In a chance sighting, an HSE inspector spotted three roofers working on top of a Nottingham cash and carry store without any safety equipment, or precautions.
Inspector Frances Bailey had been driving past the premises in the Lenton area of Nottingham, on 20 May 2009, when she noticed the workers were not using any equipment, edge protection, or harnesses to prevent falls from or through the roof, Nottingham magistrates heard on 3 November.
Inspector Bailey, who investigated the case and prosecuted it in court, recounted to SHP that she had been en route to another site, but stopped the car because of the immediate risk to the men. She called them down and issued a Prohibition Notice (PN) to stop work straight away. The men had been replacing 220 fragile roof-lights on the store’s asbestos cement roof.
The PN specified that the contractor had to provide: better access to the roof than the loosely-tied ladder the men had been using, such as a tower scaffold; a barrier walkway across the roof, with proper boards and handrails; and points, on to which safety harnesses could be anchored.
After investigation, it was discovered that this unsafe system of work, without protective equipment and proper supervision, had continued over a period of three weeks, risking injury not only to the roofers but also to employees and customers inside the store itself.
Inspector Bailey said the system of work was so bad that it led not only to a PN being served but immediate prosecution because of the high risk of serious injury, or death. “Roofing is one of the most dangerous activities in construction. On average, one person a month dies falling through a fragile roof, or roof-light,” she stated.
Roofing contractor SPV Road Carpet Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to protect its own employees and members of the public in the cash and carry at the time of the incident.
In mitigation, the company said it was a large company with a good reputation, employing qualified and competent staff. Since the incident it had trained a large number of its employees and engaged the services of a health and safety consultant.
One of the three men, Lewis Male, an employee of SPV, pleaded guilty to breaching s7 of the same Act, by failing to take reasonable care of himself and others. He had not followed the method statement provided by his employer.
SPV Road Carpet was fined a total of £14,000 (£7000 on each charge) and ordered to pay £6659 in full costs. Male, from Sheffield, was fined £480 and ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £650.
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 wonder how many breaches would have been sited if this occured now, and I would expect the client to now be included in these breaches.
With the newly divised fees (at min £133.00/hr) attributed to material breaches this scenario would earn more in fees than penalties.
God bless British justice.
With the new pricing policy adopted by the HSE, one would expect them to employ a significant number of breaches on all parties involved. With the end result of more money being owed post PN & IN, than can be generated by the conviction?
God bless British Justice.
(and in Scotland the costs are now redeamable with this policy)
Given the failure to adopt any best practice effort, I expect a raft of IN`s to be generated. Inpectors have been instructed to act upon material breaches. CDM, WAH, MHSW, CAW, various duties apply. Evidence to generate further material breaches is highly likely. Evidential corroberation will be the norm. Guidance given, may now be dealt with by enforcement action. Ultimately , reducing overall inspection time.
Never met a roofer yet with WAH, CAW. training, Harness advised, more IN`s
This an example of the real cause we live and work for. Frances Bailey should be commended for his dilligence and commitment to the cause. How easy it would have been to keep on driving.
What our industry needs is thepositive media coverage of what we do.
Televison companies have given us rogue traders and the like, now a series on the real risks endured by employees by rogue employers would make compulsive viewing and generate the response from employers to comply with legislation
In cases like this it appears to be random as to whether the client is also prosecuted or indeed even mentioned. It would be instructive to know what is the rationale for the decision.
I agree Ken, who approved the SSoW ie Method Statement? It made me laugh when I read ‘In mitigation, the company said it was a large company with a good reputation, employing qualified and competent staff. Since the incident it had trained a large number of its employees and engaged the services of a health and safety consultant.’
Are they serious? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of working on roofs would know that the workers were exposed to serious and imminent danger!
Perhaps the HSE’s cost recovery initiative will prove to be more suited to SMEs rather than lenghty and expensive legal action. Again, how much would this incident have generated in terms of ENs can only be speculated.
The HSE’s cost recovery is in fact a pseudo fine for those who don’t run their business properly. In that respect I don’t have an issue with it, particularly if it is a more effective sanction than a prosecution, which are in decline and no doubt due to the HSE budget cuts.
I agree with Ray’s earlier comment. A large company with a good reputation should already have the services of a competent safety professional. Also, any good roofer should know the hazards and consequences of when things go wrong. Good spot by the HSE Inspector.