Inquiry into death of 4

A steel reinforcing cage, comprising 39 tonnes of steel and 330 tonnes of concrete, was being erected inside it.

Jonathan Elvin, HSE investigator, told the court the excavated hole was wet and the men were reinforcing sheet pilings when the steel toppled “collapsing like a folding picnic table”.

Post-mortem examinations revealed they all died of asphyxia due to trauma.

Mark Aylen, procurement manager for Claxton, told the court he had seen the men not wearing safety helmets and using grinders and other equipment without wearing safety glasses.

Claxton Engineering should be ashamed of themselves. Trying to shift the blame on to the team working for them.

WTF would glasses or hard hats of done?

I suspect the glasses and hard hats comment was more of a comment about the ‘culture’ of safe working…….which is the employers problem.

Mark Aylen, procurement manager for Claxton, told the court he had seen the men not wearing safety helmets and using grinders and other equipment without wearing safety glasses.

He said when he questioned them about this, they told him hard hats fell off and that safety glasses steamed up.

He also said he was concerned when he saw Daniel Hazleton “squeezing himself” between the reinforcing bars of the structure they were building.

He said he raised this, but was told it was the only way the work could be carried out.
And if you don’t selectively quote the selective quote it would appear that there were indications that they were not following guidance or rules. It also stated that they were doing something that could be unsafe “as there was no other way” if that is the case you don’t do it. It sounds like he was asked questions as he had raised concerns which were not listened to or acted on. It sounds like they were trying to establish what the H&S culture was like there, it sounds poor from those quotes. It sounds nothing like a tragic accident, it sounds like they should not have been in there at the time.

However without waiting for the complete judgement it would be foolish to speculate.

I’d suggest the article is a little misleading. References to the weight of steel and concrete are irrelevant. The concrete especially as surely that wasn’t even in there at the time. The lads put themselves at huge risk by building up a cage in what became a confined space as it was being constructed.
The issue of glasses and hats is a shitty stick way of perhaps pointing out they weren’t all that into safe methods of working.
Very very sad and unnecessary either way.

What is the H&S nonsense you suggested in the headline? I would hardly call investigating 4 deaths in the workplace nonsense.

As for the comments of the procurement manager, it all depends on context. He could well be giving an honest account of what he saw, would you prefer he lied? If he saw that some safety precautions were not followed he has a duty to say so.

without waiting for the complete judgement it would be foolish to speculate.

Strange, you’re not new here…

In my experience if workers are cutting corners on PPE it’s because they don’t consider safety to be a priority and are much more likely to undertake tasks in an unsafe manner. Likewise a tidy site is generally a safe site. There’s an element of the reporting pulling out selective parts of the investigation, but then the news is levelled at Joe Public.

Whilst wearing appropriate PPE wouldn’t have made a difference in this case, it’s the employer’s responsibility to ensure that H&S guidelines are followed. If the workers are saying “it’s the only way to do it,” then work needs to be halted until such a time as they are able to work safely. No?

Given that the blokes were working as contractors and one of them was a director of the contracting company surely Caxton can reasonably say they expected their supplier to undertake risk assessments etc?

If I get someone in to do a job it’s because I don;t have the skills, qualifications and experience to do it myself. I’d expect them to supply all that?

Cougar – Moderator
No?

Yaaargh. You’re doing it too, it’s become like that awful screaming noise from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

And yes, whoever designed the test platform(?) they were constructing had a duty to ensure that it could be safely constructed and the company constructing it had a duty to come up with a safe methodology for constructing it.

One of the lads was the director of the company though so some/all of the blame must sit with him. However as a minimum he should have come up with a safe system of work/method statement etc etc to say how the work would be carried out in a safe way. This should have then been reviewed by the company having the work done. Of they didn’t know better what could they have said?
I can (roughly) picture the job from the sketchy reporting and what happened would have definitely been a scenario in my mind.

What is the H&S nonsense you suggested in the headline? I would hardly call investigating 4 deaths in the workplace nonsense.

Never said that.

The nonsense is trying to deflect the blame on to the dead blokes by inferring they were being slack by not wearing PPE and that he had questioned them about their procedures. However,in true STW manner, I may of taken this out of context and jumped on the soundbites in the BBC article.

What pisses me off is ineffective H&S where companies seem to think that the more paperwork and mandatory PPE the better.

Given that the blokes were working as contractors and one of them was a director of the contracting company surely Caxton can reasonably say they expected their supplier to undertake risk assessments etc?

If I get someone in to do a job it’s because I don;t have the skills, qualifications and experience to do it myself. I’d expect them to supply all that?

Very different laws in contracting to home improvement. Claxton will have been named as ‘Principal Contractor’, this means that every action within the designated site is their responsibility. HSE will have the site name and Prinicpal Contractor details on an F10 form and will prosecute accordingly should something go wrong.

Sadly every month various building owners are prosecuted for deaths under this law. It’s usual for the operator who has allowed the working at height to receive a fine, the building owner will be fined 10x this amount. Ignorance is no defence.

I’d bet my bottom dollar no f10 was filled in…

Sadly every month various building owners are prosecuted for deaths under this law. It’s usual for the operator who has allowed the working at height to receive a fine, the building owner will be fined 10x this amount. Ignorance is no defence.

Is that just commercial buildings? If a roofer does himself a mischief off my house because he didn’t use PPE etc etc, am I liable in the same way? Just interested.

He could well be giving an honest account of what he saw, would you prefer he lied?

In my brief experience of H&S work construction workers regularly lie about what was going on in the lead up to an incident. The fact that someone is in court means the HSE have them ‘bang to rights’.

Martinhutch, short answer yes you are.

Sadly every month various building owners are prosecuted for deaths under this law. It’s usual for the operator who has allowed the working at height to receive a fine, the building owner will be fined 10x this amount. Ignorance is no defence.

Is that just commercial buildings? If a roofer does himself a mischief off my house because he didn’t use PPE etc etc, am I liable in the same way? Just interested.

If you knowingly withhold information then you could be prosecuted. However, as a domestic client you are not the same as a ‘client’ under CDM regulations:

A CDM client is someone who is having construction or building work carried out, unless they are a domestic client. A domestic client is someone who lives, or will live, in the premises where the work is carried out. The premises must not relate to any trade, business or other undertaking. Although a domestic client does not have duties under CDM, those who work for them on construction projects will.

You have a duty of care to employ a roofer and not a child with a ladder, this is not the same as the law and COP that applies to commercial clients and contractors.

If I remember rightly (probably not!)CDM doesn’t apply if there’s below a certain number of man hours/days on site either does it? It also may not apply depending on the type of work undertaken. Either way, this doesn’t affect the need to protect the safety of peeps under HSE regs.

When must I complete an F10 form?

You should complete an F10 form when you think you are undertaking a project that will last more than 30 days or involve more than 500 person days. This is a legal requirement under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. An F10 does not need to be filled in for domestic projects.

As I said above it may not have been filled out…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8343119/Appeal-Court-rules-in-favour-of-homeowner-sued-over-cowboy-builder-accident.html

The fact that someone is in court means the HSE have them ‘bang to rights’.

It’s an inquest, not a prosecution?

When must I complete an F10 form?

You should complete an F10 form when you think you are undertaking a project that will last more than 30 days or involve more than 500 person days. This is a legal requirement under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. An F10 does not need to be filled in for domestic projects.

As I said above it may not have been filled out…

2007 Regulations apply to all works no matter the size or duration, the F10 is only for notifiable work as above. Sounds like they were still in breach, F10 or no F10.

If I remember rightly (probably not!)CDM doesn’t apply if there’s below a certain number of man hours/days on site either does it?

No, CDM 2007 applies to ALL construction (even for domestic client), but a project is only notifiable (to the HSE vis F10) if there are more than 30 days work or 500 person days and there’s a non-domestic client.

Edit: beaten to it by pictonroad!

Yaaargh. You’re doing it too

I was posing a statement as a question rather than a fact. No?

Is that just commercial buildings? If a roofer does himself a mischief off my house because he didn’t use PPE etc etc, am I liable in the same way? Just interested.

Under CDM 2007 “Domestic clients are a special case and do not have duties under CDM2007.”, this doesn’t stop the CDM regs applying to all other duty holders (designers and contractors), but does mean that a domestic client isn’t expected to ensure suitable management arrangements etc! So no your not liable for a roofer’s safely!

Although the brown stuff is likely to hit the fan when the HSE eventually get around to publishing the revised CDM201X which looks like it will remove the dispensation for domestic clients in accordance with the EU Directive (and the press scare-mongering causes panic)!!