and injuries in the future.”
Both firms appeared at Preston Crown Court on 25 October and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. Howorth Scaffolding was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £13,793 in costs. Glenmill Group was fined £1 and was also ordered to pay £13,793 towards costs. The judge said the fines had to take into account the companies’ current financial means. The court had been told that any significant fine imposed on the Glenmill Group would cause it to go out of business.
Neither company had any previous convictions, and both cooperated with the HSE’s investigation. Howorth Scaffolding took action to make the scaffold safe, and Glenmill Group appointed an independent safety inspector to assess the scaffold before work resumed.
Following the hearing, Mr Walton’s widow Christine said: “I know this prosecution won’t bring him back but it will help to give me some sort of closure, and to bring this type of incident to the forefront. Sadly, Peter’s death is just one of many needless deaths that occur in the construction industry due to slack adherence to health and safety regulations.
“Hopefully, what happened to Peter, and is still happening on construction sites, will make people realise that health and safety laws are there to protect us and are not to be scorned and scoffed at.”
However, Mrs Walton has also been quoted in the national press as saying the £1 fine is and “outrageous” and an “appalling joke”. Pressure group Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) agreed saying it wouldn’t deter other companies from making the same mistakes. A statement said: “Insulting fines are not rare and won’t deter other employers, or make them comply with the law to stop killing, injuring, or making workers ill in what are totally preventable incidents and occurrences.”
The British Safety Council also criticised the court’s decision. Head of policy and public affairs, Neal Stone, said: “The fine of £1 sends out all of the wrong messages. Thousands of workers are still being injured or made ill by work – the 2009/10 statistics are evidence that Peter Walton’s preventable death was not an exception but sadly an all too frequent occurrence in a society that has still to grasp the harm and loss that poorly managed health and safety brings. A £1 fine is an insult to Peter Walton’s family.”
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!
Whilst it is not necessarily in the interest of anyone to put companies out of business the fundamental nature of these failings are indicators of incompetence. The fine is derisory and should not be equated to this poor man’s life. As a health and safety professional I am continually advocating sensible health and safety, what drivers are there now for compliance? We have had prescriptive we have goal setting, Lord Young has told us how to improve, perhaps a review of the judicary ?
When construction companies go bust it’s not the owners that suffer, it’s the suppliers and the employees that lose out. The insurers will pay compensation to the family. It’s a terrible thing to have happened but just handing out fines will not improve safety, enforcement as a whole is too lax.
A fine of £1, even with court costs thrown in it probably paid dividends to take safety short-cuts on the construction of the three buildings in question. As has been pointed out, the penalty of the business going bust would have been just in the circumstances. As for Adam’s assertion that the failure of the Co. would lead to losses in the supply chain, he’s simply wrong, another (hopefully competent) contractor would take their place, hey presto, everyone’s a winner!
A derisory £1 fine to keep a firm in business, why? Chances are they were just lucky to have a good past record. I bet the Directors have got more than a quid in their pockets!
It’s a very poor judgement call by the judge, what message does it carry? The judge says it’s ok if we kill a few tradesmen, we’re in poor financial shape!
Basic safety practice is about attitude, it doesn’t cost anymore to do it safely it costs less!
Makes me angry!
Sickening this company will probably go out of business any way the corporate manslaughter act and the people who are managing todays legislation need to take a good long hard look at themselves and ensure that this level of compensation on a mans life can be measured at 100p.
Health & Safety bodies standing in defence for Health &Safety need to join together put an appeal into goverment bodies and lobby thier MPs until we start measuring the crime against the injury thier is no justice.
This country is definately going mad!
You get a £1 fine for killing someone and nearly £14,000 for court costs to get that – we must pay the lawyers though! What a great sense of priorities we have. So didn’t this company have insurance – oh was that just for legal costs. So the family gets nothing! The law really is an ass!!
I aggree with the previous two comments, this send out the wrong message to all those other cowboy employers. The level of fine should be set by the level of injury, if that sends a company of this standard to the wall so be it. This company and many more like it, trade on the edge of profit and loss, it then follows that the H&S of its employees is on the same edge, unfortunalty their loss is often much greater.
This fine of £1 disgusts me. The guys family had 5 weeks of hell, hoping that the worst wouldn’t happen. If the company cannot maintain a safe site then they should be out of business.
The courts should be ashamed of themselves.
as previous contributors, how on earth can H&S gain a significant hold on workp[lace safety with such a farce going on ion the background. £1, £1..
A life is worth less than a litre of fuel, but the lawyers get paid – i am disgusted with this judgement – bet the Judge got paid as well – My sympathies go to the family, who have not only lost a loved one, but who are also wondering why their loved one is only worth a £1. This company should be put out of business….
Ridiculous outcome!
Fine aside, the contractor hires an expert to erect the scaffolding. Then it has to hire an expert to check the expert. Does he then have to hire another expert to check the expert and then another and so on and so on. Surely, responsibility has to stop somewhere – preferrably where the professed expertise lies. The scaffolder held itself as the expert. Does the director of every company engaging an expert have to be expert enough to second guess the experts on everything?
The only cost to Glenmill is the £1. if they can afford no more, let ’em fold. The fine cannot be insured but costs may come from Employers Liability Insurance. The prosecution does not open the way for civil claim as HASWA S3 is Statute Barred. Pity HSE did not prosecute the scaffolding Co. under Work at Height Regs, PUWER or CDM. Article says Glenmill were principal contractor, then CDM regs would also apply to them as would MHASW Regs as they chose to sub-contract. So why no case brought?
What!!!!! I’m speechless, I’ll write again when I’ve calmed down
Outrageous!! Hardly an adequate word for such a miscarriage of justice! Does this mean that a business man found guilty of common murder can face a day in prison as his business will suffer? Tommy Rot!! Companies who fail in their duties to protect their workforce including subcontractors do not deserve to be in business if the payment of an adequate fine jepardises their company!! A fine is poor recompense for a life but it does need to mean something and not be an insult!
The courts don’t dissapoint when it comes to making poor decisions. It shows how far separated from working life they are. How are we ever to rectify actions like this?
I cannot begin to think what the family went through. £1.00. Sorry but the companies neglected to have a safe system of work, checking that equipment safe to use, then this is just pure negligence. The company should be shut down, the director banned from being in control of any company.
Disgusting legal system.
I would guess that the 1 pound fine is to ensure that the verdict is put on the record. As the defendents are now guilty of an offence it may open other possibilities for redress by affected parties under common law i.e. against insurances etc.
Has the world gone mad? Do we now judge the worth of a mans life against his employers financial status? I’m sure the family costs when visiting their dying relative was more than a £1. H&S professionals the all over the country are constantly having to answer bonkers conkers stories in the media but if this is not a sign of a bonkers decision then I don’t know what is! If a company goes out of business because of a fatality then so be it! This sends out the wrong message & undermines H&S.
I fail to see how a low fine helps the casue of HS management in the construction industry, if this company was as poor as the article suggests they should be put out of business
A 100p fine for a man’s life – SHAME ON THE LEGAL SYSTEM
That’ll teach ‘em
Oh! Was the independent inspector a candidate for the consultants register?
Do we give up at this point or do we carry on trying to instil the reasons for having a safer workplace?
The cost of a life £1.
I knew that things were being devalued, but all this has done is devalue all the good work that is done by People who work hard to ensure the Health and Safety of the people that work with or for them.
Reading this has sickened me, the Judge should be made to work on a building site where health and safety is ignored and see what he feels about it.
All to often these days we see the UK law making apalling errors, be it work related fatalities, speeding police chiefs, savage violent crimes, repeat offending rapists, early released murderers or governments harrassing advisors into suicide – the legal system continues to bend the boundaries of morality whilst its number milk excessive rewards for ‘setting standards and challenging accepted norms’. Disgusting is not the word.
I agree with those who say the fine was derisory and the point about the company’s ability to trade should not enter into the judgement; indeed, there may have been a connection there as in company on it’s knees unwilling to fund what is a legal requirement. Whilst this type of under mining safety goes on, the medium & small firms will be tempted to gamble with lives. In the meantime, the under staffed HSE expect larger firms to uphold the law and target them more frequently.
I suppose this idiot judge would fine a motorist causing death by dangerous driving £1 because it may cause hardship to the motorist or his family if the sentence was more severe. If the company wasn’t in a position to pay a fine why weren’t the directors and managers prosecuted personally. Having to sell the Jag and pull the kids out of private school would have sent out the right message. This sort of judge brings the legal profession into disrepute.
an outrageous fine, the financial straights of a company should not be a consideration, what an insult to the family.
there are many training organisations in the UK which provide employees and employers all the training and advice to ensure safer working practices. I believe these courses should be mandatory.
Seriously £1.00!!! for this mans life!, not only is this an insult to Mr Waltons widow but it also makes a mockery of the HSWA and the construction companys who are trying hard to keep their workforce safe. This accident was not due to lack of money just bad practice and attitude!. This judge should be ashamed!, it makes all our hard work to ensure peoples safety look pointless.
So angry about this!, as someone else said this Judge should be made to work for one of these cowboys!
When a company is under financial duress H&S is usually one of the first places that cuts are made. In all probability this company would not be in a financial position to improve its safety standards to an extent that would prevent a similar occurence. If this is the case they should certainly not be allowed to carry on trading.
good to see sensible sentencing £1, is fair enough if a greater fine could put at risk the live;lihood of the company and its workers. The fact is that the company was still found guilty and it is on their records.
It will not influence the civil claim
Some people know the books but dont know health and safety
The fine is disgusting, putting Glenmill out of business would have been a more just action. What sort of fine will Glenmill be given for the next death that it is involved with? £1.50???
We are all quick to blame all too easily, I would like to know what the safety culture is like on that site before making hasty judgement. If there was a strong campaign you can say that individuals choose not to buy into the culture, however if there was nothing yes they do not have a leg to stand on and the fines should send a stronger message to take companies out of business and allow those who care for their workforce to continue in construction.
I’m sure I’m not alone in expressing concern at decisions, fines and penalties resulting from court actions. This appears to be another example of a penalty that is derisory when full circumstances and impact are considered. Is a fine a penalty – yes, then case law and impact should determine level.
What message is awarding such a low level fine giving to the construction industry (and other industries – what’s left of them) with regard to managing H&S.