A tyre firm and its landlord have been fined a total of £43,333 after pleading guilty to breaching health and safety legislation.
Blues Tyres Birmingham Limited was fined £26,677 fine and ordered to pay £3,751.35p costs and £170 victim surcharge. The firm’s landlord 365 Services Limited was fined £16,666 and ordered to pay £4,000 costs and £170 victim surcharge.
Birmingham City Council brought the prosecution following a routine inspection on 14 February 2019, where a large platform lift was found to be dangerous, with a safety gate missing and a safety interlock and mains control panel bypassed, resulting in a Prohibition Notice.
Whilst inspecting another business on 4 June 2019, at Birmingham Magistrates Court was told, a council Health and Safety inspector found the mains power to the lift had been switched back on; it had been used without the defects rectified.
365 Services Limited was prosecuted under the Section 4 (2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, while Blues Tyres Birmingham Limited was prosecuted under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Cllr Philip Davis, Chair of Birmingham City Council’s Licensing and Public Protection Committee, said: “In this case, the lift was still being used months after it was identified as being dangerous to use by a health and safety inspector. Both companies are very fortunate no harm came to any persons using the lift after the Prohibition Notice was served.
“Falling from height is a well-known cause of serious or fatal injuries, our officers will continue to take action where minimum standards of health and safety are not met or flouted.”
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!
In this instance is there a specific reason why the landlord was also fined as well as the offending tenant?