A scaffolding firm and its director have appeared in court after a worker fell through a fragile rooflight at a warehouse in Kent.
London and South Scaffolding Ltd was contracted to provide scaffold access to the roof at Siemens Windpower Compound at Ramsgate port. The scaffold was required to provide another company with to access to the roof to replace a number of rooflights.
On 12 October last year, scaffold labourer James Froud was part of the London and South Scaffolding team erecting the tower scaffold, under the supervision of the firm’s director, Gary Peck.
Mr Froud, 22, was fitting handrails around a wall on the fragile roof, when he stepped on a rooflight and fell seven metres. He landed on some pallets inside the warehouse and suffered multiple fractures to his spine and pelvis, and spent ten days in hospital. He subsequently needed to wear a back brace for several months.
HSE inspector Caroline Penwill told SHP the company was aware of how fragile the rooflights were but failed to put any measures in place to prevent falls, such as using a MEWP, or erecting staging fitted with guardrails.
“The company and director were aware that the roof and skylights were fragile, but did not take any steps to avoid access to the roof, or provide a safe method of work. Had they done so, James’ fall could have been prevented,” said inspector Penwill.
London and South Scaffolding and Gary Peck appeared at Canterbury Magistrates’ Court on 23 October and both pleaded guilty to breaching regs.4(1)(a), (b), and (c), as well as reg.9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1000 in costs. Peck was fined £15,000 and £2000 in costs.
In mitigation, both said they had no previous safety convictions and have subsequently engaged the services of a health and safety consultancy.
After the hearing, inspector Penwill said: “This prosecution underlines that all work at height must be properly planned, supervised, and carried out safely, especially when it involves working on, or near a fragile roof.”
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!
It’s very easy to ask when will people refuse to undertake work etc etc etc. Try doing that when you’re living on the breadline in an economy where you’re unlikely to find another job with an employer who has already asked you to do something daft. Is it really the employee’s fault if they go along with it? Or don’t even recognise the risk?
And to answer the question: yes, about 10 cases a year under s.7.
Having been laid off last year; I agree about tight times. However I’m pretty you can find employment in less time than it takes to recover from a broken pelvis.
Surely the key risks in each industry are fairly apparent…
Work in a factory? Machinery & Chemicals.
Work in Logistics? Trucks, forklifts and racking.
Work in roofing or scaffolding? Falling off or through.
I agree with the sentiments below, life is tough at present to be refusing to do a job.With a little common sense and adequate training, linked with an awareness of the risks to work at height then most people should be capable of working safely at any height. The risk is not working at height, its falling from height that causes the problem. So harness up link to anchor points and understand the risks before setting foot on scaffold or the roof. Working at height training is essential.
subsequently engaged the services of a health and safety consultancy?
God help us all if the failure of a Scaffolder to determine fragile roof members is to be improved by employment of a consultant.
A truely terrifting thought.
Still maybe he/she can refer him to WAH & Roofing guidance, as Mr Peck clearly missed it previouisly.
This industry is in serious decline, and they gloat endlessly about the great Olympic example.
It is like chalk and chesse. The have`s and have not`s
Agree with you there, its not the fall that`s the problem its the imapct?
Beware of harnessing up and using anchor points, these are often poorly chosen, incurring serious injury by poor selection and application. They are a last resort in Hierarchy of Control for a reason.
On a lighter note, a New Zealander free fell 5,000 ft when a parachute failed to open, he sustained non life threatening injuries, as he landed in dense shrubbery.
But I imagine the environmental impact was messy?
as caroline said what is wrong with the use of a elevated working platform that had to be the first fought into putting a safety plan together before anybody went near the roof if the company was not sure then they should of hired a safety inspector that works with roofs and a mewp that would of stopped all the problems that accured. a scaffolder is not a safety inspector he errects scaffold you should never think a scaffolder will be able to do a full safety record for you. think on.
Re Paul’s comment he is of course referring to “common sense”. This phrase is an anathema to me, despite how some politicians, and industry managers, refer to it in relation to health and safety. . Each person’s common sense depends upon their experience of life. At 22 one cannot possibly have the same “common sense” as that of someone, say, 52.
Also, “fragile” was used in the report. Would “weak” be a more meaningful description for some, perhaps including the 22 year old?
Forget all the H&S regs etc. Surely everybody has heard of GRAVITY and that humans cannot fly! As I have stated before, when will people take responsibility for their own actions and refuse to undertake any work unless suitable and sufficient precautions are in place? Anyone ever been prosecuted under Section 7?