Get in touch

Beverley, East Yorkshire HU17 7QH

Phone: 01482 881 203

6 04, 2017

Asbestos Awareness Medicals NNLW

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 April 6th, 2017|Health Surveillance|Comments Off on Asbestos Awareness Medicals NNLW

Asbestos Worker Medical


I received a telephone enquiry today from a business who undertakes Non-Licensed removal of ACMs (Asbestos Containing Materials), he had accepted a contract to remove 200 square meters of Asbestos Cement sheets from an existing building, and required assistance in the preparation of his CPP (Construction Phase Plan) and RAMS (Risk Assessment –Method Statement), to my surprise, among other issues, (to be covered later), he was not aware of the requirements of the NNLW (Notifiable Non-Licensed Work), especially the requirement to have medicals, this has prompted me to resurrect a previous notification, please read on….


In 2012 there were revisions to the Control of Asbestos Regulations, these introduced a requirement for workers who carry out NNLW

Notification and record keeping requirements changed in April 2012 but the duties on medical surveillance were given a three-year transition period.

Under regulation 22 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations, by the 30th April 2015 all workers carrying out NNLW needed to have a medical examination. Examinations then need to be repeated at least every three years for as long as the worker continues with NNLW.

From the 1st of May 2015, workers carrying out NNLW for the first time have to have an examination before they can start work. Medical examinations must include a chest examination and lung function test; this needs to be carried out by a licensed medical practitioner such as a GP.

Workers already under medical surveillance via a licensed contractor and who have valid certificates do not need the NNLW medical.

The examination should be carried out in work time at the employer’s expense. Doctors must issue a certificate to confirm the examination has taken place, which employers need to keep for four years.

5 04, 2017

HSE FFI Appeals Process

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 April 5th, 2017|HSE FFI|Comments Off on HSE FFI Appeals Process

High Court order sets out terms of HSE’s new FFI appeals process following on from a challenge by OCS.

Well done to OCS.


The HSE has been forced to dramatically overhaul its procedure for appealing against Fee for Intervention bills, agreeing for the first time to disclose its evidence and reasoning to duty holders, and to appoint a new adjudication panel of independent experts.

The restructure has been agreed in order to head off a High Court legal battle.

The terms of the reform have been negotiated between the HSE and facilities firm OCS Group, the company that had brought the judicial review scheduled for 8 March. The terms are set out in a legally binding “consent order” issued by the High Court on 23 February.

The document, seen by Health and Safety at Work, stipulates that the new procedure must be in place by 1 September 2017, and outlines six

terms that the regulator must comply with when devising in the new process.

To avoid the risk of FFI you need to have robust Health and Safety Systems and procedures in place, if you would like advice on how to achieve these, please click on the (contact us) button, or direct message me on[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

8 03, 2017

Falls through Fragile Materials

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 March 8th, 2017|Falls through Fragile Surfaces|Comments Off on Falls through Fragile Materials


Another prosecution for a fall through Fragile Materials, it is difficult to imagine what these people were thinking about when they permitted this work activity to proceed.

In this day and age when the legislation that includes the Work at Height Regulations, that these falls are still occurring.

Apart from the first action point in the hierarchy of working at height is to AVOID, the work at height where possible, the second action point is to prevent the fall through fragile surfaces.

There are many systems / products available of preventing falls through fragile surfaces in the market place, for example;


Roof light covers

The above equipment protects the person from stepping on or falling through the fragile surface.

There are other methods of protecting the fragile surface, which are widely used within the roofing fraternity, one for example is called Leap Frogging,

Leap Frogging involves using robust timber plates, or other material and moving the plates around the roof to cover the fragile surface in the vicinity of the work being undertaken, it sounds simple but it does require a strict training regime and discipline by the roofers to follow the method of work.

If the whole roof is deemed to be a fragile surface there are other system and equipment, which can be adopted, for example;


Sliding platforms.

There are other systems available, which use sacrificial safety netting.

On occasions one may wish to use safety netting flown under the fragile surface,

but you must keep in mind that the first requirement is to prevent the fall, not arrest the fall, as safety nets do.


It is also quite possible that due to the congestion of equipment and, for example racking within the building that it is not always possible to fly safety nets.

You wouldn’t like to be impaled on these racks, would you.


So when you consider all of the above and other systems and procedures that are readily available, how can the cases shown below, still be happening?

Please read on……..

Three construction companies fined after worker fall


24 January 2017

Three companies from Essex have been fined after a worker fell over seven meters through a fragile roof he was replacing.

Chelmsford Crown Court heard how Rafal Myslim was standing on the fragile roof at Dengie Crops Ltd in Asheldem, when the asbestos sheeting gave way and he fell 7.5m onto a concrete floor, hitting a number of pipes within the building on the way down. There was no safety netting or other protective equipment to prevent him from falling and he suffered a hematoma on the brain.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found three companies at fault for the fall. Dengie Crops Ltd contracted Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd, who are an agricultural machinery supplier, to help the company replace their roof . Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd did not have the appropriate experience and subcontracted the work to Balsham (Buildings) Ltd who worked out how the roof replacement should take place. Balsham then subcontracted the actual replacement of the roof to Strong Clad Ltd.

Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd were unable to act effectively in their role as principal contractor because they had no experience of working in construction. They could not effectively oversee Balsham (Buildings) Ltd plans that had highlighted the risk of a fall. None of the parties involved put in place safety measures for 40% of the roof that did not have netting below. They relied too heavily on the verbal briefings to workers reminding them of where the netting was rather than putting in place effective safety measures for the whole roof.

Ernest Doe & sons Ltd, of Ulting, Essex, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined £360,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000

Balsham (Buildings) Ltd, of Balsham, Cambridge, pleaded guilty to breaching 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulation 2005. They were fined £45,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,000

Strong Clad Ltd, of Castle Hedingham, Essex, pleaded guilty to breaching 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulation 2005. They were fined £7,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,000

HSE inspector Adam Hills said: “The dangers of working on fragile roofs are well documented. Every year too many people are killed or seriously injured due to falls from height while carrying out this work.

“Work at height requires adequate planning, organisation and communication between all parties. This incident was entirely preventable and Mr Myslim is lucky to be alive.”

23 02, 2017

Fatal Flat Roof Fall

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 February 23rd, 2017|Fatal Fall from Height|Comments Off on Fatal Flat Roof Fall

There ar numerous roofing companies out there who believe that they do not need to provide edge protection around a simple flat roof on a kitchen / bathroom extension or even a garage roof.

During my travels I see this kind of work activities all over the country.


The Working at Height Regulations state that falls from from height which can result in personal injury, must be prevented, there are many ways of achieving this.

If you are one of these flat roofing companies, please read the article below and when you have digested it, and decided that you would like some assistance in putting a method statement and risk assessment together which will identify how you can prevent such a fall happening to you or a colleague / employee, then give me a call or contact me via the “Contact Us” button on this website.



Employer prosecuted after employee falls from roof
13 February 2017
A self-employed businessman has been prosecuted after his employee fell from the flat roof of a building and died from his injuries.

Manchester Crown Court heard how, on 22 December 2013, father of two, Jason Fogarty, a casual employee of Roy Hardaker (trading as 9 to 5 Roofing), was working on a flat roof replacement project. He was working alongside. Hardaker.

The roof replacement was complete and the men were installing cladding and flashing around the top of the building to seal the edges of the roof. Mr. Fogarty was holding the cladding sheets in position from a ladder footed by his colleague, while Hardaker secured the sheets and the flashing from the roof.

Mr. Fogarty climbed up onto the roof and subsequently fell from the edge and was pronounced dead at the scene. The reason for him climbing to the roof was not discovered.

A joint investigation carried out by Greater Manchester Police and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the work was not properly planned in order to ensure it could be carried out safely. As a result, there were no measures in place, such as scaffold edge protection, to prevent falls from the edges of the roof.

HSE inspector Laura Moran said after the hearing: “The dangers associated with working at height are well known.

“Mr. Hardaker is an experienced roofer, who completely failed in his duties to properly plan the roof work and to ensure it was carried out safely. By failing to have suitable edge protection installed around the building, Mr. Hardaker put himself and his employees at risk, ultimately costing Mr. Fogarty his life.”

Roy Hardaker 9 to 5 Roofing, of Oldham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, suspended for two years and 200 hours of unpaid work.

13 02, 2017

Trying to earn a Crust

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 February 13th, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Trying to earn a Crust

Trying to Earn a Crust.

National bread makers Warburtons has been fined £2million after a worker was hospitalised following a fall.


Wolverhampton Crown Court heard how on 11 November 2013 Andrew Sears was cleaning one of the mixing machines at their Wednesbury bakery, a routine job he carried out every few weeks, when he lost his footing and fell nearly two-meters.

The father-of-one, who had worked at the factory since 2007, was hospitalised with a compression fracture in his spine. He was not able to return to work until December 2014 but was unable to continue in his old role and was dismissed in December 2015 after another long period of sick leave.

The Health and Safety Investigation found that Warburtons Limited routinely expected their workers to access the top of the mixers to clean them. The workers were often unbalanced and would brace themselves to stop from falling. The workers were not adequately supervised and there had been no training on how the mixer needed to be cleaned at height. The company failed to control the risk of falls from height when carrying out this routine cleaning activity.

Warburtons Limited, Hereford Street, Bolton, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulation 2005 and was fined £ 2million and ordered to pay costs of £19,609.28.

All workers who are subjected to / expected to work at height, must be given Safe Working at Height training which is bespoke to their environment.

If you are unsure of these requirewements and would like further guidance then please use the Contact Us button

7 02, 2017

Fragile Roof Fall

2017-02-07T15:20:57+00:00 February 7th, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Fragile Roof Fall

Construction firm in Court for worker roof fall


Don’t put yourself into this position


A Derbyshire Construction Company has been fined for safety failings after a scaffolder was seriously injured, received fractured spine, pelvis, ribs and bruised a lung when he plunged seven meters through a fragile surface during work to extend a London supermarket.

He crashed through the fragile material and a suspended ceiling, ending up on a stairway beneath the roof space.


Magistrates were told that the Principal Contractor sought to control the risks posed by the fragile area by restricting access to the walkway. Instead more should have been done to physically mitigate the chances of a fall occurring in the first place, such as providing a better, properly guarded walkway or hard covers for the fragile materials.


Principal Contractor, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay a further £1,428 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.




6 02, 2017


2017-02-06T14:34:14+00:00 February 6th, 2017|Uncategorized|Comments Off on ASBESTOS SURVEY FAILINGS



Are you aware of the two different types of survey and when you need to have the done?

Management & Refurbishment / Demolition.


It is apparent the company wasn’t.


A food company and their contractor have been fined after asbestos was disturbed during building work and only identified by chance when an asbestos removal contractor attended site.


Court heard no asbestos survey had been carried out and either company could have commissioned a refurbishment / demolition before the work commenced.

An investigation by the HSE found Mizkan Euro Ltd were undertaking a project to remove tanks, which required the demolition of an external wall. They failed to provide an asbestos survey to enable their contractor DH Welton to quote and plan appropriately for the work to be undertaken.

It also found DH Welton could have commissioned a survey when they discovered that Mizkan only had access to a management survey for the building.

10 12, 2016

Health and Safety of Migrant Workers

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 December 10th, 2016|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Health and Safety of Migrant Workers

Migrant Worker

All workers have a right to work where they do not get hurt or ill through work.

Are you the employer of Migrant Workers or are you the Principle Contractor in Construction?

Image result for images migrant workers in construction industry

You are responsible for health and safety, but you must helped by your Migrant Workers who must be aware of their own and their employer’s responsibilities.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.

This website will help you to provide your overseas workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.

If you have workers who are working here from overseas, this website will assist you and them to:


  • find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law;
  • and
  • find information on health and safety including your / their basic rights, good     practice, legal standards and conditions of work.


If you are an employer or Principle Contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.

If you need information about other problems at work – for example, unpaid wages,long hours, or holiday and sick pay – then call the special Pay and Rights Help Line on 0800 917 2368.

21 11, 2016

Dont ask you people to be like Eddie the Eagle

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 November 21st, 2016|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Dont ask you people to be like Eddie the Eagle

Fall from Vehicle Roof.

How do your employees get their ladders and equipment down from their van roofs?



Is it time to re-think the system of work?

There are several solutions out there to avoid putting your most valuable resource at risk.

A firm was fined after a worker fell from the roof of a van, causing severe head injuries.

An operative, who worked for xxxx Windows Limited, fell when loading an easi-dec system onto the roof of the van after working at a domestic property at Linlithgow.


The operative aged 47, suffered two bleeds to the brain and was kept in an induced coma for over three weeks. Compression to his forehead required a metal plate to be inserted to partly reshape his face. He now suffers epilepsy and is unable to drive.

After an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, it was found that the window company had failed to provide sufficient information, instruction, training and supervision to employees who were required to load and unload equipment from van roofs.

The window company based in, Norwich, pleaded guilty at Livingston Sheriff Court, and was fined £10,000 for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

You should consider obtaining secure professional Health and Safety advice in order to bring your Safe Systems of Work(“SSOW”) up to speed and avoid the situation above becoming a reality for you.




7 11, 2016

Removal of Asbestos Containing Materials

2017-10-12T09:22:28+00:00 November 7th, 2016|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Removal of Asbestos Containing Materials

The article below gives a clear indication of how careful you need to be before you set any contractor to work on your behalf when requiring Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM’s) to be removed, it is your responsibility to check the contractors credentials, Insurances, Licences and levels of training.

A Surrey man was fined for exposing the residents of a house in Putney, himself and his assistant to asbestos.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard how the owner of a three-storey town house in Putney was upgrading the central heating system of his home when his plumbers identified that the boiler cupboard is his loft was made of material they believed could contain asbestos. The owner contacted Dean Callaghan of Esher, Surrey, trading as Rubbish Taxi, after searching on the website, Checkatrade for asbestos removal companies.

Dean Callaghan carried out the removal of the boiler cupboard, assisted by another worker, on 28 December 2014. During that day the homeowner witnessed panels of asbestos containing material (ACM) being carried down four flights of stairs. These panels were not bagged or wrapped, potentially spreading asbestos through the house. After the work was completed, he discovered a lot of dust and debris had been left in the loft area. He contacted an asbestos surveying company who sampled this material and found the loft to be widely contaminated with asbestos. The samples indicated that the material removed was probably asbestos insulation board (AIB). The homeowner had ultimately to engage a licensed asbestos contractor to carry out an environmental clean of the loft area in his home to remove all asbestos debris.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, identified that Dean Callaghan had removed approximately 8m² of asbestos insulation board and that the removal was poorly carried out. Work of this nature should only be carried out by companies who hold a license granted by the HSE and, although he had been on a training course for low risk, non-licensable work with asbestos, Mr Callaghan did not hold such a license.

Dean Callaghan, of Hillcrest Gardens, Hinchley Wood, Esher, was fined a total of £2,500, with costs of £701 after pleading guilty to an offence under Regulation 11(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012