[Philip Hanson]

The first successful prosecution for breach of the TWAH regulations has been brought against a roofer.  A notable point here is that No Accident Occurred

The case was begun just 7 days after the new regulations became law.  HSE press release below:

Michael Mills, trading as MB Mills General Contractors, of Cambridge was fined a total of £3,000 plus costs of £3,517, at Bedford Magistrates Court, yesterday, 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.

See it in full HERE

[windows_chepstow]

Phillip,

Michael Mills seems to have been extremely unlucky to have been caught.  I see stuff like this week in, week out.

Last week, a customer pointed out the tiles on his roof that had been broken on an old high Victorian house because the painter had just planted his ladders against them (they were of the old, thin grey slate variety) and attempted to paint the soffit area on a higher part of the house, from there with a brush on the end of stick.  The tiles cracked and crumpled.  He didn't even use a ladder stand-off, never mind a cherry-picker.

Another painter I spoke to told me that he only takes his lads on as self-employed 'employees' (obviously incorrect) and hadn't even heard about the 'new' WAHD.

With only 640 HSE inspectors in the whole of the UK (so I believe from their own web-site (from memory)), Michael Mills was indeed unfortunate to be caught out!

[Thecleanerservice]

Y'see that is why Tosh is a good moderator.....(most of the time)

He discreetly changed the tone of what appears to be 'gloating'.

A prosecution may be 'made', 'carried out', or similar descriptive terms may be used, when reporting.  But, surely, unless a 'victim' is seeking justice, or vengeance, it surely would not neutrally be reported as 'SUCCESSFUL'

Pj

[rosskesava]

Hi

I agree that any employer who is that iresponsible deserves to get done as they have a duty of care to their employees.

I think the employer would still have got done prior to WAHD though.

I feel I must also point out the obvious that they were not window cleaning in a responsible manner with ladders.

Also the persons who were at risk were empoyees, not self employed and the employer got done not the employees.

Sorry Phillip if I'm wrong, but is the point here something wfp related and sometimes, just as with newsnight, points get made by omission and is this the case here as the person who got done was not a window cleaner.

Also, today we spent £450 on wfp stuff made by a well known company. Any critism and we'll get a refund tomorrow.  (Not really)

Cheers

[Philip Hanson]

Hi Ross,

you dont have to keep apologising to me y'know!  I'm think skinned and I like a good debate.

I wasn't making any point about wfp on this occasion, everyone's probably sick of me talking about it.  Just that, the HSE are starting to prosecute, and it's probably only a matter of time before one is brought against a window cleaner

Yes it was the boss that got well and truly "DONE" (£6,517!!)
but remember the regs apply equally to the self-employed.

I bet he was
VEXED BOA!

[windows_chepstow]

but remember the regs apply equally to self-employed chappies.

I can't back this statement up with any evidence, but personally, with only 640 HSE inspectors in the whole of the UK (I think), I doubt they'd be after poor-little (and I am) self-employed 'Tosh Simpkin' because he used a ladder to clean a window where he could've used a WFP.

(Not only that, I was just about to set myself up with a WFP when the government's tax-man demanded the cash I owed him from last year! There's some irony in there somewhere.)

And if they ever did come after me (the small self-employed), then I would assume they were just going after the 'small guy' because bigger firms can afford lawyers and stuff.  And that just wouldn't be cricket.

As Ross says, it's the employers who need to worry if they are putting their guys at risk.

[williamx]

Tosh

If the HSE are anything like trading standards, then they will make a bee line for the one man operators first, they are easy pickings.

I mean all they have to do is drive around the local housing estates and bobs your uncle, you mr window cleaner are busted.

Where as on building sites its a bit more difficult because of the on site safety officer.

I could be wrong but if I was a HSE officer and my boss was wanting results I know who I would target first.

[Thecleanerservice]

I think many are "Paranoid"

[Ian_Giles]

I rather agree with William here, I think that if the should decide to push the issue and start to make examples of people, then they are going to be fairly random in their choice of who they prosecute.
As Ross pointed, Employers would have got done for breaches of the regs prior to the new regs being implemented anyway, but now it could well be the small man too.
And we are sitting ducks, as William says, you only have to drive around a few estates, it won't take too long to track a window cleaner breaking the regs.

One I saw the other day was working on a sloping pavement and was just using a piece of wood for a wedge to level up his ladder.
I'm not wagging my finger and tut-tutting, prior to changing over to WFP I would often do the same myself.
I'm just saying that it won't be hard to find a few transgressors primed and ready for a simple prosecution.

And how many would it take to cause real fear for those working off ladders on a daily basis? Not just window cleaners either!

Regards,

Ian

[Thecleanerservice]

My ladder comes with me once a fortnight, and I don't use wfp " !"

[rosskesava]

Hi Phillip again

Just that, the HSE are starting to prosecute, and it's probably only a matter of time before one is brought against a window cleaner

I think it would be a good thing if a few w/c's got done but it is a different case for someone working alone as by and large, his risk is his own and it it his decision to do that.

An employee is under the jurisdiction and care of an employer unless he acts completely stupidly.

The self employed w/c is only responsible for himself unless he can be proven to be either a direct threat to life and limb of others or is immeadiately endangering the lives of others.

It is legal to take ones own life but not the life of another and it's that risk thing with one's own life that has always been the stumbling block.

The self employed have always been a problem because of the question of who is responsible for them taking a risk if they understood that they were not taking a risk?

There is little by way of legislation to say who is responsible for them understanding risks. If the H & S take responsibiltiy to educate them then a self employed person could say that they were not educated enough.

When there is an employer, it's easy to lay down the law as it cannot be the fault of the employee when the employer told them to act in a particular way that is in breach of H & S regulations as it is the employer who is required to ask for work to be undertaken with knowledge of H & S. The employee is not responsible for educating him/herself. The employer is.

When I worked on the railways we signed a bit of paper for every course relating to safety that we went on so as the employer could point the finger in case of any breaches. Even then, the railways were often still at fault because they were often deemed failing to ensure the employee fully understood the training.

As a self employed person who is willing to chance stating that I was given sufficient education and training to work on my own unsupervised for years on end?

That, as far as I understand it, is the problem in 'doing' the self employed.

Something which  I think is wrong and needs addressing.

Cheers

[Philip Hanson]

I don't think thats right, even a self employed WC still has to comply with the regs, or he's working illegally

Here's what the regs say:

"(3) The requirements imposed by these Regulations on an employer shall also apply to -

      (a) a self-employed person, in relation to work"

The only real difference, is that if he has an accident he has nobody to sue.

But the HSE can still prosecute if he breaks the regs, the naughty little fella

-Phil

[rosskesava]

Hi Phillip

Ooooh............. touchy touchy .....

What I should have made clearer was that I was pointing out the problems in terms of H & S and the self employed.

I think the self employed in so many trades just flout the law because firstly they don't often care, secondly they don't know and often couldn't care less anyway, thirdly who is to stop them and fourthly, the H & S themselves, being short of manpower find it easier to target companies where there is a formal structure of management.

There is also the problem which I re emphasise of who is responsible for acting in terms of getting the knowledge in a tangible way into the heads of the self employed. It is one thing to say the law aplies to all and another to actually act upon it and proove it. With a company it is easier? Yes or no?

It doesn't take much working out.

There are the regs and then how the regs are, or can be, applied.

Cheers

[Philip Hanson]

Yeh your right Ross, self employed people are hard to get hold of.

I'd say a headlock is usually the best way.

I spoke to Ian Greenwood the other day about that very problem, and he said its even harder because often some self-employed bods TRY to be invisible, so are difficult to reach (even with an omnipole)

Ooooh............. touchy touchy .....

wot me?  I'm in a rather "couldnt care less" mood tonight rossker.  Surprised you hadnt noticed.

I think the self employed in so many trades just flout the law

The problem is, that too many people confuse FLOUTING the law with FLIRTING with the law.  One might get you off on a warning, while the other could see in the clink.

It is one thing to say the law aplies to all and another to actually act upon it and proove it. With a company it is easier? Yes or no?

Definately, definately, definately YES

-Phil

[williamx]

And don't forget you can't use the excuse in court, "I didn't know", as a self employed person its up to you to know all the new rules and regulations.

[rosskesava]

Hi Phil

I will never try to run a company or even try to employ others.

Guess why?

Cheer up - we put a few more pennies in your coffers today.

Cheers

[rosskesava]

Some replies to the above have vannished when I refreshed the page?

Mr Moderator..................

Anyway, in reply to Phil's vannished posting, I hate to say it but at the rate we are going and expanding, we are finding ourselves talking in terms of subcontracting and employing staff.

I am shying away from it as it's me who will be finding out about it all, the legalities and all that stuff.

It's almost as if there is no other way to go and (Phllip) you're right, that compulsion to keep expanding and taking on more work can only lead to one thing.

Also, yup, I am also going to talk to some real people now. Otherwise she'll moan all tomorrow otherwise.

Cheers

[Moderator David@stives]

someone must of deleted their  own posts

dave

[AuRavelling79]

As the months tick by -  especially as WAHD is in the mainstream media - more and more local authorities, companies and even householders (probably in exactly that order) will become aware of the WAHD.

Fear of successful prosecution (that phrase is correct, an unsuccessful one being one that fails to attain a guilty verdict) will soon have them insisting on non-ladder w/c where possible.

And frankly we wfp folk will surely be saying to our present and prospective customers who might not want wfp - "surely you wouldn't want to be sued because you allowed a window cleaner on a ladder on your property, would you?" 

Me'ne me'ne te'kel par'sin (The handwriting is on the wall)

[rosskesava]

Hi Dave

I've only had 2 cans. Definately some postings vannished. Definately.

Hi Williamx

I've been thinking on that since you posted it.

With H & S it's not quite the same in terms of 'ignorance' as with other so called prosecutions.

It could be said that in the original posting that the empoyees were responsible as 'ignorance' is no excuse in that they done what the employer was asking.

That would take the responsibility away from the employer but the employer got done not the empoyees.

In terms of the self employed.............. dunno.

That was what the whole thread ended up being about.

The H & S have a history of shying away from the self employed unless the breach is blatantly obvious and that is one thing, I think, needs addressing for the reasons in the I wrote in the postings but the main one being is that with manpower shortage, companies are an easier target and breaches easier to proove.

Cheers