Official Blog of Anchor Health & Safety: Your Safety in Secure Hands

Who is Responsible for Fire Safety

AnchorHandS — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:57:57 +0000

Who is responsible for fire safety?

Generally, the employer (Responsible Person) is responsible for the fire safety of all who are lawfully on the premises (Relevant Persons). These include employees, visitors, contractors, members of the public and any person in the immediate vicinity, such as people walking past. Operational fire fighters at incidents are not included.

Responsibility for managing duties on behalf of the Responsible Person (RP) at the head of an organisation may be shared, for example, between branch or area manager, depending on the extent of control each has i.e. they must have the appropriate authority, skills and training to manage these duties.

Is it permissible for others to carry out duties on behalf of the Responsible Persons?

Yes, the RP may nominate Competent Persons (CP). For instance, an RP may nominate others to act as fire marshals or wardens with a duty for assisting with evacuation; or an engineer might be given the task of testing fire alarms.

The RP must ensure CPs have the ability to carry out their tasks i.e. they must be properly competent, trained and equipped, or external experts may be brought in to fill any shortfall.

Please bear in mind that delegating duties falling within the RP’s remit does not absolve a person from responsibility. It is down to the RP to put sufficient checks in place to ensure delegated duties are carried out correctly.

Do employees have responsibility?

Yes, employees must take reasonable care for the safety of themselves and others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work e.g. wedging open a fire door. It is the RP’s responsibility to ensure employees receive training.

Who is responsible for fire safety in multi-occupied premises?

This may be shared by several people. In a multi-occupied office, the landlord/owner and tenants may be responsible for common areas with each occupier responsible for the areas they control.

The fire alarm may be the sole responsibility of the landlord/owner if it is common to the entire premises. A tenancy agreement should identify who is responsible for each area of fire safety.

Occupiers have a duty to take reasonable steps to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other.

Who is responsible for fire safety when there is no employer?

The person in control of the premises is responsible. This could be the person or organisation paying the rent or owning the building. e.g. a charity trustee in the case of a charity shop or a parish council in case of a village hall.

Who is responsible for fire safety in an unoccupied building?

This is normally the owner of the building

The dangers of electrical equipment in the workplace

AnchorHandS — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:18:10 +0000

Employers and other duty-holders have been reminded of the dangers that can be posed by electrical equipment in the workplace, in the wake of recent research into the failure rates of appliances.

Test instrument manufacturer Seaward reviewed its portable appliance (PAT) test reports compiled during routine in-service electrical safety ...testing. Its analysis of more than 80,000 PAT tests revealed an average appliance failure rate of 1.4 per cent, which equates to more than 1100 potentially dangerous appliances that would not have been discovered had inspection and testing not been carried out.

The failures were typically recorded in such premises as offices, schools, universities and factories, and involved damaged mains cords, enclosures, or casings, exposed moving parts, and failed earth continuity, or insulation resistance tests.

In industrial environments, such as engineering and manufacturing premises, the failure rates were, at an average of 7.4 per cent, much higher than the likes of offices and administrative services, reflecting the damage and mishandling often associated with power tools and other moveable electrical equipment.

Seaward also emphasised another potentially deadly effect of faulty portable electrical appliances: fire. It cited official UK fire statistics, which show that the Fire Service attended 136,000 accidental fires in non-residential dwellings between 2000 and 2005, the main cause of which was faulty appliances and leads, which were responsible for 30 per cent of the total.

During this same period, the Fire Protection Association revealed that there were 346 reported fire losses that were electrical in origin in premises other than dwellings. The total loss from these was £178m, with an average loss per incident of £50,000.

Rod Taylor, managing director of Seaward, said: “These figures show beyond any doubt the extent to which damaged and faulty electrical appliances pose a danger to users, and are also a potential cause of damaging fires.

“Although at first sight the percentages may appear to be low, the true potential impact can be gauged from the massive number of appliances and electrical items used in everyday workplaces.

“Clearly, the preventative measures to be adopted need to be in proportion to the risk, but in the majority of cases the costs of adopting sensible inspection and testing regimes are lower than those involved with other forms of risk assessment.”

For further advice on PAT testing or to arrange for your equipment to be checked out contact us via our website at www.anchorhands.co.uk

How often do I need to test my electrical appliances?

AnchorHandS — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:28:51 +0000

How often do I need to test my electrical appliances?

This is an interesting question as the perception is that everything should be tested every year, if only this was the case, it would make life a lot easier for those doing the tests. The fact is that there are no hard and fast rules as to when or how often items should be tested.

Let’ s look at the whole picture first, portable electrical appliances need to be inspected and tested on a regular basis, inspection frequency need not be the same as the testing frequency, in fact they should be inspected by the operator every time they are used (is the plug damaged? are there any breaks in the cable? is there any damage to the appliance casing?) In other words a common sense approach to using any electrical item. This said not every fault will be spotted by a simple inspection, therefore it is essential that a regime of thorough inspections and testing be set up.

Now we go back to the original question, how often? Although there is no hard and fast rule, there is a code of practice produced by the IEE which provides guidance for qualified testers to use, to answer this question, however the final frequency will depend upon many factors, which an experienced tester will take into account and come up with a sensible schedule.

There are three main considerations when deciding how often to test an electrical appliance:

1. Type of premises: The conditions or type of premises will have a major effect on the frequency of testing, imagine using something as simple as an extension lead, these can be found in every environment, however we would not expect one in an office to be subject to damage as much as one in a fabrication workshop. In general we would categorise the premises into 6 sections; Construction, Industrial, Public, Schools, Hotels and Shops & Offices.

2. Type of Equipment: The appliance itself will also dictate the frequency in which it is to be tested, some equipment is more susceptible to damage than others, for example an electric drill is more at risk than say a refrigerator, in general terms the more portable an appliance is, the more it is likely to get damaged. Appliances are generally split into 5 categories; Stationary, IT, Moveable, Portable and Hand-held.

3. Equipment Construction: When we say construction, we mean how well the live electrical parts are separated from being able to be touched, in other words how well they are insulated. An appliance which is well insulated will need a less frequent inspection regime than one that only has basic insulation. There are four classes of insulation, class 0 which has only basic insulation and no earth, class 1 which has basic insulation and a facility to connect to earth, class 2 which has enhanced double insulation but with no earth and finally class 3 or separated extra low voltage , which uses low voltage power fed from a double insulated transformer and no earth.

As can be seen here, there are many permutations to be taken into consideration when deciding how often to test an electrical appliance, which is why a qualified PAT tester will have been trained not only how to check the equipment, but also how to manage the testing regime. So going back to the original question “how often do I need to test my electrical appliances” there are 120 possible answers for each and every appliance, so please let the experts sort it out for you.

We hope that we have been able to answer the question and demonstrate that having your appliances tested at the correct intervals is not a cost, but an investment in your company’s future prosperity. Should you have further questions about this subject or any other health and safety issues, then please do not hesitate to contact us at info@anchorhands.co.uk

Safety and Fireworks

AnchorHandS — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:48:58 +0100

Firework displays should be enjoyable and spectacular occasions – but they obviously need some responsible planning. The good news is that there is straightforward guidance to help you.

If you are organising a major public event, you will clearly need a robust and detailed approach to planning as well as professional involvement. If you are holding a local firework display, such as those organised by many sports clubs, schools or parish councils, you still need to plan responsibly, but the same level of detail is not necessary or expected. Below are some tips and guidance to help you.

Before the event:

Think about who will operate the display. There is no reason why you should not light a display yourselves provided it only contains fireworks in categories 1, 2 and 3. but remember, catergory 4 fireworks may only be used by professional firework display operators. In untrained hands they can be lethal.
Consider whether the site is suitable and large enough for your display, including a bonfire if you are having one. Is there space for the fireworks to land well away from spectators? Remember to check in daylight for overhead power lines and other obstructions. What is the direction of the prevailing wind? What would happen if it changed?
Think about what you would do if things go wrong. Make sure there is someone who will be responsible for calling the emergency services
Make sure you obtain the fireworks from a reputable supplier.
If the display is to be provided by a professional firework display operator make sure that you are clear on who does what especially in the event of an emergency
Ensure you have a suitable place to store the fireworks. Your firework supplier or local authority should be able to advise
If you plan on selling alcohol the bar should be well away from the display site

On the day of the event:

Recheck the site, weather conditions and wind direction
Don't let anyone into the zone where the fireworks will fall – or let anyone other than the display operator or firing team into the firing zone or the safety zone around it
Discourage spectators from bringing drink onto the site
Don't let spectators bring their own fireworks onto the site
If you will also have a bonfire at the display then you should:

Check the structure is sound and does not have small children or animals inside it before lighting it
Not use petrol or paraffin to light the fire
Have only one person responsible for lighting the fire. That person, and any helpers, should wear suitable clothing eg a substantial outer garment made of wool or other low-flammable material.
Make sure that the person lighting the fire and any helpers know what to do in the event of a burn injury or clothing catching fire

Never attempt to relight fireworks. Keep well clear of fireworks that have failed to go off

The morning after:

Carefully check and clear the site. Dispose of fireworks safely. They should never be burnt in a confined space (eg a boiler)

Additional points to consider if you are organising a major public display

For major displays, particularly those involving category 4 ‘professional’ fireworks or very large number of spectators, a more robust approach is obviously needed.

Plan and mark out the areas for spectators, firing fireworks (and a safety zone around it) as well as an area where the fireworks will fall
Think about how people will get into and out of the site. Keep pedestrian and vehicle routes apart if possible. Mark exit routes clearly and ensure they are well lit. Ensure emergency vehicles can get access to the site
Appoint enough stewards/marshals. Make sure they understand what they are to do on the night and what they should do in the event of an emergency
Contact the emergency services and local authority. If your site is near an airport you may need to contact them
Signpost the first aid facilities

Insurance

Although it is not required by health and safety law, if you are holding a public firework display, it’s a good idea to have public liability insurance. Bear in mind that not all companies are used to dealing with this type of event, and as with any other type of insurance, it’s worth shopping around: look for a company that’s used to insuring firework and other public events – you are likely to get much better deal and avoid unsuitable terms and conditions. If you have difficulty with the standard insurance terms, TALK to your insurer and find a way forward; they can be very helpful.

Why do I need to test my electrical equipment?

AnchorHandS — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:50:05 +0100

This is a question that we get asked a lot of times and there are several parts to the answer, so let’s look at this stage by stage.

Firstly there’s the humanitarian issue, do we want to put our staff, ourselves or the public in danger? Off course we don’t, but that’s exactly what we are doing if we do not maintain all equipment in a safe manner. According to some HSE statistics 1% of all industrial accidents are as a result of electrocution from faulty or badly maintained electrical equipment, however this 1% of accidents represents 6% of total fatalities.

Secondly there’s a business continuity issue, whilst all equipment will be out of service for a very short moment (during testing) this is minute compared to the same piece of kit electrocuting someone. At this point your production will be stopped whilst HSE and police investigate the circumstances, your man power will have been reduced (the member of staff being off sick or even killed) the piece of kit will probably need to be repaired or replaced, all this is costing the company time.

Thirdly we have an intellectual issue, having had an incident it’s almost certain that you will have a negative effect on morale within your work force, as they will feel that they are not valued enough to look after. In addition to this your professional image to your existing and potential customers will also be affected, how many of them want to be associated with a company that is careless or just doesn’t care?

Next we have the cost to the company, yes there is a cost involved in having the equipment tested and with this you get what you pay for. To test an electrical appliance properly in accordance with IEE code of practice takes between 4 and 6 minutes (so if anyone tells you he can test more 120 in a day, then beware) If you take the cost of the testing and put it against the items we have already covered then the alternative costs involved would be; court costs in being sued for negligence or even prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, loss of production, sick pay, reduced production from remaining staff, replacement or repair of the piece of kit, HSE costs, loss of revenue and you will still need to pay for your appliances to be tested.

If by now you’re getting really depressed about this, then buckle up because there’s more. According to fire brigade statistics 26% of fires, on commercial premises, are caused by faulty electrical equipment, this means there is a potential for one in four businesses to be the victim of fire as a result. The consequences of a fire on your premises are potentially far more serious than previously explained; more injuries, more fatalities, greater loss of continuity, removal from the market place (whether this is temporary or permanent), greater costs or even total loss of your business.

“This may all be inconvenient, but our insurance will pay to get us back on our feet” check your small print, because you may find that by not carrying out your best endeavours to prevent these incidents, that you have invalidated your insurance, there may also be a clause that states you must comply with all of your legal duties.

Which brings us to the last point, “why do I need to test my electrical equipment” because it’s your legal duty, under various health and safety legislation, it is your responsibility to maintain all equipment in a safe manner and the best way to do this is employ a regime of regular inspections and testing.

We hope that we have been able to answer the question and demonstrate that having your appliances tested is not a cost, but an investment in your company’s future prosperity. Should you have further questions about this subject or any other health and safety issues, then please do not hesitate to contact us at info@anchorhands.co.uk

Businesses to pay for HSE inspections if found to have breaches

AnchorHandS — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:27:39 +0100

The first detailed look at how a new system will operate for recovering costs from those who break health and safety laws, has been published.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has opened a three-month consultation on how cost recovery for intervention will operate, having already agreed the underlying principle with Government. The new scheme could apply from as early as April 2012. The deadline for consultation responses is 14 October.

Gordon MacDonald, HSE's programme director, said:

"The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse.

"These proposals provide a further incentive for people to operate within the law, levelling the playing field between those who comply and those who don't. Compliant firms will not pay a penny in intervention fees.

"HSE already recovers its costs in a range of industries and we have considerable experience of making these schemes work.

"We want to hear from as many people as possible about how we plan to operate the scheme, to help make its introduction as successful as possible."

Although the changes put no new health and safety duties on businesses, they do place for the first time a duty on HSE to recover the costs of their interventions in certain circumstances.

Costs would be recovered, if during an inspection or investigation a material breach - a failure to adhere to health and safety law identified by an inspector as requiring formal action - is discovered. Fees would apply up to the point where HSE's intervention in supporting businesses in putting matters right has concluded.

Law-abiding businesses will be free from costs and not have to pay a penny.

Under the proposals, HSE will recover costs at current estimates of £133 per hour. Costs of any specialist support needed by HSE would also be passed on. Invoices will need to be paid in 30 days.

It is even more important to make sure that your health and safety systems are robust and suitable for your needs, to avoid any breaches and thus any further costs.

For help with any of your health and safety needs contact us via www.anchorhands.co.uk

Residential building managers fined for fire safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:06:21 +0100

A managing agent of a block of flats in Paddington has been ordered to pay over £100,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety legislation at the property.

Douglas & Gordon Limited admitted guilt on three contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Atomlynn Limited, the company who owned the lease on the premises on Gloucester Terrace, W2 were also fined nearly £40,000 in respect of one offence.

Following a fire in one of the flats in the premises the Brigade carried out an audit of the communal areas. They found a number of fire safety breaches which included a failure to install a fire alarm system and a failure to ensure that the electrical intake cupboard was locked. A fire risk assessment had been carried out but they had failed to act on its recommendations. These included the failure to make an emergency plan, ensuring that fire doors were self-closing and installing emergency lighting.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order places a duty on the 'responsible person' for the premises (the person who controls the premises e.g. a owner /landlord/employer) to carry out a fire risk assessment, take appropriate measures to minimise the risk of fire and implement general fire precautions to protect people in the premises if a fire occurs. The assessment and the fire precautions must be kept under review by the ‘responsible person’.

Assistant Commissioner for fire safety regulation Steve Turek said: “London Fire Brigade will continue to take action against managing agents, lease owners or landlords who do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a prosecution.”

Sentencing occurred on Wednesday 29 June 2011 at Southwark Crown Court.

Economic climate leads to a fifth of employers ‘revising’ fire safety measures

AnchorHandS — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:31:02 +0100

UK employers are potentially putting their employees’ lives at risk by cutting back on fire safety in the current economic climate, according to a survey commissioned by the Fire Industry Association (FIA).

Almost a fifth of bosses said they had revised fire safety measures, such as delaying maintenance checks of fire safety equipment, reducing staff training or delaying updating their fire risk assessments. This is despite the fact that 20% of them saying they have had a fire in their premises.

Some 16% admit to not having an up to date fire risk assessment and a quarter don’t even know who does their fire risk assessment.

The survey also found that a third of staff don’t know what to do in the event of a fire. Over half of staff surveyed don’t know how to use a fire extinguisher or fire alarm, while a quarter of workers don’t know where their nearest fire exit is and a third don’t know where their fire assembly point is.

Graham Ellicott, CEO of the Fire Industry Association, said:

“The figures are very worrying; 82% of employees would like more training on fire safety and 14% don’t believe their company has any fire protection. We would like to remind all businesses across the country to review their fire risk assessments, making sure they are up to date, and to continue the maintenance schedule for all their fire safety equipment.”

According to the FIA, the poorest performing sectors in terms of fire safety are arts and culture and travel and transport.

Impact of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

AnchorHandS — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:48:55 +0100

Falling foul of fire safety legislation can result in hefty fines, often in cases where there has been no serious injury or loss if life.

When assessing risks associated with fire, the immediate concern is often the potential loss of life. Corporate manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter charges can follow if death occurs due to corporate or individual gross negligence. Lesser injuries often result in health and safety prosecutions.

However, businesses are also discovering - to their considerable cost - that it is not injury, but the risk posed if there was to be a fire, which is triggering prosecution under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).

Obligations imposed by the RRO

The RRO imposes duties on a defined "responsible person" to protect anyone who may be on or in the vicinity of the premises. A responsible person may be a corporate or an individual and includes employers operating from, and owners or commercial occupiers of, premises.

A responsible individual has a duty to ensure that a risk assessment is carried out to identify what needs to be done. They must also take "general fire precautions" to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of staff and others. "General fire precautions" include measures to reduce the risk or spread of fire. These include consideration of:

the means, safety and efficacy of escape measures
how any fire will be detected and tackled, and how warnings will be given
arrangements for the instruction and training of employees on fire prevention and firefighting, minimising the risks and evacuation

The RRO created a number of new offences and inspectors have power to issue enforcement and prohibition notices and prosecute for breaches.

One offence created is the failure of a responsible person to comply with fire safety duties "where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire".

Very similar to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, individuals may also face prosecution where a company is guilty, as a responsible person, for a breach of the RRO and that breach is, "proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer."

Where an offence has been committed due to "the act or default of some other person", that other person is also guilty of an offence and may be prosecuted regardless of whether or not there are also proceedings against the responsible person.

The offences clearly envisage, and the cases confirm, that guilt will be established simply for putting people at risk were there to be a fire, whether or not there is actually a fire. It is not a defence that an employee or someone nominated by a company has made a mistake. The only defence available is for offences where the charges include a failure to take reasonable precautions. In those cases, it is a defence that reasonable precautions and all due diligence were taken to avoid the commission of the offence.

Fire helicopter on trial as "first strike" response

AnchorHandS — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:12:56 +0100

Firefighters have taken to the skies this month as part of a trial to find out whether a helicopter can be used to respond to certain emergencies.

A crew of four firefighters from Avon Fire and Rescue Service were flown to the scene of a range of simulated emergencies, including building collapses, water rescues and road traffic collisions. While the other emergency services use helicopters, it is believed this is the first such trial by a fire service in the UK.

“This year the fire and rescue service has suffered some of the most hard-hitting Government cuts,” said Avon Fire & Rescue Service’s chief fire officer, Kevin Pearson. “This has forced us to look at alternative ways to provide an emergency response to the public.

“I believe a helicopter could be used to get firefighters and equipment to the scene of certain emergencies more quickly than we could in road based vehicles. The trial will help us establish if a helicopter could be used as a ‘first strike’ resource, allowing crews to begin a rescue or render first aid before they are joined by colleagues in road vehicles.

Mr Pearson said he would never expect helicopters to replace fire engines, but there was a financial and operational case that an aircraft could be used to support existing equipment and vehicles.

The EC145 helicopter used was based at Filton airfield during the week-long trial. "Mission packs" containing generic and specialist equipment were loaded onto the aircraft, depending on the scenario.

£3,000 for fire safety breaches at Indian restaurant

AnchorHandS — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:08:06 +0100

The owner of an Indian restaurant in Gloucester has pleaded guilty to ten breaches of the Fire Safety Order (2005) and been ordered to pay £1,900 in fines.

Breaches at the Connoisseur Tandoori Restaurant included the staff using the top floors as unauthorised sleeping accommodation. The offences came to light following a fire and subsequent investigation at the property on 6 November 2009.

Appearing at Gloucester Magistrates Court on 17 June, owner Abdul Hamid Choudhury, 46, was also ordered to pay out another £1,500 in costs plus a £15 surcharge.

Investigators found that the ground floor partition and glazing between the restaurant and escape route were not fire resisting, and neither was the ground floor door between the restaurant and escape route.

Employees were not provided with fire safety training, nor had a fire risk assessment been completed.

There were also no fire alarm and smoke detectors fitted in the accommodation, and emergency lighting was not provided in the sleeping accommodation escape route.

The walls of the staircase enclosure had been lined with laminate wood flooring, three bedroom doors on the first floor were not fire resisting, a kitchen was situated within the second floor escape route and the second floor laundry room door was not fire resisting.

Group manager Richard Smith, at Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue service, said: "If a fire risk assessment had been carried out, it would have identified the measures required to make the premises safe such as a fire alarm, emergency lighting, fire doors and staff training."

HSE introduces new arrangements for online reporting of injuries and incidents

AnchorHandS — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:53:34 +0100

Businesses will still be able to notify fatal and major incidents and injuries by phone (0845 300 99 23 Monday to Friday 8.30 am to 5 pm.) following changes to reporting arrangements, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirmed today.

From 12 September 2011, all other reportable work-related injuries and incidents under RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) will move to a predominantly online system ( http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/online.htm ), with a suite of seven forms available on HSE's website to make the statutory reporting process quick and easy.

Said Trevor Carlile, HSE's Director of Strategy:

"More than half of reportable injuries are already notified to HSE through the website and this proportion has been increasing steadily over the past seven years. Taking advantage of the growing use of the internet allows HSE to be more efficient in the way it works. We do recognise, however, that people reporting a traumatic event still need that personal interaction so the notification of fatal and major incidents and injuries will still take place by phone."

In a move to improve efficiency further and deliver value for taxpayers, HSE's Infoline telephone service, which currently provides a basic information service to callers, will end on 30 September 2011.

Businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety can use HSE's website.

Charity Cycle Challenge:

AnchorHandS — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:38:15 +0100

Anchor Health & Safety are pleased to support the Cycle Challenge in aid of the Thomas Gardener Mobility Appeal, being carried out by a team made up of professionals from the city and members of RBS.

Following his premature birth in April 2004, Tom suffers from Quadriplegic Spastic Cerebral Palsy, leaving him with very specialised needs, which will require support for his future mobility and educational access.

The challenge aims to raise funds to support Tom's mobility, education and school/home access. The team taking on the challenge will attempt to cycle coast to coast (180 miles) from St. Bees, in Cumbria to Roker in Sunderland, off road, taking in the Lake District and Northumberland Moors.

The event will take place over the weekend of 25th / 26th June 2011

If you would also like to contribute to this cause then please click on the link below, which will take you through to the K&S Lions Charity Choice donations page.

https://www.charitychoice.co.uk/donation.asp?ref=159359

Special Offer for Smaller Businesses

AnchorHandS — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:54:29 +0100

Fire Alarm Response

AnchorHandS — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:10:59 +0100

Twelve fire and rescue services have modified their policies on responding to automatic fire alarms, according to the Fire Industry Association.

The FIA conducted desk-based research which found that most fire services had call challenging in place, but would still attend even if the automatic call could not be verified by a phone call.

The 12 fire services listed by the FIA are: Hampshire; Berkshire; Essex; Norfolk; Northamptonshire; Staffordshire; Warwickshire; West Midlands; West Yorkshire; Cumbria; Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Kent Fire and Rescue plans to require verification of automatic calls from 2012.

The association will be mounting a media campaign to inform local businesses of the changes to their fire and rescue service’s policy on attending automatic fire calls. It will recommend that businesses review their fire risk assessments and contact their detection and alarm maintenance company to review their system if needed.

Restaurant owner pays over £13,000 for fire safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:34:22 +0100

The former joint proprietor of a restaurant which also included sleeping accommodation for staff has been fined £8,600 and ordered to pay £4,837 in costs for 12 fire safety breaches.

Patipat Kansikam of the Red Lion (Pad Thai) restaurant in Wokingham pleaded guilty last month to the offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, but the case was adjourned to 6 April for sentencing.

The offences included disabling smoke detectors by covering them with clingfilm, inadequate fire protection of escape routes, obstruction of escape routes, an inadequate fire alarm system, an inadequate fire risk assessment and inadequate fire evacuation training of staff.

David Walden, technical fire safety legal support manager at Royal Berkshire Fire Authority said that some businesses continued to treat compliance with fire safety legislation as an option.

“This financial penalty shows that the courts do not agree. This was a sustained and blatant refusal to meet statutory requirements to ensure the premises was provided with adequate fire safety measures. Staff and customers are entitled to feel safe when working at or visiting a restaurant or any other business.”

Hearing Health and Safety Tips:

AnchorHandS — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:14:53 +0100

The UK has over 9 million people who are hard of hearing (according to a 2005 survey by the RNID). The underlying cause of this hearing loss varies from age related to noise induced. While age related hearing loss is impossible to prevent, the same isn’t true for noise induced hearing loss. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (Noise Regulations 2005) requires UK employers to prevent or reduce risks to health and safety including exposure to noise at the workplace. Here is a selection of hearing health and safety tips to help reduce the likelihood of noise induced hearing loss.

Hearing Health and Safety Tips:

1. Noise assessments should be carried by employers - in a noisy machinery environment or noisy work processes, sounds exceeding 85 dB(A) should be identified and targeted for noise reduction controls. The goal is to reduce operator's exposure and prevent long term damage.

2. Wear hearing protection - noise induced hearing loss is long lasting and there is no way to turn back the clock. You are given hearing protection and trained on how to use them, be it muffs or ear plugs so always wear them.

3. Remove hearing protection only when permitted - this protection should be worn at all times while at work and only removed in safe areas as advised by the health and safety team.

4. Care and maintain your hearing protection - the performance of hearing protection equipment can be diminished by poor maintenance and storage. In order to maintain your protection you should:

A. Store safely - when the device is removed, place it in a safe place away from extreme cold or hot conditions.

B. Clean it often - take the time to familiarise yourself with the cleaning process and clean the device often.

C. Replace defected parts - when inspecting the hearing device look for defected or broken parts and immediately tell your employers.

If you are unsure how to care for and maintain your hearing protection equipment, ask your employer for more information.

5. Voice your concerns - if you feel that you are in a noisy environment without protection or without any health and safety training, you should voice your concerns immediately. It is in your interests to ensure that you are provided with adequate protection and that you are working in a safe environment.

6. Pay attention to regulations - it is your responsibility to ensure that you understand what is required from you and what the workplace regulations are when dealing with loud noise. Follow any working methods that are put in place.

7. Ask for a hearing test - employers are encouraged to provide access to health professionals as required. If you suspect that your hearing might be impaired, you should ask for a hearing test. Hearing loss symptoms include, a difficulty in hearing the other party in a conversation, having trouble using the telephone and signs of tinnitus (ringing ears).

Tips from the team at Hearing Direct who offer a range of noise protection aids as well as a wide range of hearing aids for those with a hearing disability.

Article supplied by Ran of Hearing Direct

HMO landlord pays £16,000 for fire safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:26:41 +0100

A landlord has been ordered to pay over £16,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to breaches of fire safety legislation following a prosecution brought by the London Fire Brigade.

Jagjit Singh Rai pleaded guilty to seven contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These included no suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment, no appropriate firefighting equipment, and five counts of having no suitable maintenance arrangements of facilities, equipment and devices.

London Fire Brigade said Mr Rai managed a house of multiple occupation (HMO) above a Costcutters store in Hayes, Middlesex. On 16 May 2009 firefighters were called to a fire at the store. Crews noticed that no smoke alarm had sounded in the HMO despite the presence of smoke. Fire safety inspectors subsequently visited the address and found a number of breaches of the Order, which included no suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment of the premises.

Sentencing took place at Uxbridge magistrates’ court on 13 September 2010 when Mr Rai was fined a total of £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,505.

For advice and more information on Fire Risk Assessments and protecting your premises contact Anchor Health & Safety at info@anchorhands.co.uk

Risk and your Business

AnchorHandS — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:12:08 +0100

In this blog we will be looking at the physical risks that need to be accounted for within any business planning, but hopefully will cover the general areas necessary to give you an idea of what to look out for.

Before we move on let’s be clear what we are talking about.

What is Risk?

“Risk is the likelihood of a body or event to cause harm.”

This should not be confused with Hazard.

What is Hazard?

“Hazard is the ability of a body or event to cause harm.”

From this we can see that in order to reduce the risks to our businesses we need to remove, reduce or protect against the hazards we come across. The way we do this is by carrying out a Risk Assessment

There are five steps to carrying out any risk assessment.

Step 1: Identify and record the hazards that are present, these fall broadly into five categories

Physical: such as pressure, heat, damp, noise, radiation and electricity

Chemical: such as dusts, fumes, chemicals, toxic materials and gases

Biological: such as infections, viruses and contagions

Ergonomic: work conditions, stress, RSI and man-machine interaction

The fifth one we'll come back to as it’s covered under specific legislation

Step 2: Identify the people that may be affected by the hazard

Paying particular attention to those groups that may be especially vulnerable such as the elderly, blind, young and disabled.

At this point it is possible to rank the severity of the risk, giving it a more tangible identity

Step 3: Remove, reduce the severity or Protect against, the Hazard.

The preference here is always to remove the hazard completely (rearrange items to avoid trips and impacts), if this cannot be done then reduce the severity of the hazard (use low voltage equipment or less aggressive chemicals) and as a last resort protect against the hazard (provide warnings or personal protective equipment).

Once again assuming that all the measures have been put into place, it will be possible to rank the severity of the residual risks. You can then establish whether the remaining risks are acceptable or if they need further action.

Step 4: Record, Plan, Inform and Train

Record the significant findings from steps 1 to 3 and what actions have or need to be taken as a result.

Prepare any plans or procedures that may be required in order to facilitate the actions

Inform and instruct all relevant people, co-operate with all concerned.

Provide any necessary training that may be required as a result of the assessment.

Step 5: Review

Having carried out the assessments they must be kept relevant, which means that they should be reviewed on a regular basis or when conditions change (such as work practices, new technology, legislation or results of monitoring)

Remember any revisions to the assessments must be communicated to those that need to know the results of those revisions.

Why have we gone to the trouble of doing these risk assessments and putting whatever precautions in place, is it because of our genuine concern for our fellow workers safety, is it because it makes financial sense to do it or is it our legal duty?

The answer is all of the above

From a humanitarian and moral point of view, we do not want to cause or allow to be caused, harm to anybody

Research shows that investing in risk reduction leads to better company performance.

A good working environment is good business.

Staff feel that they are valued.

Your customers see a company that does it right and cares.

You avoid costs associated with disruption, sickness, investigation, down time, compensation claims, increased insurance premiums and loss of goodwill

And for those companies that cannot see the benefit, there are legal requirements, with quite hefty penalties for non compliance

Remember under step 1 of the risk assessment I said there was a fifth hazard, which was covered under its own legislation, this is Fire!

Potentially this one can be the most destructive, obviously to our staff, the public and visitors, but also to a business, if your stock and premises are all destroyed, how are you going to trade?

This is why in March 2006 the “Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005” came into force, making it the responsibility of all owners or occupiers of commercial properties, to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment of those premises and put into action any necessary precautions and planning.

For the purpose of the legislation “Commercial” means anything non-domestic, so that includes churches, schools, libraries etc. In fact only military and some government buildings are exempt.

When we carry out our Fire Risk Assessment it’s worth remembering how fire works, for this we use the fire triangle.Fire needs 3 elements to exist firstly Fuel (flammable gases, flammable liquids or flammable solids. Secondly Oxygen (The air around us, oxidizing agents and stored oxygen) and finally Ignition (Naked flame, faulty electrical appliances, hot processes and hot machinery)… Remove any one of these and the fire goes out.

We have seen that there are many types of hazards and therefore risks, surrounding our businesses, it is essential then that we Eliminate these risks, if we cannot do this, then we should Reduce the effect of them, and finally Protect against any residual risk.

Remember none of this will work if we do not communicate your findings and plans to those who may be affected

This way our businesses should be safe environments in which to work, be protected from the disruption and costs that incidents can bring and demonstrate to others that we are responsible and considerate business people.

All of this has to be a cost effective benefit to all of our businesses, a benefit which you can take to the bank!

If you would like more information, then please contact us at info@anchorhands.co.uk

Sandbach Company Boss Fined For Safety Breach

AnchorHandS — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:23:08 +0100

THE owner of a Sandbach company has been fined £80,000 after pleading guilty to serious breaches of fire safety ...

New protection for workers from artificial light

AnchorHandS — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:13:05 +0100

New regulations further protecting workers from the dangers of hazardous sources of artificial light come into force today.

The Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations meets a European Union Directive to ensure that standards are set and harmonised across Europe to protect workers from harm arising from exposure to hazardous sources of artificial light.

Some sources of artificial light, particularly UV radiation and light from lasers can harm the eyes and skin of workers and must be properly managed.

Workers in Great Britain are generally well protected from dangerous sources of light and the majority of businesses know how to manage the risks effectively. Therefore the regulations will mean few practical changes for most businesses, including those who are already managing the risks.

To help those businesses who are not already managing the risks understand what's required and what they need to do, HSE is producing guidance to ensure workers can remain appropriately protected.

Common sources of light in the workplace such as office lights, photocopiers and computers are not affected by the regulations.

Article courtesy of HSE

Tesco pays £119,000 for fire safety law breaches

AnchorHandS — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:46:03 +0100

Supermarket giant Tesco has been fined £95,000 and ordered to pay over £24,000 in costs after pleading guilty to five breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO).
London Fire Brigade, prosecuting, said firefighters were called to a fire at Tesco’s Colney Hatch store in Barnet on 14 October 2007. When they arrived found the premises locked but managed to gain access after attracting the attention of an employee who was restocking shelves. There had been a fire in the staff kitchen but it had been put out by staff using extinguishers and a fire blanket. There was still a significant amount of smoke in the kitchen, the corridor and staff locker rooms and crews had to ask staff several times to evacuate the premises.

This incident made officers concerned about fire safety in the store, so on the following day they inspected the premises. A number of breaches of fire safety legislation were found, including a failure to review the store’s fire risk assessment, a failure to ensure escape routes were kept clear and inadequate fire separation due to doors being wedged open. An enforcement notice was subsequently served on 2 November 2007.

Tesco pleaded guilty to failing to keep emergency exits clear (£20,000 fine); failing to keep an emergency route clear (£20,000); two counts of fire doors being wedged open (£20,000 each) and storing flammable materials under an emergency stairwell (£15,000). Sentencing took place at Wood Green Crown Court on 20 April 2010.

London Fire Commissioner Ron Dobson said: “Fire safety is a key part of good business management and the general public should feel safe from fire when they are out shopping. London Fire Brigade will continue to take action when businesses, large or small, do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a prosecution.”

A Tesco spokesperson told Info4fire.com: "We take safety matters in all of our stores extremely seriously. We would like to reassure customers that this was an isolated incident and all issues at this store have been resolved."

Article courtesy of info4fire.com

Five-year ban for director after raft of health and safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:39:25 +0100

Workers exposed to lead and dangerous practices

A director of a fuel tank manufacturing business has been banned from directing any company for five years after breaching a raft of health and safety regulations.

^[1]
A worker paints the underside of one of the fuel tanks with it suspended directly above him with no safety measures in place.

Brian Nixon of Evesham, Worcestershire, and managing director of Transtore (UK) Ltd was also fined £17,000.

Workers at Transtore (UK) Ltd in Stratford-upon-Avon were exposed to lead and other harmful chemicals while paint was sprayed at the plant without the correct safety measures in place. Workers were also put at risk of falls from height with no safety equipment provided.

Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and prosecuted Mr Nixon and Transtore (UK) Ltd in Stratford-upon-Avon, after a receiving a complaint from a concerned employee.

Mr Nixon was also ordered to pay £9,169 costs after admitting breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates' Court today.

The company, Transtore (UK) Ltd, based at Long Marston Storage, Campden Road, Stratford-upon-Avon was fined £70,000, with costs of £27,507 after being found guilty of eight separate breaches of health and safety law. The company is now in administration.

^[2]
A worker sprays toxic lead-based paint without the proper equipment.

During HSE's investigation, specialist inspectors took air samples as well as blood and urine samples from the workers to assess their exposure to lead, among other harmful chemicals in the plant that was being sprayed unsafely.

The company was condemned for allowing workers to spray paint, containing toxic lead chromate, without adequate controls in place, leaving them to breathe in harmful fumes and absorb lead into their blood.

Five workers needed blood and urine tests, with the fumes having the potential to cause headaches, tiredness, and stomach pains. Long-term exposure can led to irreversible central and peripheral nervous system damage, kidney damage and gastrointestinal problems.

All results from the workers showed higher levels of lead than the UK population average.

^[3]
A worker balances precariously while working on top of one of the fuel tanks.

Workers were also expected to stand beneath the half-tonne fuel tanks they were painting during the spraying process with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.

The company was also criticised for allowing its employees to work on top of the tanks with no safety equipment to prevent them falling two metres on to the concrete floor. The workers received no training or instructions and were left to devise their own systems of work.

HSE served four prohibition notices on the company during its investigation to immediately stop unsafe work. It also issued four improvement notices. Mr Nixon ignored the notice prohibiting work at height and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.

HSE Inspector Peter Snelgrove said:

^[4]
A worker balances precariously while working on top of one of the fuel tanks.

"Mr Nixon deliberately flouted health and safety laws and paid scant regard to the safety of his employees. I agree with what the District Judge said in court about it being a lamentable situation and it was very fortunate that there were no injuries before we carried out our investigation. Legal proceedings highlighted that there was a complete flagrant lack of attention and as we heard in court, a gross dereliction of duty by the management of this company.

"Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at Transtore and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results."

Transtore (UK) Ltd was found guilty of breaching:

Regulation 6(1) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002;

Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005;

Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998;

Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;

Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;

It was also found guilty of contravening on three occasions prohibition notices that had been issued under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Article courtesy of HSE

Duty to consider the fire safety capabilities of workers

AnchorHandS — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:04:34 +0100

From 6 April 2010, new regulations will clarify your responsibilities to consider the capabilities of your workers to carry out any fire safety-related tasks or assignments.

You will have to think about:

what a worker is able and unable to do when giving them tasks
how these capabilities may affect their ability to deal with fire-related risks

For example, you will have to consider a worker's capabilities as regards fire safety if you ask them to work with petrol.

These regulations should not impose any extra burden on your business. They simply re-impose a duty that:

you had before the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force in October 2006
is implicit in your wider health and safety duties

You are reminded that you have - and will continue to have - a general duty to:

carry out a fire safety risk assessment to identify the general fire precautions you need to put in place
regularly review the assessment and make any necessary changes
pay particular attention to young people when carrying out or reviewing a risk assessment

For further information or assistance with carrying out assessments contact Anchor Health & Safety on info@anchorhands.co.uk

Hotel company convicted of fire safety offences

AnchorHandS — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:38:20 +0000

A company that owned a London hotel has been ordered to pay more than £21,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to six offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Malfax Investments Limited, which owned the Averard Hotel on Lancaster Gate in Bayswater, was sentenced this week at Westminster Magistrates Court.

The hotel was inspected by fire safety officers in April 2009, when they found a number of failings including inadequate fire detection and alarm system, problems with the external means of escape and inadequate and defective fire doors. As a result of these deficiencies, the officers issued an enforcement notice detailing the issues and when they needed to be resolved.

The company disclosed a fire risk assessment that was prepared in January 2008. Although it detailed a number of failings and advised steps they needed to take to address them, said London Fire Brigade, the company failed to act on the findings and implement any of the actions required.

The hotel closed shortly after the enforcement noticed was issued.

“The general public should feel safe from fire when they are staying at a hotel and the responsible person must make sure their premises comply with the regulations,” said London Fire Brigade’s assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation, Steve Turek.“All premises owners and operators must undertake a fire safety risk assessment. Although this was completed in this case, it is no use if the responsible person does not act on its findings.”

Pub company fined for multiple fire-safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:09:14 +0000

A pub management company has been convicted of breaching fire safety law by North Wiltshire magistrates.
Sitting on 9 February, the magistrates fined Publicana Ltd £5000 for each of four offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. In light of the company’s early guilty plea, however, the total fine was reduced to £15,000. Publicana was also ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs.

The offences came to light after Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service attended an incident at the Little George pub in New Road, Chippenham on 5 October 2008.

An investigation by officers from the Service’s technical fire safety department discovered that fire doors and fire exits had been screwed shut, or left propped open, escape routes were obstructed, and fire-protection systems had not been maintained. Consequently, Publicana Ltd – as the tenant at that time – was charged with failing to carry out or record a fire risk assessment, and failure to have effective protection policies and prevention measures in place.

It was also charged with failing to provide suitable and sufficient information for the licensee it had contracted to run the pub on its behalf. Separate charges are being pursued against this individual in connection with the case.

Group manager of Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service’s technical fire safety department, Julian Parsons, said: “It is rare for a fire and rescue service to undertake prosecutions but, on this occasion, the offences were so severe we felt it was in the public interest to pursue charges.

“What this case has shown very clearly is that management companies always have a duty to ensure that public safety is not compromised, even if they have sub-contracted someone to act as licensee.”

He added: “Since these offences came to light, the Little George pub has changed management, and subsequent inspections have shown that the issues highlighted by this case have been addressed. In addition, Publicana Ltd, which was cooperative throughout the investigation, has introduced stringent new management procedures to ensure that something like this does not happen again in premises it is responsible for.”

article courtesy of SHP

Record £400,000 fine for retailer's fire safety breaches

AnchorHandS — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:19:54 +0000

A high street retailer has been fined £400,000 and ordered to pay £136,052 in costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of fire safety legislation, following a serious fire at its Oxford Street store in London

Thirty-five fire engines and around 150 firefighters attended the fire on 26 April 2007, when around 450 people form the store and surrounding premises were evacuated. The first call to the fire service did not come until an office worker in an adjacent building took action, and the delay meant that the fire had already broken through the second floor windows when firefighters arrived. Despite the building's fire alarm sounding, the alarm was reset on at least one occasion, said London Fire Brigade.

Crews remained on the scene for the next three days and a section of Oxford Street was closed to traffic and the public for two days. The cause of the fire was never established and the store was subsequently demolished.

One charge to which the retailer pleaded guilty was for an inadequate fire risk assessment which was found to have a number of flaws, including no record of the appropriate procedures to be taken during a fire alarm. Another breach was insufficient staff training, which led to a delayed evacuation of the premises. This lack of training, said LFB, also led to staff evacuating around 150 people through the main entrance which was directly underneath the fire on the second floor.

Other alleged breaches taken into account included the absence of an interface between the swipe card system and the fire alarm panel which would have deactivated the doors. In addition, green emergency door release units were fitted on the wrong side of the basement doors.

The fine is the largest to have been handed down for a breach to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Councillor Brian Coleman, said: “Good business management includes taking responsibility for fire safety, knowing the law and acting on it. This conviction shows that large companies are not exempt from prosecution and that London Fire Brigade will take action when businesses do not take their fire safety responsibilities seriously. Failure to comply with the law can, as this case has shown, result in a substantial fine.”

ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL

AnchorHandS — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:43:38 +0000

ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL

Recent HSE figures showed that 3,961 accidents involving major injuries, of which 133 were fatal ...

Take the Pledge

AnchorHandS — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:12 +0000

The HSE have issued their new strategy for improving Health & Safety and are asking interested parties to "Sign up to the Pledge" A statement from HSE chair Judith Hackitt CBE is included below as well as an attached file giving the full details of the strategy. We at Anchor Health & Safety are only too pleased to sign up and support this initiative.

"The new HSE strategy has been finalised following a three-month consultation programme, with events held across the country.

During the consultation, we spoke to many interested parties and individuals,including: business leaders; industry representatives; trades unions; parliamentarians; employees; and others in the health and safety system. We wanted to hear ideas on how we could all become ‘part of the solution’.

The overall feedback we received was very supportive. We listened to suggestions made during the consultation and made sensible and useful changes to our original draft, to produce the version launched today.

We believe this strategy represents a clear statement of core principles and a sensible approach to health and safety in Great Britain.

Whilst the economic climate is difficult and the temptation for some may be to cut corners, HSE, its partners and businesses must resolve to continue to strive to improve health and safety performance.

Good health and safety is good business."

Judith Hackitt CBE \\ HSE Chair

Cost Savings of Health and Safety

AnchorHandS — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:27:08 +0000

It pays to know the facts

Each year employee accidents and ill-health cost British employers an estimated £3.9 billion to £7.8 billion, of which £910 million to £3,710 million comes from accidental damage to property and equipment.

It's often assumed that insurance will cover any financial losses. But policies generally fall short when it comes to costs involved in the general day to day running of a business. The shortfall can be startling:

Uninsured losses are ten times the cost of insurance premiums paid. (Source: HSE)

Uninsured losses from accidents in smaller firms add up to £315 per employee, per year. (Source: Norwich Union Risk Services)

Other cost implications that are often overlooked include:

Dealing with the incident - Immediate action means downtime for the injured person and anyone assisting. Time spent administering first aid treatment, a hospital referral or home rest, all result in downtime. Making the area safe and making machinery serviceable are more costs for which the business is accountable.

Investigation of the incident - Time spent reporting the incident, holding meetings to discuss it and investigating it internally are the first step. Then time spent with an HSE, or Local Authority inspector and external consultants' fees to assist with the investigation can rapidly accumulate into hidden costs.

Getting back to business - Rescheduling work, recovering production, repairing damage and cleaning the site are inconveniences which slow production and reduce efficiency. Hiring replacement tools, people and equipment might also be required.

Business costs - Absentee costs are deceptive. Besides the salary of the injured worker, a combination of replacement staff salaries, lost time, reduced productivity and quality add to escalating costs. Training new or temporary staff, overtime and contract.

Increased insurance costs - higher premiums following an incident, cost associated with conditions being applied in order to gain cover.

It pays to fulfill your legal obligations with regard to Health & Safety, this way you reduce the chances of having a claim refused and all the additional costs listed above, which will probably include the cost of fulfilling those obligations again. So why pay twice?

For assistance contuct us at www.anchorhands.co.uk