Archive for month

December, 2019

Vehicle repair company fined after death of worker

HSADD SAYS: Not only is this a tragic accident I believe that this is amplified by the age and that it was the ‘first’ day at work.

I have for so many years expressed the absolute need to induct staff when they are starting work, whether a bar staff member, Security staff, cleaner or a mechanic, it matters not, ‘IF’ you do not carry this out then you will lose the case and possibly your business and your liberty!

A vehicle recovery and repair company has been sentenced after a new worker suffered fatal crush injuries during maintenance work, only hours after he’d started his new job.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard that on 24 November 2014, Albert Road Recovery and Repair Limited employee John Glenn was fatally injured when a rigid vehicle fell suddenly from an inadequate axle support prop at Siskin Parkway East, Middlemarch Business Park, Coventry.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that a cable reel drum jack was used to support the vehicle, which was not an appropriate piece of equipment for the task being undertaken.

Now dissolved, Albert Road Recovery and Repair Limited of Warley Hill Business Park, Brentwood, Essex was found guilty of breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £20,000, the highest amount available to this court.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector John Glynn said: “This incident led to the tragic death of John Glenn and occurred within hours of him starting his new job. It was completely avoidable.”

“Not only did the company fail to adequately induct the new starter into their business, it failed to adequately instruct and supervise him on his first day and provided him with completely unsuitable tools and equipment. Had the company considered the risks properly, they would have had safe systems of work and approved vehicle repair equipment in place.”

Thanks to

Worcester bars with little or no seats set to face stricter licensing rules in a bid to cut late-night disorder

It is far too easy for Local Authorities to blame violence and disorder on bars and clubs then after encouraging venues to open, with suitable high council taxes, making it more difficult to trade.

Sometimes Licensing authorities have to look closer to home to solve these issues!

HSADD Says: This item from Worcester News makes for an interesting read as they seem to have statistical data that indicates that if you stand in a club or bar rather than be seated then the people tend to commit acts of violence more Is this true?

I would like to see if they aligned the data for violence against the numbers of uniformed Police Officers on duty in the area (Not just driving around in vans) but on actual foot around the venue. I strongly suspect that if this data was aligned you would see an increase in crime directly related lack of Police due to cutbacks.!

One Police force indicated that they were ‘trying out’ a new method which actually deliberately reduced the numbers of Police Officers on foot around bars and night clubs as in the opinion of the senior Police officers, ‘The presence of uniform Police can lead to increased violence’.

That initiative worked well – NOT, the increase in violence and robberies went off the charts, groups of feral youths age between 14 and 21 roamed the streets in packs, committing robberies and selling drugs plus Paracetamol! – it was a disaster.

This line of thinking indicates that when you see a Police officer you decide yes I’m going to really go for it here and look forward to a night in the cells and all that follows, doesn’t every driver who sees a Police car put the pedal to the metal?!

All licenced premises should be controlling the numbers inside and also having sufficient security staff on duty, they should also consider becoming a member of NTIA and have good legal cover within their insurance from specialists like NDML who have an excellent package and have robust due diligence systems like HSADD Compliance Management and ISITCHECKED.

If I had premises in this licencing authority I would definitely be making sure that I had my bases covered with the above recommendations, don’t wait for the ‘review’ to land on your desk!



THE number of city-centre bars where drinkers mostly stand up could be held to stricter licensing policies by the council, it has been revealed.

Worcester City Council has recommended it changes its policy to limit the number of “vertical drinking establishments” looking to open between midnight and 6 am it grants licences to in a bid to put a stop to irresponsible drinking and increased alcohol-related crime.

Late-night takeaways would also be held to the stricter rules.

According to Public Health figures from last year, there are almost 11 premises selling alcohol per square kilometre in Worcester – nearly 10 times higher than the national average.

The council’s review of its licensing policy found that the majority of bars and clubs that had little or no seating were associated with the majority of crime and disorder.


I need FOUR businesses to test out our system for a 3 month period, FREE of charge, NO contract, the business must fall into the following categories


The business must be prepared to operate the system to the maximum capacity, you must be prepared to submit an honest appraisal on completion of the testing system, to fully cooperate with HSADD testing staff.



After the first 2 months of the test, the selected businesses will be asked to review the product and highlight any issues, HSADD will also arrange for a competitive insurance renewal quote, which should highlight the savings from before the use of ISITCHECKED to after, the business will be expected to cooperate with this process.

After THREE months, the trial will be discontinued unless the chosen businesses wish to continue, in which case, as a thank you, ISITCHECKED system will continue to run and will receive a 30% discount for the following 9 months.

DOOR STAFF – when does ‘intervening’ become an ‘Affray or assault’?

All security staff have faced the same question, which at the time they don’t pause to think about the consequences of what is sure to come next.

A fight breaks out between two or three groups of people, they are 10 to 12 in number and it is less than two metres from your premises, someone hits the floor and the pack set on him/her with kicks and stamping or weapons.

What do you do?? Intervene or let that person suffer huge injuries or even lose their life

Most times these decisions occur in milliseconds, The security team step in to save the person and try and stop the fight. You know what happens next? Now your fighting with the whole lot of them.

The fight has stopped, hopefully, none of the security team is injured, then the Police turn up!

First thing that is requested is the CCTV, then they speak to the D.P.S, then they speak to the Head of security, then the local Police Licensing unit arrives and they take over – at this stage they are looking at the conduct of the Security staff and whether or not they went too far, used excessive force etc.

Let us look at common sense and realistic approach, 1. ‘Most security staff’ work this job as the main job, 2. They train hard and keep themselves fit, 3. they train in some sort of martial art, 4. they are sober! The Security team should have come off better and the ones who wanted and started to fight have lost and are now wanting to make a complaint to the Police.


As a member of the public you are permitted to ‘prevent a breach of the peace’ which dates back to 1361., this is a common-law offence and that means that any person can try and stop this and has the power under the law, to do so.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, breach of the peace is descended from the Justices of the Peace Act 1361,[10] which refers to riotous and barratous behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King. More modern authority defines a breach of the peace as “when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance”. (Wikipedia)

You are also permitted to defend yourself against an attack (Self defence) or the defence of another. This does not give you the permission to use excessive force, the law has a line and IF you cross it you will find the Police will be glad to help you to the cell!

The right way

There is the question I have been asked so many times and the problem is not just a legal answer it is also ethical and moral. Too many times in my 30 years of working busy venues has taught me a lot of things – but never the right answer to whether or not to tell the security to intervene. I have been told too many times to remember the number by Police Licensing in Merseyside that the Security should ‘NOT LEAVE THE STEP’. ‘Sorry Officer to contradict your ‘request’ but me personally I cannot stand by and see some 18-year-old getting pasted in front of me!’

I would not let a Police Officer take a beating either and to be honest, I would not sleep at night by ignoring this sort of incident, so the suggestion by the Police is sometimes not the best or involving any sort of thought process, what if the same officer dispensing such advice found himself in front of you taking a beating and standing there saying ‘If only I could leave the step’.

I have been called upon as a consultant by a number of venues who have staff that have intervened and then been threatened with prosecution for Affray and assaults and have to explain that this is all about ‘excessive use of force’ and if it helps one person to read this and keep out of trouble then this post was worth it!

Self-defence – The SECOND that the attacker has backed away or is under restraint on the floor or upright then YOU CAN NOT KEEP HITTING HIM/HER. IF you hit them just once more you CANNOT use self-defence, this becomes an assault by YOU. You can only use sufficient force to stop the attack on you or another person that’s it plain and simple.

The same applies to the incident we made up!! Earlier, once they are not fighting with you or others, or you restrain the person then that is the end of the power you have, you can’t ‘punish’ the person and that is when it takes the control and professionalism that you should show and lets face it if a sober highly trained member of security can’t restrain a drunken 18-year-old without punching him then I would have them consider a different career!

There is no linear line here on this subject, even the High Courts cannot give a definitive answer to what is excessive force, so to try and give some understanding, iF you are trying to take down a fully trained SAS officer in his prime then you would need to use more force than on an 18 year old 10 stone wet student? That is the best analogy – Be professional and treat each person as if they were your little brother or sister.

If your staff could use some ‘common sense’ training please feel free to contact me, with 30 years plus licensing experience I can help with a wealth of advice, if your an existing Client then this training may fall under part of your subscription

Engineering company fined after two workers suffer serious injuries

An engineering company has been fined after two workers were seriously injured after being thrown from the chuck of a large vertical boring machine.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard that on 5 September 2018, two employees of Sulzer Electro Mechanical Services (UK) Limited, were standing on the chuck of a large vertical boring machine at a site in Bordesley, Birmingham, to set it. The start button was inadvertently pressed and, despite the interlocked perimeter fencing access doors being open, the chuck started to rotate.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident found that the interlocks on the perimeter fencing access doors were not working, and there were no safety checks in place to ensure that the interlocks were in working order.

Sulzer Electro Mechanical Services (UK) Limited of Camp Hill, Bordesley, Birmingham pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The company has been fined £86,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,111.48.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Christopher Maher said “We hope that as a result of this case, industry will better understand the importance of maintaining effective control measures.

“It is important that guarding arrangements, including interlocks, are checked regularly, to ensure that they are in good repair and efficient working order.”

HSADD Say’s: This case is a typical one where the Company has failed to make sure that checks were made to ensure that the interlocks work as they should do, regular checks on these should be a daily, weekly or monthly dependent upon the risk involved.

An easy to deal with the issue that could easily have been dealt with by way of our ISITCHECKED paperless checklist system.

Doing the Math, the fine and costs, plus a likely 20% increase in Insurance premium for the following few years would pay for ISITCHECKED for around 102 years!! Makes our product seem very cost-effective!!

Credit to the article to HSE