• Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    NEW CHARGES PROPOSED FOR CDM 2007 NON-COMPLIANCE

    HSE cost recovery plans set to change the construction safety landscape

    Proposals have now been published for taking forward Government policy requiring HSE to impose charges on those found in breach of the CDM Regulations 2007 and other health and safety laws.

    The new arrangements are contained in the Consultation Document seeking views on the proposed systems. The consultation period ends on 14th October 2011.

    Charges for those in ‘material breach’ of law

    The new ‘Fee for Intervention’ will be invoiced where there is a ‘material breach’ of health and safety law. A material breach is one which, in the opinion of the inspector, requires them to make a formal intervention. HSE will recover all of the costs of that intervention.

    A formal intervention is where a requirement to rectify the breach is formally made in writing e.g. by enforcement notices, electronic mail or letter.

    Those who are in compliance with requirements will pay nothing nor will those in ‘technical’ breach of the law i.e. a breach which, in the opinion of the inspector, does not require them to make a formal intervention. The proposals also exclude:

    • inspections and incident investigations by Local Authorities;
    • self-employed, unless they expose other people to risks; and
    • breaches by employees.
    High five figure sums could be payable

    Costs will be recovered from the start of the intervention during which the material breach was identified up to and including the point where intervention in relation to that breach had been concluded.

    The costs will include all related follow-up interventions (e.g. site visits, phone calls), the provision of any specialist assistance, the costs of writing letters and reports plus the drafting and issuing of any enforcement notices.

    An averaged hourly fee for intervention rate will be charged (estimated at £133) for all HSE staff involved in the interventions. This excludes the Health and Safety Laboratory specialist services (HSL) for which actual cost will be charged. The estimated averaged costs recovered are:

    • Inspection with no action – no costs;
    • Inspection with letter – approx £750;
    • Inspection with enforcement notice – approx £1500;
    • Investigations – appox £750 to tens of thousands of pounds.

    The actual intervention costs will depend upon the particular circumstances and the complexity of the investigation required to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry

    No change in enforcement policy and procedures

    HSE has publicly available policies and practices setting out the principles that inspectors apply when deciding on the appropriate action to take in response to breaches of health and safety legislation. These will remain unchanged by the introduction of the cost recovery scheme.

    There will a queries and disputes resolution procedure aimed at resolving all queries or disputes “promptly, fairly and in a transparent way”. The costs of handling disputes will be charged where the dispute is not upheld.

    Clients, designers, CDM-Cs and contractors all at risk

    The CDM Regulations 2007 imposes duties on a range of organisations.

    When undertaking interventions e.g. inspections, investigations, enforcement or following up complaints, HSE will identify those CDM duty holders to whom fee for intervention applies and will seek to recover costs from them where they are in material breach of health and safety law.

    Comment

    These proposals represent a major departure from the current system under which HSE only recover costs in construction where legal proceedings are instituted. However, this is now the opportunity to influence the nature of the system imposed. Some immediate thoughts are:

    • HSE behaviour – there is no intention to change the behaviour of HSE Inspectors who should continue to exercise their discretion based on the facts and existing policies and procedures. However, in practice there is likely to be a complex interplay between the new charging system and the behaviour of HSE Inspectors, including some unanticipated consequences;
    • Exercise of discretion – the decision to charge will be based on the opinion of the Inspector that the breach is ‘material’ and that formal communication is ‘required’. HSE guidance to inspectors on the exercise of such discretion will come under close scrutiny, debate and ‘negotiation';
    • Diversion of resources – there is likely to be an impact on HSE/ Industry relationships and formal disputes may divert all parties from dealing with real safety issues. The time taken to recover costs from the recalcitrant end of the industry could be significant;
    • Costs imposed – the charges imposed on organisations may be substantial especially where the HSE intervention arises from a incident. There is no limit to costs or restriction based on the ability to pay;
    • Whistle blowing – complaints to HSE may rise, made by those who comply or those charged and concerned that others are ‘getting away with it’;
    • Project relationships – clients, designers and CDM-C’s will come under increasing scrutiny as contractors seek to point HSE further up the supply chain when matters go wrong on site;

    The test of the system will be whether or not it improves the levels of compliance, risk and personal harm that currently arise on UK construction projects.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE TO OVERSEE NEW BUILDING SAFETY REGIME

    Government to deliver biggest change in building safety for a generation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st January 2020

    CONTRACTS MANAGER HANDED TWO YEAR PRISON TERM

    Safety fall arrest netting would have saved life of deceased workman

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2020

    WORKER FATALLY INJURED BY CONCRETE BEAM

    Lifting operation not properly planned, managed and supervised

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2020

    TREE FELLING OPERATIONS LACKED DEFINED COMMS

    Workman struck by falling tree inside “normal” exclusion zone

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    CONTRACTOR ARRESTED OVER WELFARE FAILINGS

    Recalcitrant sole trader failed to attend court hearing

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    MAJOR DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR FINED £500,000

    Collapse of concrete slab caused death of worker and excavator fall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FALL FROM LADDER WHILST CARRYING BUCKET

    Contractor failed to provide basic safe lifting aids

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HSE NOTICE PROVES COSTLY

    Director given suspended jail term and company fined £60,000

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    DEVELOPER FAILED TO PLAN AND CHECK COMPETENCE

    Fall caused by ad-hoc working methods and lack of monitoring

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    CYLINDER LEAK TEST CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Corrosion inhibitor triggered failure and shrapnel ejection

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2020

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th December 2019

    JAIL TERM FOLLOWS ROUTINE HSE SPOT CHECK

    Director of a roofing firm handed a suspended prison sentence

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th December 2019

    TEENAGER FELL 3M DURING BLOCK AND BEAM WORK

    Workers uninstructed and left to devise own safe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th December 2019

    PARCEL CARRIER FINED HEAVILY OVER FLT INCIDENT

    Reversing fork lift lacked segregation from pedestrians

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2019

    CONTRACTOR FINED OVER FLOOR OPENING FALL

    Thorough risk assessment and edge protection were both inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2019

    THREE WORKERS “CARRIED ALONG” IN SEWER INCIDENT

    Mentally affected and one man treated for long-term traumatic stress

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2019

    SOLAR FIRM AND DIRECTOR SENTENCED OVER DEATH

    Brother of business owner died in fall during panel installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th December 2019

    DIRECTOR AND COMPANY FINED FOR ASBESTOS RISK

    HSE refurbishment campaign inspection revealed asbestos offences

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th December 2019

    BULK BAG COLLAPSE CAUSED BY UNSAFE STACKING

    Bulk bag collapsed onto workman when struck by fork lift

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    INTERLOCKED GUARD NOT WORKING TO ISOLATE POWER

    Two workmen seriously injured when plant started unexpectedly

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    STREET FURNITURE RISK TO PUBLIC FINED £1.4M

    Council prosecuted following injury to child playing on hinged bollard

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th December 2019

    WORKMEN SUFFER SERIOUS BURNS FROM CABLE STRIKE

    Assessment and system of work failed to appreciate electrical risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th November 2019

    LADDERS WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR WORK ON ROOF

    Workman paralysed after falling whilst installing roof ladder

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2019

    FIRM FAILED TO MANAGE EXHAUST VENTILATION

    HSE enforcement notices on wood dust and welding fume ignored

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 27th November 2019

    RECALCITRANT DIRECTOR BARRED FROM OFFICE

    Dangerous telehandler used despite earlier fatality and enforcement

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 25th November 2019
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    7 Responses to “NEW CHARGES PROPOSED FOR CDM 2007 NON-COMPLIANCE”

    1. PUBLIC RISK PROMPTS PRE-EMPTIVE PROSECUTION | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] smaller high risk work where the majority of deaths now occur. The proposals for charging those in breach may provide a further incentive in that such non-compliance could cost […]

    2. HSE INSPECTORS OPPOSE ‘FEE FOR INTERVENTION’ PROPOSALS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] Prospect state that the major reasons for opposition to Fees for Intervention are: […]

    3. INDUSTRY CONCERN OVER HSE COST RECOVERY PLANS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] on HSE proposal for cost recovery ends on 14th October 2011. Costs are planned to be recovered from the start of a “material […]

    4. MANUFACTURERS ISSUE WARNING ON HSE COST RECOVERY PLANS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] manufacturers organisation EEF has warned that proposals to charge for the recovery of costs associated with breaches safety law may damage to relations between HSE and […]

    5. HSE CHARGING REGIME CONSULTATION EARLY FINDINGS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] Gordon MacDonald HSE Director of Special Projects on progress with the Fee for Intervention proposals and the next […]

    6. INSPECTION CHARGING (FFI) TRIAL GUIDANCE ISSUED | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] The imposition of charges on those found in breach of the CDM Regulations 2007 and other health and safety laws will commence in April 2012 to take forward Government policy. […]

    7. HSE INSPECTION (FFI) CHARGING REGIME PUT ON HOLD | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] that the planned Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme will now be introduced at the “next available […]