October start for HSE cost-recovery confirmed

moneyThe HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will begin on 1 October, subject to Parliamentary approval, the regulator has announced.

As well as confirming the start date for the scheme, the HSE has also published initial guidance explaining how the scheme will work in practice, along with examples illustrating how it will be applied.

The scheme was originally expected to come into force in April but was postponed following the HSE’s decision to take more time to discuss certain “technical details” and carry out a test run.

Announcing the date of the scheme’s launch today (29 June), HSE programme director Gordon MacDonald stressed that law-abiding businesses will not pay a penny and that the Executive will only recover costs from duty-holders that are found to be in material breach of health and safety law.

“We have worked with industry representatives in shaping the final form of the scheme, and the published guidance explains how the scheme will work and what businesses can do to comply with the law and avoid incurring a fee,” he explained.
 
“It is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right, and not the public purse. Firms who manage workplace risks properly will not pay.”   

Detailed advice on the scheme’s operation is now available in a newly published guidance document on the HSE’s website. The guidance includes a number of examples of material breaches but does not cover every scenario where FFI might apply. It also explains how the scheme will operate in accordance with the HSE’s existing Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS).

The process for handling queries and disputed invoices is also covered, although full guidance on these procedures will be published on the HSE website in advance of the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 – under which FFI is being introduced – coming into effect.

The new guidance confirms that the fee payable by duty-holders found to be in material breach of the law is £124 per hour, except where work is contracted to the Health and Safety Laboratory, or a specialist third party, in which instances the actual cost to the HSE of the service will be recovered from the duty-holder. The fee includes all work that is needed to identify a material breach and all work to ensure that the breach is remedied.

FFI will apply when an inspector:

  • identifies a contravention of health and safety law;
  • is of the opinion that the contravention is serious enough to require written notification (i.e. it is a material breach); and
  • notifies the person contravening the law of their opinion, in writing, by a notification of contravention, Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or prosecution.

Invoices will generally be sent to duty-holders every two months, and payment is due to the HSE within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

With disputes, all initial inquiries will be treated as a query for which no fee is payable. However, if duty-holders are not satisfied with the response to their query, they can formally dispute the invoice by writing to the HSE and setting out the specific reasons why they do not believe the charge is valid. A fee is payable for handling disputes.

Existing arrangements for making an appeal against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice remain unchanged.

Steffan Groch, a partner at DWF solicitors, said FFI is of particular concern for smaller businesses. “Depending on experience and style, some inspectors may take longer than others to complete the investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to discrepancies across the board, meaning some businesses could pay much more than others,” he explained.
 
“Apart from knowing that the hourly rate will be £124, businesses will have no way of knowing what the final bill will come to until the very end of the case. What’s more, there appears to be no room for discussion or negotiations until this stage either, as the first time that a business can raise an objection is when they receive the invoice for the investigation. Ultimately, it is smaller businesses that are going to suffer as a result of the FFI regulation.”

The initial ‘Guidance on the application of Fee for Intervention’ is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.htm but a final version will be published prior to the start date of the scheme.

A fee is payable for handling disputes? So if you win a dispute, do you still pay this fee for being correct in disputing the fee? If so that`s worse than the banking sector, and we know they are bandits.
bob
This is an appalling license to print money and akin to the police to charging for making arrests. £124 per hour charges start when the HSE walks on to site and time to write a letter etc. Expect a minimum of £500-a shocker for hard pressed small business- and If the bill is contested additional charges are incurred at this rate for dealing with the query! The system is wide open to corruption and intimidation- get an inspector on a bad day/ clash of personalities or needing to meet targets.
saxon2girl@yahoo
Being cynical, am I wrong in predicting that the HSE could possibly be foreseen as targetting certain incidents to follow up on, seeking out employers who might be more likely have the means to pay the FFI costs, rather than smaller, less affluent employers who would not be able to cover the hourly fees without impacting their business viability? This could become a licence to print money for the HSE, especially as the dispute process also incurs the same hourly rate. Its a big stick situation.
mschilling@live
This begs the question whether this ability to charge for enforcement costs should also eventually extend to Local Authority Environmental Health Officers, who actually enforce within more premises than the HSE, albeit normally lower risk, but often dealing with some employers who are totally ignorant of Health & Safety law!?
JTheobald@westberks
The more I read about this the more worried I become. The aricle above says the fee includes work needed to identify the breach - what work is that? The inspector has arrived on site and has immediately seen a breach, what work has gone into that? Now he will fine you for writing out the IN or PN but there is no end in sight and a huge bill if you choose to argue the fine. It hasn't been mentioned yet but where is money to be made 'targets' must follow, which means inspectors must find fault.
rob@clearwater-safety
This doesn't sit right with me. the system as it is penalises the duty holders if flouting H&S law and rightly so. There should be a stick i agree to this but at least when you see a stick you know how big it is and how much it will hurt. With this system there is no telling and it is open to abuse.
richard
As a former IOC, I can forsee huge problems in the enforcement of FFI. Many times I issued more than 1 notice, but also gave out free advice on various subjects, and then followed up this advice to see if it was adopted? Now I would have to hand out penalties for all of the breaches noted, and charge for the checking up of compliance in addition to the initial notice breach? I estimate that I would have made a minimum of 100k / yr based upon notices alone, with minor effort.
bob
The last HSE Construction Blitz ended in 870 notices being issued. (Easily achieved) If the average inspection, letter writing and follow up equates to? let`s say 4 hrs? could be more? That is 4 x 124 x 870 = £424,560.00 + VAT (Many SME`s are not VAT registered - sole traders), ooouchh. And that figure does not include for any additional breaches that were passed over by giving free advice/guidance. And no fee is anticipated for specialist intervention? Bonus time me thinks?
bob
This really needs looking at again! I'm all for the costs being recoverd by the HSE in principal. However, shouldn't we only expect costs to be recovered from guilty verdicts. This would be a far better way than this heavy handed approach which could see companies potentially pleading guilty to a charge they are innocent of because it's cheaper than defending it? Small businesses in particular could/would be thesufferers under this system! Cam-morons numpties have got H&S wrong - yet again!!
alexhoward_121@msn
The announcement by the HSE that its cost recovery scheme, FFI will start in October 2012 means that it is imperative for businesses to now start to take a more proactive approach to their health and safety requirements. Good health and safety is not about box ticking, or simply complying with the law. With the right proactive approach and confidence in the relevance of expert health and safety advice organisations can begin to exploit the new era of clearer and more concise regulation .
shelley@neopr
Blah
Grant
Confidence and competence in the experts....mm But that does not stop an Inspector arriving at ones premises on a mission to make a few bob for their employer does it? They could pick a little hole in anything and use it to generate some much needed funding. I can see it now: Job cuts announced at HSE due to insufficient funding = increase in FFI cases in an attempt to improve the cash flow. They could easily make £500 out of 2 emails re: a sign that blew down in the wind the day before.....
mschilling@live
There is no intention for FFI to extend to local authority regulators, the majority of whom are agin it. FFI is the creature of the government, rather than HSE (who've just got to deploy it) and was proposed in the DWP paper "Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone", which was published in March 2011. The paper said nothing about cost recovery for councils and there's nothing in the wind (yet) to suggest that anyone's considering it.
patrick

October start for HSE cost-recovery confirmed

moneyThe HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will begin on 1 October, subject to Parliamentary approval, the regulator has announced.

As well as confirming the start date for the scheme, the HSE has also published initial guidance explaining how the scheme will work in practice, along with examples illustrating how it will be applied.

The scheme was originally expected to come into force in April but was postponed following the HSE’s decision to take more time to discuss certain “technical details” and carry out a test run.

Announcing the date of the scheme’s launch today (29 June), HSE programme director Gordon MacDonald stressed that law-abiding businesses will not pay a penny and that the Executive will only recover costs from duty-holders that are found to be in material breach of health and safety law.

“We have worked with industry representatives in shaping the final form of the scheme, and the published guidance explains how the scheme will work and what businesses can do to comply with the law and avoid incurring a fee,” he explained.
 
“It is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right, and not the public purse. Firms who manage workplace risks properly will not pay.”   

Detailed advice on the scheme’s operation is now available in a newly published guidance document on the HSE’s website. The guidance includes a number of examples of material breaches but does not cover every scenario where FFI might apply. It also explains how the scheme will operate in accordance with the HSE’s existing Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and the Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS).

The process for handling queries and disputed invoices is also covered, although full guidance on these procedures will be published on the HSE website in advance of the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012 – under which FFI is being introduced – coming into effect.

The new guidance confirms that the fee payable by duty-holders found to be in material breach of the law is £124 per hour, except where work is contracted to the Health and Safety Laboratory, or a specialist third party, in which instances the actual cost to the HSE of the service will be recovered from the duty-holder. The fee includes all work that is needed to identify a material breach and all work to ensure that the breach is remedied.

FFI will apply when an inspector:

Invoices will generally be sent to duty-holders every two months, and payment is due to the HSE within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

With disputes, all initial inquiries will be treated as a query for which no fee is payable. However, if duty-holders are not satisfied with the response to their query, they can formally dispute the invoice by writing to the HSE and setting out the specific reasons why they do not believe the charge is valid. A fee is payable for handling disputes.

Existing arrangements for making an appeal against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice remain unchanged.

Steffan Groch, a partner at DWF solicitors, said FFI is of particular concern for smaller businesses. “Depending on experience and style, some inspectors may take longer than others to complete the investigation, which will undoubtedly lead to discrepancies across the board, meaning some businesses could pay much more than others,” he explained.
 
“Apart from knowing that the hourly rate will be £124, businesses will have no way of knowing what the final bill will come to until the very end of the case. What’s more, there appears to be no room for discussion or negotiations until this stage either, as the first time that a business can raise an objection is when they receive the invoice for the investigation. Ultimately, it is smaller businesses that are going to suffer as a result of the FFI regulation.”

The initial ‘Guidance on the application of Fee for Intervention’ is available at
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.htm but a final version will be published prior to the start date of the scheme.

A fee is payable for handling disputes? So if you win a dispute, do you still pay this fee for being correct in disputing the fee? If so that`s worse than the banking sector, and we know they are bandits.
bob
This is an appalling license to print money and akin to the police to charging for making arrests. £124 per hour charges start when the HSE walks on to site and time to write a letter etc. Expect a minimum of £500-a shocker for hard pressed small business- and If the bill is contested additional charges are incurred at this rate for dealing with the query! The system is wide open to corruption and intimidation- get an inspector on a bad day/ clash of personalities or needing to meet targets.
saxon2girl@yahoo
Being cynical, am I wrong in predicting that the HSE could possibly be foreseen as targetting certain incidents to follow up on, seeking out employers who might be more likely have the means to pay the FFI costs, rather than smaller, less affluent employers who would not be able to cover the hourly fees without impacting their business viability? This could become a licence to print money for the HSE, especially as the dispute process also incurs the same hourly rate. Its a big stick situation.
mschilling@live
This begs the question whether this ability to charge for enforcement costs should also eventually extend to Local Authority Environmental Health Officers, who actually enforce within more premises than the HSE, albeit normally lower risk, but often dealing with some employers who are totally ignorant of Health & Safety law!?
JTheobald@westberks
The more I read about this the more worried I become. The aricle above says the fee includes work needed to identify the breach - what work is that? The inspector has arrived on site and has immediately seen a breach, what work has gone into that? Now he will fine you for writing out the IN or PN but there is no end in sight and a huge bill if you choose to argue the fine. It hasn't been mentioned yet but where is money to be made 'targets' must follow, which means inspectors must find fault.
rob@clearwater-safety
This doesn't sit right with me. the system as it is penalises the duty holders if flouting H&S law and rightly so. There should be a stick i agree to this but at least when you see a stick you know how big it is and how much it will hurt. With this system there is no telling and it is open to abuse.
richard
As a former IOC, I can forsee huge problems in the enforcement of FFI. Many times I issued more than 1 notice, but also gave out free advice on various subjects, and then followed up this advice to see if it was adopted? Now I would have to hand out penalties for all of the breaches noted, and charge for the checking up of compliance in addition to the initial notice breach? I estimate that I would have made a minimum of 100k / yr based upon notices alone, with minor effort.
bob
The last HSE Construction Blitz ended in 870 notices being issued. (Easily achieved) If the average inspection, letter writing and follow up equates to? let`s say 4 hrs? could be more? That is 4 x 124 x 870 = £424,560.00 + VAT (Many SME`s are not VAT registered - sole traders), ooouchh. And that figure does not include for any additional breaches that were passed over by giving free advice/guidance. And no fee is anticipated for specialist intervention? Bonus time me thinks?
bob
This really needs looking at again! I'm all for the costs being recoverd by the HSE in principal. However, shouldn't we only expect costs to be recovered from guilty verdicts. This would be a far better way than this heavy handed approach which could see companies potentially pleading guilty to a charge they are innocent of because it's cheaper than defending it? Small businesses in particular could/would be thesufferers under this system! Cam-morons numpties have got H&S wrong - yet again!!
alexhoward_121@msn
The announcement by the HSE that its cost recovery scheme, FFI will start in October 2012 means that it is imperative for businesses to now start to take a more proactive approach to their health and safety requirements. Good health and safety is not about box ticking, or simply complying with the law. With the right proactive approach and confidence in the relevance of expert health and safety advice organisations can begin to exploit the new era of clearer and more concise regulation .
shelley@neopr
Blah
Grant
Confidence and competence in the experts....mm But that does not stop an Inspector arriving at ones premises on a mission to make a few bob for their employer does it? They could pick a little hole in anything and use it to generate some much needed funding. I can see it now: Job cuts announced at HSE due to insufficient funding = increase in FFI cases in an attempt to improve the cash flow. They could easily make £500 out of 2 emails re: a sign that blew down in the wind the day before.....
mschilling@live
There is no intention for FFI to extend to local authority regulators, the majority of whom are agin it. FFI is the creature of the government, rather than HSE (who've just got to deploy it) and was proposed in the DWP paper "Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone", which was published in March 2011. The paper said nothing about cost recovery for councils and there's nothing in the wind (yet) to suggest that anyone's considering it.
patrick

Join SHP Online

  • ✔ Download free reports and research
  • ✔ Access free Digital magazine
  • ✔ Email newsletter briefings