Another Roof Safety Failure
Jun
12

Another roof safety failure has resulted in a roofing company being fined for safety failings related to working at height. The fine related to the lack of precautions taken rather than to an injury or accident.

Brighton Magistrates Court heard how numerous concerns were raised by members of the public about work being carried out by G & S Roofing Limited. The roofing company twice ignored written advice to address the issue of working at height in an unsafe manner. On top of this history, a concerned member of the public contacted the HSE in August 2016 after seeing more evidence of operatives hired by G & S Roofing working unsafely from height. Inspectors then visited the site in response to the contact from the member of the public.

Continue reading

Roof works fall from height
Jun
07

A fall from height during roof repair works leads to prosecution and fine – a Stranraer based groundwork company was fined after a worker fell more than seven metres through a fragile roof.

The Stranraer Sheriff Court today heard the 42-year-old had been sub-contracted by McKeown Groundworks Limited, to carry out roof repairs on a barn at Whiteley’s Farm, Stranraer. On 24 May 2016, the worker arrived at the farm to work on the roof. As he walked along the roof he stepped on a translucent light panel that broke under his weight resulting in his falling through the roof and onto the ground below. The worker suffered a compression fracture of the lower back as a result of this incident.

Roof works fall from height – an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that McKeown Groundworks Limited failed to adequately supervise this work at height and relied on the experience of the workers to avoid injury while working at height. It was also found that McKeown failed to plan the work at height and therefore no control measures had been put in place to prevent workers falling from or through the roof.

Continue reading

Hotel fined for Fire Safety Failures
Jun
05

The Central Hotel (in Golders Green, London) has been fined £20,000 for a range of fire safety offences, including the lack of a fire risk assessment, and the absence of smoke alarms and emergency lighting.

The Hoop Lane Trust (owners of the Central Hotel) was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to five offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The London Fire Brigade (LFB) was also awarded costs of £15,000.

When fire inspectors from London Fire Brigade visited the 24 room hotel following a small fire in its 13 bedroom annexe in June 2013, they discovered a number of fire safety issues, including:

  • no evidence of fire risk assessment
  • no smoke alarms or smoke detectors
  • inadequate fire doors
  • no emergency lighting
  • no evacuation procedures in place

Continue reading

highly informative Health and Safety Day
Jun
02

Thank you very much for delivering such a relaxed but highly informative Health and Safety Day.  Feedback from the team is that they were amazed it was so enjoyable …

Joan Millband, Equation

Fire safety failures
Jun
02

Fire safety failures resulted in a corporate landlord and its management company being handed a large fine. They both failed to carry out a fire risk assessment for an apartment building, which was destroyed after a fire broke out.

Property owner Crownpark Investments, along with City Estates (who managed the six-floor terraced house conversion in Pimlico) pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to three offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The fire broke out during the early hours of 21 February 2011, and 8 fire engines and about 60 firefighters were called to tackle the blaze. The fire damaged the second, third and fourth floors, and thirteen people had to be rescued.

Inspectors from the London Fire Brigade discovered several fire safety failings. These included a lack of fire alarm or detection system inside the flats and the communal areas, and no fire risk assessment in place for the building. They also found that the doors to the individual flats provided inadequate protection to the escape route in the event of a fire.

Continue reading