Fine after a lathe accident left employee with amputated finger

One notable case involved a machine manufacturing company in Middleton, where an employee lost a finger after their glove became caught in a metalworking lathe. HSE investigators found that the company had not properly assessed the risks and lacked an adequate safe system of work. Crucially, HSE guidance states that emery cloth should never be applied directly by hand when using such machinery, underlining the need for clear procedures and operator training.

Fine after employer’s fingers severed in printing machine

In another February prosecution, a South Kirby wooden cable drum manufacturer was fined after an employee’s fingers were partially severed when they were drawn into unguarded rollers during cleaning operations. The investigation revealed that dangerous parts of the machine had not been effectively guarded, placing the worker at risk during normal tasks. The HSE inspector said:

“An employee was tasked with cleaning the printer without provision of suitable information, instruction or training, particularly in relation to the safety devices intended to protect them.”

Ensuring machinery safety

These cases reinforce a consistent message that employers must ensure machinery is:

• Safely isolated
• Properly guarded
• Supported by thorough risk assessments
• Not used until suitable training has been provided
• Actively monitored against safety standards

Regular training, supervision and adherence to HSE guidance are essential in preventing avoidable injuries. By learning from recent prosecutions, organisations can strengthen their safety culture and safeguard their workforce against similar incidents.

The post Recent HSE prosecutions: The importance of machine safety appeared first on LRB.

HSE prosecution

In August 2025, a Manchester-based construction firm, A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited, have been fined after exposing workers to asbestos risks.

Whilst acting as the Principal Contractor on works taking place at a former public house, evidence of asbestos was found that an asbestos insulating board had been illegally removed from the dumb waiter lift. A worker had previously entered the building and discovered apparent asbestos fragments around the lift shaft, which was later wrapped and removed by a licensed contractor.

A1 Property Maintenance management Limited were fined £5.117 for breaching Regulation 4(6) of The Control of Asbestos Regulations. The company had failed to conduct an asbestos survey to confirm that all asbestos-containing materials had been removed following the earlier identification of asbestos on-site.

An HSE spokesperson said:

“This was a serious incident and put those working in the building at risk of being exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos.

“Duty holders are reminded of the need to review without delay an asbestos assessment if there has been a significant change in the premises to which the assessment relates.”

What are the risks?

Asbestos carries serious health risks including mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening. Through continued vigilance, compliance, awareness and training, these risks can be minimised.

Take action

We provide practical support with Asbestos Awareness training courses and retained support to ensure safe working conditions. Get in touch today to start a conversation about asbestos management in your work.

The post Prosecution: Construction company fined after exposing workers to asbestos risks appeared first on LRB.

A Welsh-based company have been fined £40,000 after a roofer fell through an unguarded skylight. He sustained serious head trauma, broken ribs, a ruptured spleen and kidney damage, having profound long-term effects on his health. Following the incident, he now suffers with PTSD.

The subsequent investigation by the HSE found that the company failed to provide external scaffolding, internal safety measures, and failed to provide suitable instructions to workers. Their failure to plan the work properly resulted in life-changing injuries and could have resulted in fatality.

Be proactive

If you’re an employer, contractor, or site manager, take proactive steps today. Review your risk assessments, ensure proper training, and implement appropriate fall prevention measures. Workers’ lives depend on it.

How can LRB Consulting help you?

LRB Consulting Ltd can provide support by conducting site audits, validating current arrangements and helping you identify areas for improvement. We can also support with:

• Helping you achieve third-party accreditation (e.g. CHAS, SafeContractor)
• Assisting with incident investigation
• Providing risk assessment support (creation, review, training)
• Competent advice on work at height activity
• Delivering suitable training (e.g. work at height training)

Contact us today if you require any support.

The post Prosecution: Roofing company fined following fall from heights appeared first on LRB.

Ensuring risk assessments are in place to identify hazards and ensure the control measures in place are sufficient are vital in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of workers. Neglecting to identify risks and put procedures in place could result in prosecution, as the case below demonstrates.

HSE Prosecution

In July 2025, Middlesbrough-based Abbey Joinery and Manufacture Limited were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay a further £4,428 in costs after a surprise inspection by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) uncovered serious safety breaches relating to dust and electrical systems.

Inspectors found that workers were being exposed to hazardous wood dust, a known cause of asthma, dermatitis and sino-nasal cancer, due to inadequate control measures. In addition, improper installation exposed wiring posed a significant risk of electric shock.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which requires employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of their employees.

The HSE emphasised that these risks were entirely preventable and highlighted the importance of regular maintenance, proper dust extraction systems, and safe electrical practices.

Speaking on the case, HSE inspector Darren Dundas said:

“There is clear health and safety guidance available to assist businesses in adequately controlling exposure to wood dust.”

“The inspection and testing of equipment is also an essential part of any preventive maintenance programme”

Do you know what to do when an inspector calls?

We can provide practical support with dust monitoring, training and retained support to ensure safe working conditions. Get in touch today to start a conversation about safe site management.

The post Prosecution: Joiners fined for failing to protect workers appeared first on LRB.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said it will be carrying out further spot inspections at businesses in areas with the highest coronavirus infection rates as it continues its efforts to halt the spread of the virus. This means that HSE inspectors will be dropping in on businesses and putting employers on the spot in Oldham to ensure all workplaces are COVID-secure as coronavirus cases continue to rise in the borough.

COVID-secure and HSE enforcement – the inspectors will be providing advice and guidance to manage risk and protect workers, but where some employers are not managing this, the HSE will take immediate action.

This immediate action can range from:

• the provision of specific advice
• issuing enforcement notices
• stopping certain work practices until they are made safe
• where businesses fail to comply, this could lead to prosecution.

Sally Nicholson, HSE head of operations, North West, said:

While the number of confirmed coronavirus cases continues to grow in Oldham, we are urgently talking to local businesses to understand how they are managing risks in line with their specific business activity.

Employers have a legal duty to protect their workers and others from harm and this includes taking reasonable steps to control the risk of coronavirus.

While most businesses are following the guidelines, some are failing in their duty and neglecting to maintain things like social distancing measures and handwashing and hygiene procedures that are crucial in stopping the spread of the virus.

Becoming COVID-secure is crucial for all businesses to tackle the rise in infection cases in the area and we will take action against workplaces that fail their duty.

The post COVID-secure and HSE enforcement appeared first on LRB.

The post Worker died after fall from a scaffolding access ladder appeared first on LRB.

The club was rated to a safe capacity of 645, but during a Basshunter event in November 2017 there were 1,3000 customers in the premises, who were mostly squeezed into a 22 metres by 22 metres area on the first floor.

The club’s former general manager Wayne Mason, along with Deltic Group Limited (the club’s owners) and Securigroup Services Ltd (the door staff company) will pay £110,000 in fines and court costs.

In the words of the Judge at Leeds Crown Court:

Had there been a fire, it is too awful to contemplate what might have happened … There was an obvious and very real risk of death or serious injury to a large number of people had a fire occurred.

Mr Mehta, prosecuting for North Yorkshire Fire Authority, reported that the advance ticket sales exceeded the maximum safe capacity, but Mason still allowed people to buy tickets on the door. When the door staff objected he over-ruled them and people continued to go into the nightclub.

There were several factors taken into consideration as well as the overcrowding:

• The loud music would have prevented customers from hearing evacuation instructions.
• The overcrowding would have prevented staff from seeing which customers needed help and from getting to customers needing help.
• The evacuation routes were narrow.
• Most of the customers had been drinking and many may have been unfamiliar with the nightclub’s layout.

In the words of the Judge

His behaviour in relation to this event was so serious it clearly crosses the custodial threshold.

Read more about this by following this link 

The post Fire Risk – “too awful to contemplate” appeared first on LRB.

The Magistrates’ Court in Newton Abbot heard that between October 2016 and May 2017 construction work was undertaken to refurbish the hotel on Taw Vale. Parts of the hotel were originally constructed during the 1960s and 1970s when asbestos was a popular building material. The project aimed to refit and refurbish bathrooms and bedrooms.

Asbestos disturbed

An investigation by the HSE found that, at an early stage of the work, an employee raised concerns about the potential presence of  ACM within the rooms under refurbishment. Enquiries were made but no physical testing of the materials being disturbed was undertaken. Work continued for several more months and concerns about the materials within the bedrooms and bathrooms were raised again by external contractors. Testing of the material being disturbed was eventually conducted in February 2017 and the presence of ACMs was confirmed.

Whilst the HSE investigation was in progress the defendant had a further incident in May 2017 where ACM were disturbed during bathroom refurbishment works being undertaken. The planning undertaken for this work, which had included an assessment as to the presence of ACM, was inadequate as it failed to identify the full scope of the work proposed and the materials that would be disturbed during pipework installation works.

The investigation also found that refurbishment work was undertaken at the hotel without the appropriate assessment as to the presence of ACM. Once identified the hotel took remedial action which included sampling of common parts for asbestos fibres, which came back as negative.

Percy R Brend and Sons (Hoteliers) Ltd of Taw Vale, Barnstaple pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They have been fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,999.60.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Jo-Anne Michael said:

The dangers associated with asbestos are well known and a wealth of advice and guidance is freely available from HSE and other organisations.

Identification of the hazard is key. Duty holders should not undertake any work which either exposes or is liable to expose their employees to asbestos unless they have carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to the presence, location and condition of asbestos in the premises. Those persons tasked with undertaking the assessment should have the necessary skills.

The post Asbestos disturbed – hoteliers fines appeared first on LRB.

There are also some businesses that “get it wrong”. These tend to be, organisations who:

• think of risk assessments purely as a paperwork exercise (and so do not involve the workforce),
• don’t see the value of risk assessments,
• don’t make time for risk assessments,
• consider risk assessments as a waste of time,
• don’t consider the risks of one-off jobs,
• etc.

Consider this simple thought experiment:

The task is to lift a heavy object and move it. The tools to hand include a telehandler. What might be included in your risk assessment?

• is the telehandler suitable for the task?
• is its lifting capacity sufficient for the task?
• is the driver trained?
• have we planned the lifting operation?
• what steps do we need to put in place to keep people away from the lifting area?

This is not a definitive list but it starts the process and can be built on.

Recent Prosecution – similar to the thought experiment

Alan Little Ltd of Lurgan (Northern Ireland) pleaded guilty after employee JP suffered fatal injuries during an unloading operation. JP died after he was struck by a palletised load that fell from the forks of a telescopic handler during the lifting operation. The driver of the lorry also suffered minor injuries when he was impacted by the load as it fell.

The (hired) telescopic handler was being operated by an untrained member of staff. The palletised load weighed over two tonnes and consisted of a robot and an electrical control box. Neither were secured to the pallet and during the lifting operation to remove the pallet from the lorry, the robot became unstable and toppled over, striking JP as it fell.

HSENI Inspector Kyle Carrick said:

Our thoughts are with the Peden family. Jonathan’s tragic death could have been avoided if his employer had properly considered the risks associated with this unloading activity. Careful consideration of the risks is vital to ensure practical and often simple measures are put in place to prevent such incidents from occurring.

Load stability and security are important factors to consider, as is operator training, which is a legal requirement for anyone operating lift trucks, including telescopic handlers. Pedestrians and other people who are not directly involved in loading or unloading operations should always be kept clear of dangerous lifting activities.

Alan Little Ltd was prosecuted for breaching Article 4(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and fined £45,000. They were fined a further £5,000for breaching Article 5(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

Risk Assessment: Being wise before the event

A little thought and planning would have created a very different outcome. It is all well and good to be wise after the event, but it is possible to be wise before the event.

The post Risk Assessment: Being wise before the event appeared first on LRB.

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. There was a conservatory structure at the rear of the property and the company erected only a partial scaffold at the rear. The scaffolding erected at the rear failed to take the conservatory into account which left approximately two-thirds of the rear roof edge unprotected.

Health and safety risk managers at North Yorkshire County Council saw the project from their office window and were concerned for the safety of two workers on a roof. The workmen were under the control of Mr Smith and at risk of falling approximately 7m from the unprotected edge of the roof at the rear of the property.

Prison Sentence for Roofing Contractor – Chris Smith pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The Court sentenced Mr Smith to an eight-month prison sentence (suspended for two) years and ordered that he complete 200 hours of community service and pay £5800 in prosecution costs.

After the hearing, HSE 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 well.

The post Prison Sentence for Roofing Contractor appeared first on LRB.