‘Poor attitude’ to health and safety lands poultry firm and contractors in hot water

llamedos

New Member
A poultry farm and four of its contractors have been fined due to their ‘poor attitude to health and safety’ and ‘neglect of duties’ after workers were caught on a roof without taking proper safety precautions.



GW Padley Poultry Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after inspectors witnessed unsafe working at height while building a poultry shed at the company’s site in Wigtoft, in March 2012.

The poultry firm was the principal contractor but had no representatives on site. The poultry buildings were supplied by Harlow Bros Ltd of Loughborough, who sub-contracted the erection of the buildings to K & M Tomlinson Ltd, and Philip Bates.

Lincoln Crown Court was told today (Thursday) that HSE visited the site on March 13, 2012, and saw four workers on the roof of a new poultry building. There was no edge protection or scaffolding in place and the height of the gable roof was about six metres.

When the inspector asked the workers to come down, they had to walk about ten metres along the sloping roof and down an unsecured ladder. The inspector issued Kenneth Tomlinson, director of K & M Tomlinson, with a prohibition notice, stopping further work on the roof until suitable edge protection was put in place.

When the inspector revisited the site three days later, work on the roof had been completed. A tower scaffold was at one end of the eaves and 12 airbags were on the floor at the other end of the building, but there was still no edge protection.

The inspector returned later the same day with a colleague and found workers, including Philip Bates, on the roofs of two sheds. The scaffold tower seen earlier had been dismantled.

HSE found airbags used for cushioning a fall were loose and anyone falling would have hit the ground. Faults were also found with a forklift truck being used in conjunction with a work platform fitted to its prongs. A second prohibition notice was served, preventing further work on the shed roofs.

Further enforcement notices were issued to GW Padley Poultry, Harlow Brothers and Mr Bates to prevent all work on sloping roofs until adequate edge protection and internal fall protection was provided and an improvement notice was served on the poultry firm requiring them to appoint a competent site manager.

Harlow Brothers put in place a lifeline and harness system for safe working at height, but this was found to be inadequate and a further Improvement Notice was served.

The court heard that Harlow Brothers Ltd and Philip Bates have previous convictions for work on poultry house roofs without edge protection.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd, of Mount Street, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22(1)(a) and regulation 22(1)(c) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Harlow Brothers Ltd, of Long Whatton, Loughborough, Leicestershire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on two separate occasions, March 13 and 16, 2013 and Section 4(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

K&M Tomlinson Ltd, of Nottingham Road, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Section 5(1)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £1,000.

Kenneth Tomlinson of College Street, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) by virtue of section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

Philip Bates of The Square, Leasingham, near Sleaford, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £5,550 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said: “In this case there was clear evidence of a very poor attitude to health and safety generally on this site. Each of the defendants had clear duties to ensure the safety of the workers, however these were repeatedly ignored.

“Working at height poses very obvious dangers but our visits uncovered a catalogue of safety breaches which could have had led to a fatal or very serious injury for a worker had they fallen.

“There was a continued and deliberate neglect of duties by particular parties in this case; and directors who disregard their responsibilities will be held personally accountable.”

For further information on HSE’s work and advice for roof workers, go to www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/roofwork.htm

http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/new...y-firm-and-contractors-in-hot-water-1-6199201
 

roscoe erf

Member
Livestock Farmer
A poultry farm and four of its contractors have been fined due to their ‘poor attitude to health and safety’ and ‘neglect of duties’ after workers were caught on a roof without taking proper safety precautions.



GW Padley Poultry Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after inspectors witnessed unsafe working at height while building a poultry shed at the company’s site in Wigtoft, in March 2012.

The poultry firm was the principal contractor but had no representatives on site. The poultry buildings were supplied by Harlow Bros Ltd of Loughborough, who sub-contracted the erection of the buildings to K & M Tomlinson Ltd, and Philip Bates.

Lincoln Crown Court was told today (Thursday) that HSE visited the site on March 13, 2012, and saw four workers on the roof of a new poultry building. There was no edge protection or scaffolding in place and the height of the gable roof was about six metres.

When the inspector asked the workers to come down, they had to walk about ten metres along the sloping roof and down an unsecured ladder. The inspector issued Kenneth Tomlinson, director of K & M Tomlinson, with a prohibition notice, stopping further work on the roof until suitable edge protection was put in place.

When the inspector revisited the site three days later, work on the roof had been completed. A tower scaffold was at one end of the eaves and 12 airbags were on the floor at the other end of the building, but there was still no edge protection.

The inspector returned later the same day with a colleague and found workers, including Philip Bates, on the roofs of two sheds. The scaffold tower seen earlier had been dismantled.

HSE found airbags used for cushioning a fall were loose and anyone falling would have hit the ground. Faults were also found with a forklift truck being used in conjunction with a work platform fitted to its prongs. A second prohibition notice was served, preventing further work on the shed roofs.

Further enforcement notices were issued to GW Padley Poultry, Harlow Brothers and Mr Bates to prevent all work on sloping roofs until adequate edge protection and internal fall protection was provided and an improvement notice was served on the poultry firm requiring them to appoint a competent site manager.

Harlow Brothers put in place a lifeline and harness system for safe working at height, but this was found to be inadequate and a further Improvement Notice was served.

The court heard that Harlow Brothers Ltd and Philip Bates have previous convictions for work on poultry house roofs without edge protection.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd, of Mount Street, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22(1)(a) and regulation 22(1)(c) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Harlow Brothers Ltd, of Long Whatton, Loughborough, Leicestershire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on two separate occasions, March 13 and 16, 2013 and Section 4(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

K&M Tomlinson Ltd, of Nottingham Road, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Section 5(1)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £1,000.

Kenneth Tomlinson of College Street, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) by virtue of section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

Philip Bates of The Square, Leasingham, near Sleaford, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £5,550 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said: “In this case there was clear evidence of a very poor attitude to health and safety generally on this site. Each of the defendants had clear duties to ensure the safety of the workers, however these were repeatedly ignored.

“Working at height poses very obvious dangers but our visits uncovered a catalogue of safety breaches which could have had led to a fatal or very serious injury for a worker had they fallen.

“There was a continued and deliberate neglect of duties by particular parties in this case; and directors who disregard their responsibilities will be held personally accountable.”

For further information on HSE’s work and advice for roof workers, go to www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/roofwork.htm

http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/new...y-firm-and-contractors-in-hot-water-1-6199201
Any more good news in your repartee :ROFLMAO:
 

llamedos

New Member
I have been trying my darndest all week to find some good news, even some funny news, but it looks like we have to make do with a good weather forecast........

I know all these HSE items are a tad depressing and wind folk up, but imo if one of these stories helps just one member think twice before doing a job themselves which is perhaps beyond their capability, or stops them employing a less than reputable company, then it will have been worth my while posting.

We really are our own worst enemy, we all have the 'can do, must do' attitude, when sometimes we cant and shouldnt.

What I would really like is for a qualified HSE executive worker, or even a retired or ex one, to come here and help us understand the myriad of rules and regulations thrown up in these court cases, primarily, where our duties start and finish when we employ a specialist contractor. Because in some of these case it seems the Farmer has to be a specialist in that contractors business :scratchhead:
 
Location
East Mids
What I would really like is for a qualified HSE executive worker, or even a retired or ex one, to come here and help us understand the myriad of rules and regulations thrown up in these court cases, primarily, where our duties start and finish when we employ a specialist contractor. Because in some of these case it seems the Farmer has to be a specialist in that contractors business :scratchhead:
That is what worries me. Some of the names quoted in this case are big nationally known concerns. What hope have we little farmers of getting it right? We have just set a one man band on to do a new milking parlour shed for us, also involves taking part of an old shed down, he comes highly recommended from other local farmers and has been doing it for over 20 yrs, we will ask him about risk assessments and safe working systems and try and apply common sense to the job. No big firm would touch our little project with a barge pole, and even they obviously get it wrong sometimes, what are we supposed to do? We are not building experts and have none of the necessary equipment which is why he is doing the whole job....
 
Location
East Mids

Paddington

Member
Location
Soggy Shropshire
Bought a new tv from Curry's years ago and got a free Sky box with it and free installation, told the chap in the shop that we wanted the dish fitted behind the roofline. No problem, he said. Sky fitter turned up, said he wasn't trained to work above gutter height, try a tv shop they should fix us up. Our neighbour recommended one that had put a Sky dish up for them. Rang the shop, yes, they had training and insurance, where had we got the Sky box from though? Mentioned Curry's and they got rather stroppy, wouldn't touch it. After several similar phonecalls we got a self employed man with a ticket, two hour job max! Turned up at 8.30 am, said he just used a ladder as only short time on the roof but would I mind stopping it at the bottom - no problem, he'd be down in a few minutes.
The job turned into a typical Paddington saga and at 6pm he was still there, I had been up and down the ladder myself to pass tools etc up to him, what would HSE made of that? Injuries sustained during the day amounted to a burnt nose from a hot drill bit - his and a few inches of shorted live mains cable - mine, so quite a quiet day by our standards.
 

llamedos

New Member
Similar, gales last year brought most of our ridge tiles off, some left precariously balanced on the gable end, which has a footpath below, and a road.
phonecall to insurance company was a farce, as was the subsequent repair by their 'Specialist roofing contractor'

Phone call went along the lines of- Hi, explanation of situation, ins- what is the windspeed in your area now, me- no idea of actual wind speed, but it is a lot less than it was when the ridge blew off, my main concern is the position of the tiles now.
Ins- I am sorry but if you can not tell me the wind speed we can not authorise our 'specialist contractor' to repair. Me-I am sorry but I am not qualified to assess wind speed. and on it went, I asked to speak to someone who could help, she put me through to someone who then asked my full postcode, and then announced the wind speed at that address was X and threrfore too high to authorise repair, I asked how she had come across this data, as to my knowlege there was no wind speed measurement recording device in the area, her answer was she had found the reading on the BBC web site and it was recorded at midnight the previous day at Jodderal Bank ! God knows exactly how far away this is, I can see it from the hill on a clear day, just on the horizon.
Then the day after when the specialist contractor turned up! Lad and Dad, dad was the roofer, but announced he was now to old to climb ladders......... when the next gales come the lot will be off again. Farcical
 

Barleycorn

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Hampshire
Do any of these eye watering fines get paid or do the firms just go bust
HSE is funded only by revenue gained by fines now, like speed cameras.

Real shame that those in charge of our safety act like ambulance chasers now.

The days of the genuine HSE advisor who would offer sensible advice have gone. We have employed the NFU to sort our health and safety for this reason. Prepare to be milked!

And how many will they kill with this stupid cut out on telescopics?
 

Frodo

Member
Location
Scotland (east)
Its a tough one. There is no doubt in my mind, that some roofing companies do not follow approved safety procedures, and all the companies involved with this case pled guilty, so they must acknowledge that. In fact it was a repeat offence, which makes some of the contractors fines seem small.

Its not as if the risk of falling of a roof are unknown, and people dying in industrial accidents is not nice and something a government rightly wants to avoid. No amount of nicey nicey publicity will change the industry. Constant government supervision is not practical, feasible or desirable, so what else can you do, but make a big deal of a few cases where breaches are clear.
 
I wouldn't be the best in the world with my own H&S, and I got fairly fed up fairly fast reading the report. But, I can't help but think of my brother in laws brother. He worked in England for years then decided to come home to Ireland with his family. He was building their home when one day he fell off the top of a ground story wall. Unfortunately the result was he is now quadriplegic.

To be honest, I couldn't live without the use of my legs or arms.
 

Exfarmer

Member
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Just been working near a new building, just gone up. Watched them working with no scaffold, no safety at all, approx 7 -8 m to eaves just a scissor lift to get them up and a large teleporter to lift the sheets.
Is it courage, blasé or imbecility
 

Derrick Hughes

Member
Location
Ceredigion
I hope that racing driver is ok after they decided to let the race continue even though the track was flooded, I wonder if all the HSE inspectors having their Sunday off enjoyed the race
 

Grassman

Member
Location
Derbyshire
There was another thread about this very issue.
http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/ceredigion-farmers-fined-for-contractors-serious-injuries/

Two brothers have been fined for breaking safety legislation after a contractor suffered serious brain injuries in a fall while carrying out building work at one of their farms.

The contractor was installing a floor over a slurry lagoon in a new barn at Gwarllwyn Farm, near Llandysul on 12 June 2012 when the floor panel he and a workman were standing on gave way, plunging them into the lagoon four metres below.

The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted farm owners Andrew Evans and his brother, David Evans, at Aberystwyth Magistrates Court yesterday (Monday 21 July).

The court heard the contractor was hired to create a cattle shed floor over an existing slurry lagoon. He erected concrete pillars in the slurry pit then put pre-formed concrete beams on top and laid concrete wall panels across the beams instead of panels specifically designed for flooring. These were to hold a slatted floor and cattle cubicles.

As the contractor and another workman were standing on one of the panels, it gave way, plunging them into the lagoon. The contractor suffered a head injury and was hospitalised for two month and he is still undergoing rehabilitation. The workman escaped without injury.

HSE found the two farmers failed to make a crucial appointment of a construction and design co-ordinator who would have advised them on their responsibilities as a construction client and how to ensure the project was managed safely and without risk to health. The brothers also did not have a principal contractor so had assumed that role, giving them the responsibility for planning, managing and monitoring the health and safety aspects of the construction work.

However, no design or construction plans existed and there were no risk assessments or agreed safe system of work. They also failed to check the contractor was suitably competent to do the work. The wall panels he used were unsuitable and the workmen he employed on site had no training or experience in construction.

In addition, the brothers allowed the contractor to use an untrained crane driver, using a 25 tonne lift capacity crane that had not been thoroughly tested for ten years, despite this being an annual requirement.

They also failed to supervise or monitor the construction work, which involved a great deal of working at height, so there were no suitable measures to prevent or mitigate any effects of a fall.

Andrew Evans, of Gwarllwyn Farm, Rhydlewis, Llandysul and David Evans of Esgair Tangwst, Rhydlewis each pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations and were each fined a total of £9,000. Each was ordered to pay costs of £3,560.

HSE Inspector, Phil Nicolle, speaking after the hearing, said:

“Farmers cannot ignore their legal duties for health and safety when arranging construction work on their farms. The contractor in this case suffered life-threatening injuries and has yet to make a full recovery.

“The Evans brothers were undertaking a major construction project and failed to make the crucial appointment of a Construction Design and Management Co-ordinator to advise them on their responsibilities and how to manage the project safely.

“They took on the responsibilities of a principal contractor for planning, managing and monitoring the health and safety aspects of the construction work, and in all these respects they failed significantly.

“If farmers use contractors for any work they simply cannot tell them what to do and let them get on with it. Both the client and the contractor have legal duties for health and safety that can’t be passed to each other by contract. This means they have to work with each other to make sure the job is done safely. Farmers must always question their contractors about their health and safety arrangements.”

Further information on Construction and Design Management responsibilities can be found on the HSE website athttp://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm.htm
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 105 40.7%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 94 36.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 39 15.1%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 5 1.9%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 12 4.7%

May Event: The most profitable farm diversification strategy 2024 - Mobile Data Centres

  • 1,704
  • 32
With just a internet connection and a plug socket you too can join over 70 farms currently earning up to £1.27 ppkw ~ 201% ROI

Register Here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-mo...2024-mobile-data-centres-tickets-871045770347

Tuesday, May 21 · 10am - 2pm GMT+1

Location: Village Hotel Bury, Rochdale Road, Bury, BL9 7BQ

The Farming Forum has teamed up with the award winning hardware manufacturer Easy Compute to bring you an educational talk about how AI and blockchain technology is helping farmers to diversify their land.

Over the past 7 years, Easy Compute have been working with farmers, agricultural businesses, and renewable energy farms all across the UK to help turn leftover space into mini data centres. With...
Top