1. The HSE’s scheme for recovering costs from businesses which are found to have a “material breach” will have been around for three years on October 1.
2. A “material breach” is when, in the opinion of an HSE inspector, there is or has been a contravention of health and safety law that requires them to issue notice in writing of that opinion to the business that they’ve inspected. Therefore, only HSE enforced premises are within scope of the FFI scheme.
3. Following the Fee For Intervention’s introduction, the revenue generated from FFI by the end of January 2014 totalled just over £10.6m.
4. The rate charged for FFI is £124 per hour. This is based on the amount of time it takes the HSE to identify and conclude its regulatory action.
5. If a business disagrees with an invoice that they receive from the HSE, they can submit a query to the HSE within 21 days. If they aren’t satisfied with the response, they can raise a dispute which must be submitted in writing. This will be considered by a panel of HSE staff and an independent representative. If it’s not upheld, the business will have to pay for HSE’s time spent handling the dispute as well as the time taken to resolve the material breach. If the dispute is upheld, HSE will refund invoices which have been paid and will not charge a fee for handling the dispute.
![Mike Taylor Santia]](https://s32891.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mike-Taylor-Santia.jpg)
Mike Taylor is Technical Director, Health, Safety and Environment at Santia Consulting. He will be presenting Barbour’s bi-annual legislation update in October 2015.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
FFI can be quite a controversial subject, but on balance I think this has been a really positive move by the HSE.
Where there is a material breach, it’s only right that the organisation in question should be obliged to contribute towards the cost of enforcement. FFI is really about recovering costs rather than generating income.
I’m afraid I disagree with Steven in his assessment. FFI hasn’t been a force for good, and in fact I think it’s given the wrong profile to HSE. Their job was to make sure both the letter and spirit of the regulations are being upheld for the protection of individuals. Many amongst us suspected this was a money-making scheme and I’m afraid I for one have yet to see evidence of cases where the intervention has been an intervention for good.
Many I’ve heard of have been following RIDDOR reportable incidents which haven’t resulted in injury nor has the potential risk been seen as anything more than moderate, yet inspectors have been dispatched to offer sage advice (at a cost). Similar to appealing a parking infringement the system is weighted against the company with financial penalties for taking the risk of a review.
I feel, if FFI is here to stay, then tie it to the same process that decides on enforcement or prohibition notices. That way we get a fair open review rather than a panel comprising mainly of HSE people.