CALL US: 0800 644 4142 OR ENQUIRE ONLINE

Scaffolding falls onto power lines with devastating implications

Posted by on Oct 16, 2017 in Quantum Blog |

Boundary Scaffolding Limited, a Swindon-based scaffolding company and its director have been sentenced after a worker was left with life-changing injuries when a structure he was erecting came into contact with overhead power lines. It was heard at Swindon Magistrates’ Court that the scaffolding hit the 33KV overhead power lines on 19 December 2016. A father of five working on the scaffolding received an electric shock which led to the amputation of his left arm above the elbow, right arm below the elbow and both of his feet. The 32-year-old father also suffered severe burns to his legs and back, damage to his vocal chords, and was in an induced coma for six weeks. The HSE’s investigated.  It was found that the scaffolding should not have been built to that height so close to overhead power lines. There was no safe system of work in place for erecting a scaffold under overhead power lines. Boundary Scaffolding Limited, of Unit 10 Kendrick Industrial Estate Swindon SN2 2DU, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £1,415.10. Company director Jonathon Lee Griffith-Clack, of 12 Grosmont Drive, Swindon, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as well as Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to repay costs of £1,545.30. HSE inspector Ian Whittles commented: “This incident could have been prevented had the company and its director properly planned a safe system of work and ensured the scaffolding was erected in line with HSE regulations. Due to their failings, a young father of five has been left with life-changing injuries and the lives of an entire family have been changed forever.”   In a statement the injured man Jamie Mines said: “I can’t quite put into words how it feels to wake up with no hands. I had five-month-old twin girls at the time of the accident, all I could think of when I woke up was the things I wouldn’t be able to do, for example I wouldn’t be able to hold my babies’ hands again, I wouldn’t be able to draw, play catch or teach my girls any of the things that I had learned with my hands. There’s so many things I can’t do it’s hard to imagine, but to never feel anything with my hands again is what I struggle with the most. Sitting here now in my wheelchair nine months after the accident and I still don’t...

Read More

Recycling firm receives more than £100k in fines

Posted by on Oct 3, 2017 in Quantum Blog |

Multiple failures at a recycling firm, Monoworld Recycling, have resulted in fines of £100k after Northampton Crown Court heard of their ‘haphazard approach’ to business risk, breaching numerous regulations. After several visits from the Health & Safety Executive, a total of 15 enforcement notices were served on the company and three served on each of the two company directors, in less than two years. The notices covered a range of topics including work at height, work equipment and electrical matters. The Executive found Monoworld failed to manage risks when its staff worked at height, maintain work equipment and control risks from electrical systems. The HSE also discovered employees were instructed to carry out work at height even after a Prohibition Notice was served and staff felt pressurised to complete their work even when they had raised concerns about their safety.  It was also discovered that fork lift trucks were left with broken lights and windscreen wipers, causing visibility issues for drivers’. Emergency stop buttons on machinery were marked as broken but not repaired over a long period of time. Monoworld Recycling Ltd of Irchester Road, Northamptonshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Regulation 5(1) of the Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 4(1) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and has been fined £83,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,000. Mr Dhanesh Ruparelia of Irchester Road, Northamptonshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 33(1) (a) of Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was sentenced to 26 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months, he has also been fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,000. Mr Nimaye Ruparelia of Irchester Road, Northamptonshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 33(1)(a) by virtue of Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and has been ordered to complete 150 hours community order as well as being fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £7,000 in costs. Speaking after the case HSE inspector Neil Ward said: “The Company’s failings in this case have put their workers at risk from serious personal injury. It was clear the overall approach to business risk was haphazard at best, with a culture of negligence, for which the two directors were ultimately responsible. The HSE took proactive action, throughout its dealings with Monoworld, and tried to work with the company when concerns were first...

Read More

Equality Act 2010: Briefing

Posted by on Sep 29, 2017 in Quantum Blog |

Duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people Those responsible for managing communal areas of commercial properties must take positive steps to remove the barriers disabled people may face. This is to ensure disabled people receive the same services, as far as this is possible, as someone who’s not disabled. The Equality Act 2010 calls this the duty to make reasonable adjustments. What’s meant by the duty to make reasonable adjustments? The Equality Act 2010 says changes or adjustments should be made to ensure disabled people can access goods and services. What’s meant by reasonable? Adjustments only have to be made if it’s reasonable to do so. What’s a reasonable thing to ask for depends on things like: an individual’s disability how practicable the changes are if the change asked for would overcome the disadvantage disabled people experience the size of the organisation how much money and resources are available the cost of making the changes if any changes have already been made. What do organisations have to do? There are three different things organisations may have to do make it easier for disabled people to access properties. 1. Change the way things are done Some organisations may have a certain way of doing things which makes it more difficult for disabled people to access. This could be a formal or informal policy, a rule or a practice. It could also be a one-off decision. The Equality Act calls this a provision, criterion or practice.The organisation should change these things if they are a barrier for disabled people, unless it’s unreasonable to do so. 2.  Change a physical feature Sometimes a physical feature of a building or other premises may make it more difficult for disabled people to access or use it. Here are examples of physical features which it might be possible to change: steps and stairs passageways and paths entrances and exits internal and external doors toilets signs lighting and ventilation the size of premises. The kind of adjustments which could be made includes removing, changing or providing a way of avoiding the physical feature, where it’s reasonable to do so. Here are examples of reasonable adjustments: providing ramps and stairway lifts making doorways wider installing automatic doors providing more lighting and clearer signs. 3. Provide extra aids or services Sometimes disabled people may need particular aids or equipment to help them access or do something. Or disabled people may need additional services. The Equality Act calls this auxiliary aids and services. Here are examples of auxiliary aids and services which could be provided to help disabled people: a portable induction loop for people with hearing aids BSL interpreters providing information in alternative formats, such as Braille...

Read More

Work at height contractor sentenced after safety failures

Posted by on Sep 18, 2017 in Quantum Blog |

A roofing contractor, C Smith Roofing has been sentenced for safety breaches after workers were left at risk of falling from unprotected roof edges. The failures were discovered by health and safety staff who could see unsafe scaffolding from their office window. Leeds Crown Court heard that in November 2015 Mr Smith was contracted to carry out some roof repairs to a Guest House roof in Northallerton. Scaffolding was erected along the full length of the roof at the front of the property. The presence of a conservatory structure at the rear meant that the company only erected a partial scaffold. It did not take the conservatory into account, which left approximately two thirds of the rear roof edge unprotected. In February 2016, nearby health and safety risk managers at North Yorkshire County Council could see the project from their office window and had concerns about the safety of the two workers on a roof where there were inadequate fall protection measures in place such as scaffolding. Two operatives working under the control of Mr Smith were at risk of falling approximately seven metres from the unprotected edge of the roof at the rear of the property. Mr Smith was given an eight-month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 200 hours of community service. Chris Smith from North Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. As well as his suspended prison sentence and unpaid work requirement, he was also ordered to pay £5800 costs. After the hearing, Health and Safety Executive inspector Tania Shiffer commented: “Work at height, such as roof work, is a high-risk activity that accounts for a high proportion of workplace serious injuries and fatalities each year. There were not suitable or sufficient measures in place to prevent the risk of a person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury. This is a good example of HSE working closely with local authority partners, helping Great Britain work...

Read More

Worker dies following fall from ladder

Posted by on Sep 11, 2017 in Quantum Blog |

A Hull-based bakery, Greencore Grocery Ltd has been ordered to pay a fine of £1million after a self-employed contractor died when he fell from a stepladder. Hull Crown Court heard that the worker was contracted to complete electrical work at the Hull site in October 2013. Whilst wiring a motor situated above a machine, the contractor was standing on a stepladder. Greencore Grocery Ltd agreed this work activity could be completed using a stepladder, which it had provided. The contractor fell from the stepladder and suffered fatal injuries. An investigation held by the Health and Safety Executive found that Greencore failed to properly plan the activity from the beginning including access arrangements to be made for installation of motors to use to carry out this work activity. Greencore Grocery Ltd of Apex Park, Amsterdam Road, Sutton Fields Industrial Estate Hull, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £1million and ordered to pay costs of £30,000. Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Denise Fotheringham said: “Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work related fatalities in Great Britain, the risks associated with working at height are well known. Work at height regulations require that all work at height is properly planned and appropriate access is provided. If Greencore had carried this out this death could have been...

Read More