Operators told not to take battery chargers onto site

The issue raised in this myth-busters case concerned a rope access company and operators use of 36v battery drills whilst on site. The majority of the time, operators recharge the batteries at home over night, however on two occasions now, operators have been told that they cannot take battery chargers onto site unless they have a PAT certificate as it is against health and safety rules.

The HSE panel decided that health and safety law does not require electrical items to be portable appliance tested (PAT). Regulations simply require that electrical equipment be maintained to prevent danger. HSE has guidance on maintaining such equipment (see here Maintaining portable electrical equipment ) which covers maintenance intervals, including for chargers. Maintenance is for the owner but operators may have their own rules to help ensure safety across their site.

Council in court after schoolgirl seriously injured in lift shaft fall

City of Edinburgh Council has been fined after a schoolgirl was seriously injured when she fell more than five metres as teachers attempted to free her from a broken down lift. Morgan Seaton, then aged 15, sustained three fractured vertebrae, bruising over her lower back and a sprained wrist as a result of the incident at Liberton High School on 8 December 2011. She remained in hospital for two days before being discharged and was unable to return to school for a further two weeks.

The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and a prosecution brought against the council for serious safety failings.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard today (25 February) that Miss Seaton was in the lift with three other pupils when it stuck between the first and second floors. She called the school’s office from her mobile phone and teachers quickly arrived and told the pupils to remain calm as they tried to affect a rescue. Rather than use the emergency call button in the lift or call the fire service, teachers and the school janitor decided to fetch the lift key, open the doors and attempt to get the pupils out themselves. After opening the lift shaft doors on the first floor, staff could see that the bottom third of the lift car was visible at the top of the door opening. They forced open the lift car doors and spoke with the pupils who were trapped within.

One boy was helped to lower himself safely out of the lift down to the first floor corridor. Miss Seaton then manoeuvred herself out of the lift on her stomach until she was suspended feet first out of the opening. One of the teachers stood behind her as she attempted to drop to the floor but instead she fell through the gap between the bottom of the lift and the floor and into the lift shaft where she fell over five metres to the basement.

After her return to school, Miss Seaton continued to suffer pain and discomfort in her back for several months and needed regular physiotherapy and medication.

The court was told the fire service had found on arrival that power to the lift had not been isolated and the car could have resumed moving at any time during the pupils’ ordeal or as the schoolgirl lay injured in the basement waiting for help to arrive. HSE found that the council failed to ensure that staff at Liberton High School had been given sufficient instructions, information and training to deal with such incidents, and that no suitable risk assessment had been undertaken.

City of Edinburgh Council, of City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh, was fined £8,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE Inspector Hazel Dobb, said “A 15-year-old girl was seriously injured in an incident that was wholly preventable. As a result she spent several months in pain, her education was disrupted and her social life and part time job were both put completely on hold as she recovered. The teachers were well intentioned in their attempts to help, but had they received suitable information and guidance on how to deal with trapped people in lifts they would have called for help and not put pupils at such risk of injury. What was important was to make staff aware of the steps they ought to take in such situations. Simply distributing safety instructions to all staff and providing awareness sessions internally would have been sufficient. Unfortunately, this was not done because the risks associated with the use of the lifts had been entirely overlooked by the council.”

Inspection and paperwork required for a small screw to be put into a wall

This issue raised with the HSE myth-buster challenge panel was raised by an enquirer who works in a University.  They asked for a small screw to be screwed into a wall. They were informed that this is 'changing the structure of the building' which comes with health and safety concerns (e.g. screwing into electrical wiring). It would therefore require an inspection by estates personnel and paperwork. Enquirer believes that this seems excessive given the small size of the screw and the assumption that this produces a structural change in the building itself and can cause harm.

The panel discussed the matter, and decided that the information provided by the University is unhelpful and disproportionate. If there are genuine safety concerns about location of asbestos or electrical wiring behind walls they should make this clear. If it is simply a more general policy of not wanting the decoration of the walls to be damaged they should also make this clear rather than hiding behind bureaucracy.

Firm fined for unsafe Oxfordshire scaffolds

A scaffolding firm has been fined for dangerous scaffold installations at sites in Wantage and Oxford. Workers and passing members of the public alike were placed at risk because of faults with the structures, which included missing ties, bracing and vehicle impact protection. West Hagbourne-based ASW Scaffolding Limited was prosecuted on 3 February 2014 after the deficiencies were identified by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Oxford Magistrates’ Court heard that the first unsafe scaffold was installed in Grove Street, Wantage, in July 2012, to support the refurbishment of a retail unit. When HSE inspectors visited the site on 17 July they found a lack of ties and missing ledger bracing, which are designed to provide support and rigidity. The scaffold was also lacking vehicle impact protection, which was vital at the location in question because the scaffold was on a very narrow street and could easily have been struck by a passing car. This in turn could have caused it to fall into the street. HSE worked with Oxfordshire County Council to highlight the faults because the scaffold did not comply with a street licence that had been granted for the structure.

Satisfactory remedial work subsequently took place, but on 28 March 2013 a passing HSE inspector witnessed unsafe activity on another ASW scaffold on Banbury Road in Oxford. On this occasion an employee was working on a partially-completed structure with no guard rails or other safety features to prevent a fall. A Prohibition Notice was immediately served to stop any further work until it was made safe.

ASW Scaffolding Limited, of West Hagborne, south Oxfordshire, was fined a total of £15,000 and ordered to pay £5,438 in costs after pleading guilty to single breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector John Caboche commented “The faults we identified at the Wantage installation should have been immediately obvious from a simple check after it was erected, which is vital to ensure that everything is in place and as it should be. The scaffold lacked rigidity and could have been hit by a passing vehicle, putting workers and passers-by in danger had it come down. With regard to the Oxford structure, the standards for safe working at height are well known within the scaffolding industry. The failings here were compounded by a senior member of the company’s management seemingly turning a blind eye. He was on site at the time but did nothing to prevent the scaffolder working in this way. Both scaffolds fell short of the required safety standards and posed a clear risk.”

A leisure centre prohibits a martial arts club from laying out their own mats

The issue addressed by the HSE myth-busters in their 250^th case concerned a leisure centre which had refused to allow a martial arts club permission to lay out judo mats for classes, on the grounds of ‘health and safety’.

The panel discussed the case, and concluded that the centre was right to state that they need to ensure that the people who put out the equipment do so knowing how to handle mats which are quite heavy – but there was no logical reason - and certainly no health and safety requirement - for this to be done by leisure centre staff exclusively. The matter at the heart of this case appears to have been cost, with the centre charging for putting the mats out and the club members preferring to do it themselves on a voluntary basis. The panel recommended a constructive dialogue about the real reasons for the centre’s reluctance to agree to the club’s request/proposal recognising that almost all health and safety concerns can be easily resolved and should not be used as an excuse.