Three companies have been ordered to pay a total of £232,000 in fines and costs between them after two workers fell four storeys down a lift shaft.
Exeter Crown Court heard the incident took place during the construction of new student accommodation for Exeter University at a site in New North Road, on 27 February 2008.
Cowlin Construction Ltd was the principal contractor for the development, Prestoplan Ltd provided timber frames for buildings, and Somerset Carpenters Ltd supplied labour at the site.
On 12 February 2008, an HSE inspector visited the site and saw two carpenters working on a roof without anything in place to prevent them falling through the top of a lift shaft down one level to the floor below. A Prohibition Notice was issued to Somerset Carpenters, ordering work to stop until suitable protection was put in place. A wooden platform was subsequently erected over two lift shafts at the site.
Two weeks later Ricki Slocombe, 35, and Matthew Blackmore, 29, were standing on top of one of the platforms to access part of the roof, when the platform gave way. They fell four storeys down the shaft and landed on the ground floor. Mr Blackmore suffered a broken back and was unable to return to work for 18 months. Mr Slocombe suffered two broken legs and had to use a wheelchair for several months. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found the platform wasn’t properly supported, as there was no timber ring beam at the top of the shaft. HSE inspector Simon Chilcott told SHP that an engineer should have assessed the design of the platform to ensure it had adequate supports.
He also revealed that a similar platform collapsed during the construction of student accommodation in Bangor, North Wales on 7 February 2008. Cowlin Construction managed the site and Prestoplan Ltd was also working on the project. One worker suffered minor injuries during the incident.
All three companies appeared in court on 3 August and each pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. Cowlin Construction was fined £85,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 towards costs. Prestoplan received a fine of £50,000, plus £20,000 in costs, and Somerset Carpenters was fined £35,000 and £22,000 in costs.
In mitigation, each firm said it had cooperated with the investigation and entered an early guilty plea. Following the incident, scaffolding was erected through the lift shaft.
Speaking after the hearing, inspector Chilcott said: “This was a terrifying incident for the two men, which could easily have led to their deaths.
“Contractors and employers must make sure they have taken all reasonable measures to provide a safe environment for workers to work in and that any temporary structures are secure.”
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 fail to understand how a PN was issued for failing to prevent such a fall, and thereafter the preventative measure adopted is not assessed for suitability by the issuing officer?
I was told to check compliance for exactly this type of scenario? prevention is often better than the cure.
Further concern is highlighted by the use of a timber enclosure to a lift shaft. Usually the lift shaft and stair housing are core elements of a structure, timber provides the least fire resistance?
Who ever designed this timber clad lift shaft should be removed from industry?
Lifts shafts are usually structural cores.
There must have been a staggering amount of bean bags used to line this shaft when it was carcussed out? LOL.
Why did the HSE not check PN compliance?
Had they inspected the effectiveness of corrective measures taken, could this incident not have been avoided, now wi`ll never know?
The duty holder is responsible, but so is the HSE for checking compliance?
this item is of particular interest as it bears a comparison to a site I recently worked on with very simular work at issues however there were no issues with fall prevention as on the site and highlights the needs for specific work at height methods of work