A double-glazing firm has been prosecuted for building over a gas flue at a house in Kent – the second time in three years that it has been convicted of such an offence.
Dartford Magistrates’ Court heard that Supaglazing Ltd finished constructing a conservatory in July 2010, which was built over an existing gas flue for a boiler at a property on Beavor Road in Allington, Maidstone. This meant there wasn’t sufficient ventilation for combustion products, so the occupants of the home, who included a pregnant woman and a child, were potentially put at risk.
In October 2010, the firm sent a Gas Safe Registered engineer to the house to give an estimate for relocating the flue from the gas boiler. The engineer identified the dangers posed by the enclosed flue and notified the HSE and the homeowner.
HSE inspector Rob Hassell, who headed the investigation, explained that the occupants lives were put in danger. He said: “The family of this house were put at risk because of serious failings with the building works. It is foreseeable that a serious personal injury could occur when a gas boiler flue is affected by such work.
“The fact that no serious health effects were suffered as a result of this breach is purely a matter of luck.”
Supaglazing Ltd appeared in court on 3 September and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.8(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. It was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £2826 in costs.
In mitigation, the company admitted putting the family at risk and said it regretted the situation. It cooperated with the investigation and said it no longer accepts work that involves moving flues. According to the company’s telephone message, Supaglazing has received a safety award from the British Safety Council “every year since 1984”.
In January 2009, the company was fined £4500 for gas-safety breaches, after it had built over an existing flue at another house in Maidstone.
After the hearing, inspector Hassell said: “Supaglazing should have learned from their previous conviction for a very similar offence. Companies that supply and install conservatories should be aware of the Gas Safety Regulations and ensure they comply with them. HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found to be breaching them, whether an incident or injury has occurred or not.”
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!
I’m not a Gas-Safe engineer but the flue, isn’t that the warm metal sticky-out thing somewhere along the wall?
@Ray Howlett R, from the BSC website…
The International Safety Awards are open to all companies.
Applicants answer 12 questions about their health and safety management and applications are marked by independent adjudicators.
This year we received 570 applications, 550 of which were successful.
Why as part of the “close out” from the previous conviction, was this situation not addresed going forward by the HSE and Superglazing?
Surely having commited the offence prior, they were told to adopt suitable control of the risk, by adoption of adequate identification of similar risk, which should then have been appraised by the HSE for evidence of due diligence?
The family is fortunate indeed, given the imput by all concerned after the first incident of note?
How many others are there?
I think you`ll find that they did not indentify the problem Ray, hence thay enclosed it within the conservatory.
Which is quite staggering given that they had failed to do so previously and had been nicked for it, yet managed not to adopt control of the risk thereafter.
Given that many conservatories extend beyound kitchens you would have thought this was an enevitable situation. But this was not taken on board after the first HSE intervention.
Tut, Tut, not good really?
Ray,
had they identified the flue, surely the enclosing of it thereafter was gross negligence and should have warranted a bigger fine? Possibly individual prosecution of Director(s)?
Either way, its not a good reflection on all parties involved is it?
I think the bigger offence here is not learning from your own mistakes. After the first time this happened when again fortunately nobody was harmed or killed, they were given a second chance. Now that this has happened again you don’t need to be an expert to determine that they put profit above H&S when carrying out their business.
Why having identified the problem with the gas flue did the company not ask a Gas Safe engineer to relocate the flue prior to erecting the conservatory – simples?
Well, at least they did not use in mitigation ‘that is was their first offence’ as is normally the case. I hope that the British Safety Council act to remove any pending safety awards. I have a dislike for awards anyway as they prove very little in my experience.
Talk about a tick in the box. The BSC charge members £230 + vat for the so-called award. That is £126,500 for 550 applications…nice work if you can get it. That said, I thought the BSC were better outfit than that.