Warehouse Owner and Contractor Prosecuted for Unsafe Work at Height

legal updates

No injury occurred, however the breach of the Act in itself was sufficient for a prosecution.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Two companies have been fined after putting workers at risk of falling whilst accessing a roof to repair pipework.

Dudley Magistrates’ Court heard how workers for Kingswinford Engineering Co Limited had been hired to repair a section of pipework on the roof of a warehouse in Bilston owned by James Durrans & Sons’ Ltd.

The court heard how workers had climbed onto the roof from a ‘man-cage’ lifted into position by a forklift truck. The ‘man-cage’ fell short of the roof level by about three feet and there was a gap between the cage and the roof. This meant that workers needed to climb across the gap to gain access onto the roof; which was slippery and wet. There was no barrier in place to prevent a fall of persons from the roof.

Investigation by Inspectors from the HSE identified failings in relation to how the work was planned, managed and monitored and specifically providing access to the warehouse roof. Neither company had undertaken a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, nor had they agreed a safe system of work for the repair of the pipework; which required access to the roof. Instead each company had assumed that the other had put into place systems that would protect workers from the risks of working at height.
Contractor, Kingswinford Engineering Co Ltd. pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (the Act) and was fined £18,000 with costs of £9,000.

James Durrans & Sons Ltd. pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Act and was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,000.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Edward Fryer commented: “This incident highlights the need for contractors to be managed properly. Both the contractors and those engaging them must assess the risks of the site and the specific work to ensure it can be done safely. In this case, no risk assessment was carried out and arrangements made to access the roof put workers at significant risk of falling from height.”

NOTE: This case is noteworthy for a number of reasons.

1. No injury occurred, however the breach of the Act in itself was sufficient for a prosecution.

2. Those engaging the Engineering Contractor (the Client) were prosecuted. Reasonably practicable steps should have been taken by the Client to ensure that the Contractor had adequately planned their work; with safe systems of work.

3. The Client could have used a permit system; for example, a Permit To Work for external contractors, which recorded sufficient detail within the Permit to confirm that the appropriate questions had been asked of the Contractor; before they started their work.

4. Work carried out by others (i.e. Contractors) on an Employers premises must be routinely monitored by Managers for the Client; to ensure that the Contractors own (agreed and understood) methodologies are being properly implemented.

5. All work at height must be a. properly planned, b. adequately supervised, and c. carried out safely; to comply with the Act and the Work at Height Regulations 2005

Profit BoxDevelop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

Ernie TaylorHealth & Safety ConsultantRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Toilet provision in the workplace

It’s hard to imagine this sensible judgment was not a relief for all the employees involved in the use of these toilets.

Can my employees tell me it is too hot to work?

Bosses should make sure they are doing all they can to keep their people cool, especially in areas where machinery might generate extra heat.

Managing Home Workers’ Health and Safety

The guidance published by the HSE about home working has been redesigned and expanded to provide more detail on straightforward actions to manage the homeworkers’ health and safety.

Site Supervisor Fined After Worker Suffered Serious Injuries

Remind your Managers and Site Supervisors about their delegated responsibilities for health and safet

HSE update – Control Of Substances Harmful to Health (COSHH)

COSHH requirements will be particularly relevant for any business running a repairs workshop.

Aiming for excellence – 10 Targets for your own risk assessments

We all recognise and understand that risk assessments are a statutory requirement.

Employer Sentenced After Oil Drum Explodes

Fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,167.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.