A company that hires out work-at-height equipment has admitted failing to plan work safely after one of its employees fell from a cherry-picker.
Telford Magistrates’ Court heard the incident took place at UK Platforms Ltd’s depot in Halesfield, Telford on 28 March last year. A 42-year-old worker was standing on the roof of a cherry-picker to repair its mechanical arm, when he slipped and fell two metres and landed on a concrete floor.
He suffered a fractured skull, which caused bleeding on his brain, and fractured four vertebrae, four ribs and his collarbone. He was unable to return to work for 12 months owing to his injuries.
The HSE visited the site the same day as the incident. It issued a Prohibition Notice ordering the work to stop until sufficient measures had been put in place to prevent falls.
The subsequent investigation found that the company had failed to plan or supervise the work. HSE inspector Katharine Walker said: “Companies must ensure that work at height is properly planned and supervised and carried out safely to prevent falls. If UK Platforms had used another powered-access platform alongside the cherry-picker, the incident would never have happened.
“It’s unacceptable to see such failings, particularly as UK Platforms hires out access equipment for working safely at height and therefore should have known how to carry out this job.”
UK Platforms appeared in court yesterday (11 September) and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. It was fined £8000 and ordered to pay £5888 in costs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The majority of people that have died this year from falling from height had an average age of 49. Age is meant to be coupled with training, experience and common sense. I would have thought that a company like UK Platforms would have conducted some basic safety awareness and specialist training for their operatives who work at height.
Why not prosecute the ‘competent’ operative as well. The time he spends in hospital will give him time to reflect on his stupidity and how he is to repay the fine
Paul, I saw your comment in the ‘Summary of Most Commented’ and though it was something I had written!
How on earth does 8k impose a serious penalty on a company that sells itself as a solution to WAH risks.
Defies all logic to me?
I fully agree , tollerence of bad practice by both employees and managemnt is staggering.
There seems to be a lack of purpose to target the underlying issues at fault by all.
Training should be mandatory, any evident lack of competence should result in a fine. If we wait for accidents it`s too late.
Do date HSG fails, and previous HSE engagement is questionable given multiple failures & limited prosecution of those at collective fault. Endless breaches are noted, but not redressed?
Firstly you have to prove they were competent? not middle aged.
And if not, why not?
Why is an employer permitted to have no procedure to refuse to WAH unsafely? the WAH Reg`s are quite explicite, both ssues are a strick duty. Yet are seldom applied in court?
If you then have competent persons, and the right to refuse to work unsafely, the IP should be charged as applicable. But where these elements are not adressed adequately by the employer, they should be charged accordingly.
I absolutely agree with you Bob, but when are employees going to take responsibility for their own safety, and start questioning employers regarding safe systems of work?
I have sympathy for the guy who suffered these injuries, but surely he should have had reservations about the method of working?
About time the government produced some TV adverts about safety at work, similar to the seat belt campaign many years ago. Some people then may take action!
Great minds think alike Andrew!! Just a shame the powers that be don’t seem to listen to people at “the coal face”