Moderator David@stives

  • Posts: 8829
Wahd Prosecution
« on: January 29, 2006, 04:30:07 pm »



Michael Mills, trading as MB Mills General Contractors, of Cambridge, was fined a total of £3000 plus costs of £3517, at Bedford Magistrates Court on Thursday 15 September 2005. The prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), followed its investigation into a breach of the work at height Regulations (WAHR) 2005. On 13 April 2005, seven days after the regulations came into force, three employees of Michael Mills arrived at a site to salvage tiles from a building prior to demolition.

The employees used an unsecured ladder to access a pitched roof and started to strip the roof even though no risk assessment had been undertaken and no provision had been made for them to work safely at height.

No scaffold had been provided, roof ladders were not in use and the employees created holes in the close boarding to use as footholds.

Speaking after the case, HSE investigating inspector Stephen Hartley, said: 'Employers are expected to plan work at height carefully and take appropriate measures to prevent falls.

'Where standards are poor, HSE will prosecute those responsible, even if there has been no injury as in this case'.

Michael Mills pleaded guilty to breaching sections 4(1), 5 and 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Section 4(1) of the WAHR state: every employer shall ensure that work at height is: properly planned; appropriately supervised; and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe.

Section 5 of the WAHR state: every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height or work equipment for use in such work unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.

Section 6(3) of the WAHR state: where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.

In 2004/05, there were 72 fatal injuries to construction workers.

After falling from height the most common kinds of fatal injury are being struck by a moving/falling object, being struck by a moving vehicle and contact with electricity.

'The Work at Height Regulations 2005 - a brief guide' is available on the HSE website as a free PDF download (search for INDG401).

Moderator David@stives

  • Posts: 8829
Re: Wahd Prosecution
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2006, 04:52:50 pm »
The Work at Height Regulations (WAHR), which came into effect in April (2005), incorporate four principles that employers have to follow.

They must try to avoid the risk occurring in the first place by finding different ways of working, whenever possible.

If working at height is unavoidable, measures must be taken to prevent falls taking place and, if they do occur, to reduce the consequences.

The fourth principle requires employers to prefer collective protection, such as guard-rails, rather than personal protection, such as safety harnesses.

When staff have to work above the ground, their employers have to make sure the work is planned, supervised and carried out in a safe manner.


Moderator David@stives

  • Posts: 8829
Re: Wahd Prosecution
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2006, 07:57:07 pm »
How Much

is this what you are after.

Dave

Re: Wahd Prosecution
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2006, 06:23:01 pm »
Found it

Re: Wahd Prosecution
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2006, 06:24:06 pm »
Oh mabe not this one

Moderator David@stives

  • Posts: 8829
Re: Wahd Prosecution
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2006, 06:32:33 pm »
yes thats the only prosecution up to now, where there was no accident.
No window cleaners prosecuted as of today for any breach

Dave