A construction company has been found guilty of ignoring design proposals during a renovation project in Kent, where a worker fell four metres when a floor collapsed.
Maidstone Crown Court heard that Landmark Groundworks Ltd was contracted to provide supporting steelwork and oversee the construction of a basement alongside an empty house. The project was part of a refurbishment and extension of the property.
Bola Akinola, 48, was working as a plank installer for a separate contractor when the incident took place at the site in Westerham, Kent on 9 May 2009.
Mr Akinola’s employer laid 50 concrete floor planks, each weighing almost two tonnes, to form the ground floor. Four of the planks were laid on a beam, which had not been fixed at one end and was only held by small welds at the other.
When Mr Akinola and another worker stood on the planks, the beam tilted and gave way. Mr Akinola fell four metres into the basement, as did three of the planks and the supporting steelwork. He suffered multiple fractures to his pelvis, leg and arms and he has still not regained full mobility in his left arm. He was unable to return to work for nearly a year owing to his injuries. The other worker managed to jump to safety as the floor gave way.
An investigation by the HSE found that Landmark Groundworks had ignored design proposals by two structural engineers, which would have ensured the project was carried out safely. It also failed to check that the installation was ready to bear a load.
HSE inspector John Underwood said: “Buildings do not build themselves. The process needs to be actively managed to ensure that sub-contractors get the correct information and use it.
€
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!
Why was the IP`s employer not prosecuted ? They also failed to identify any suitable risk control?
LGL claim to be Civil Enginners and RC Frame contractors, lets hope they are more profficient at that than they are of installing a pre cast floor with no design, some how I doubt it?
Designer not pursued for the lack of CDM compliance in validating Load Bearing requirement and correct installation as per design?
Sounds Like a 30 day + job, yet no CDMC mentioned?
Too few anserws here?
LGL claim to be Civil Emgineers and RC Frame contractors, based upon this cock up they should be restricted to playing with Lego before progressing to Mechanno?
Why is the IP`s employer not also deemed negligent for failing to identify risk control?
Why is the Designer not negligent under CDM for failing to check design compliance?
Why no mention of a CDMC, job sounds like a 30day + scenario?
“more questions than anserws” as the song says.
CDM LOL. I wonder why I bother so much?
The statement above says Design Proposal not Engineering Detail, as per engineering requirement.
The proposal could have been intimated at by the Architect which then requires a Structural Engineering assessment for Detailed Design via Calculation.
To blame “Value Engineering” is remiss.
Those responsible for this cock up are not Engineers even though they claim to be, no right minded Engineer would be so irresponsible as to alow this to happen.
I am dissapointed that the inspector referred to “Botched design” and “No design checks” wheras the report states there was a competent design however the contractor ignored design requirements. Yet again this is a case of “Value engineering” by the contractor i.e. lets cut corners, ignore a good design but then blame the designer later.
Good designers design efficiently, in most cases that I see, “Value engineering” means cut the quality and effectively re-write the brief.
something fishy, if LGL were responsible for the design they would have been convicted on a CDM charge. however they convicted on s3(1). a s3(1) is a hard charge to defend
i note only 50k costs awarded for a 9 day trial ? the HSE investigation + 9 days trial would amount to at least 150-200k which suggests they were found not guilty on several other charges and only part costs have been awarded.
“It also failed to check that the installation was ready to bear a load” – probably the 3(1) fail