Category Archive

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

• MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK
• BUILDING SITE
• HOME CARE PROVIDER
• MULTI-SITE SECURITY OPERATOR

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.

THIS OFFER IS ON A FIRST COME FIRST SERVED BASIS AND IS ONLY OPEN FOR ONE BUSINESS PER CATEGORIES.

AFTER THE TEST PERIOD

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.

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 https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/29/engineering-company-fined-after-two-workers-suffer-serious-injuries-2/

A Lincolnshire metal fabrication company has been fined for not complying with three improvement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Boston Magistrates’ Court heard that, in December 2018, W S Barrett & Son Limited was issued with three improvement notices relating to testing wood dust and powder coating local exhaust ventilation (LEV), and providing LEV for welding fume extraction on its site in Boston, Lincolnshire. Improvement notices are legal documents requiring improvements to be made by a specified date. WS Barrett & Son Limited failed to comply with all three notices by the completion date.

An investigation by HSE found that the company was first advised of the problem in February 2018 but did not act following receipt of a Notification of Contravention letter. A further visit by HSE in December 2018 found the company had still not made the necessary improvements. A subsequent follow-up visit in April 2019 showed they still had not done the work to meet the improvement notices.

W S Barrett & Son Limited of Marsh Lane, Boston pleaded guilty to breaching Section 33(1) (g) of the Health and Safety At work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £12,000.00 and ordered to pay costs of £1,740.40.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles said, “The failure to comply with an improvement notice is a serious offence. If you receive a notice, you should ensure you take appropriate action to correct the health and safety problems and breaches that are identified in the notice.”

HSADD Says, The number of businesses that get improvement notices and then look at the due date and think ‘Got loads of time for this’ or think that it’s ‘Just a suggestion’! whether from LA, Fire Officer or especially HSE – NO it is not – you need to get onto this straight away and deal with it!

The fine and court costs, plus Solicitors likely in this case exceeded the cost of actually doing the job right the first time!

Credit to HSE – https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/25/metal-fabrication-company-fined-for-failing-to-comply-with-improvement-notices/

Whether you are organising a one-off event or a yearly outside even you still need to be fully compliant with all Health & Safety regulations, employee training, Risk Assessments and everything that is needed for a permanent venue – most times even more.

HSADD staff have a wealth of experience of outside events from the preparation and planning to liaise with Local Authority, fire service, Police, we have software systems that will smoothly and effortlessly record staff training and we will retain all records for four years in the event of any claims.

HSADD has industry-leading contacts that can provide a vast knowledge base and access to specialist event insurance to ensure that your event proceeds successfully.

Is this one of the sentences that always greets you when you are trying ‘improve’ your workplace systems and protect the business?

That is why we improve and continuously develop, otherwise we would still be working ‘like this’ and never improve

Follow the link to see how we view this dilemma.

Checklists are the only way you can prove that something that you say you have done has been done, so on that basis the very best system is surely the best system for your business?

An electromagnetic brake manufacturing company was sentenced today after a worker suffered serious injuries to her arm and hand when she became entangled in a spindle drilling machine.

Peterlee Magistrates’ Court heard that on 28 September 2018, Amy Howe, an employee of Stephenson Gobin Limited, was working at the company’s Bishop Auckland site. She was working on an adapted three spindle drill, used to manufacture parts for brake motors, when her gloved hand became entangled in the unguarded rotating spindle. Amy suffered serious injuries to her arm and hand including multiple fractures and the amputation of a finger. More than a year on from the incident the mother of two young children is still unable to return to work. She faces further surgery to both her hand and arm.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had carried out a risk assessment on the drill and had identified that there was a risk of entanglement on the rotating parts. However, it failed to provide guarding to the area and instead relied on employees to keep their hands away from the danger area. In addition, employees were not warned about the increased dangers of entanglement when wearing heavy-duty gloves of the type being worn at the time of the incident.

Stephenson Gobin Limited, South Church Enterprise Park, Bishop Auckland, County Durham pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £5,334 with £1,369.60 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Shuna Rank: “Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards. In this incident, a worker suffered and continues to suffer from serious, life-changing injuries which could have easily been prevented.”

HSADD SAYS; It’s a great shame that when a clear risk is actually found via the safety officer that changes are not made to implement protection

A waste recycling company has been fined after an employee lost part of his arm in a conveyor belt.

Lincoln Crown Court heard on 26 April 2015 that the employee of Mid-UK Recycling Ltd was working as a line operator in the building known as Unit 4 MRF (Material Recovery Facility). On the morning of the incident, blockages had occurred on this line and waste had become wrapped around the axle stopping a lower conveyor. It was whilst removing waste from this axle that the employee’s glove got dragged into the in-running nip between the belt and the powered roller of the conveyor. This resulted in his left arm being amputated above the elbow.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive revealed that the company had failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of the conveyor. The castell key system had essentially been bypassed allowing the system to be operated in automatic mode with persons still inside the enclosure.

Mid UK Recycling Limited (now known as MUKR Limited) of Summit House, Quarrington, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, NG34 8RS pleaded guilty to a breach of section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act (1974) and was fined £1.275 million and ordered to pay costs of £45,065.59

Speaking after the hearing, HM inspector Scott Wynne said, “This incident could so easily have been avoided had the company ensured that the system designed to keep people away from dangerous machinery was properly maintained. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

HSADD SAYS – I have lost count of the number of really bad accidents in recycling plants, almost all of them stem from 1. Cost savings, 2. Lack of training, 3. Lack of understanding and the bypassing of safety systems, for which money-saving will come into it!

The fine was large in this case, although the turnover and profit are not known. The sooner Companies start to take into account the health and wellbeing of their employees the better, but I doubt this will be the last case of this nature

A ferry operator has been prosecuted after an employee sustained serious injuries when he was struck by a van being reversed out of a docked vessel.

Liverpool Magistrates’ Court heard that on 17 September 2017 George Ball, a pontoon traffic marshall working for Stena Line Limited was struck by a 3.5 tonne delivery van at the company’s port terminal in Birkenhead, Wirral. The van was being reversed off the Stena Lagan vessel onto the pontoon area by a port service operative.

The vehicle reversed over Mr Ball’s head and body after the initial collision had knocked him down. Mr Ball suffered multiple injuries that included numerous fractures to his skull, ribs and other bones, loss of sight in one eye. He has been left with double vision in the other eye and ongoing mental health problems.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found there was no consideration of physical segregation of pedestrian operatives from moving vehicles when vessels were being unloaded. Stena Line Limited had failed to adequately assess the risks to pedestrians from moving vehicles and consequently put in place effective control measures leading to a safe system of work.

Stena Line Limited of Station Road, Ashford, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £400,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6576.15.

HSE inspector Rohan Lye said after the hearing, “The injuries sustained by Mr Ball, which affect him to this day, were easily preventable. The risks to pedestrians from moving vehicles is an obvious one which should have been identified and controlled.

“Had Stena Line Limited employed suitable control measures the life-changing physical and emotional injuries which continue to impact Mr Ball and his family would have been avoided.”

HSADD SAYS: You cannot disagree with HSE on this case, totally avoided and to actually prevent this would have cost them a couple of thousand pounds at most and the H&S person to just take a view on the risk.