Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    HSE TO INTRODUCE ‘FEE FOR INTERVENTION’ IN OCTOBER 2012

    Investigations could result in high five figure invoices for errant businesses

    HSE has confirmed that a cost recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will start on 1 October 2012 subject to Parliamentary approval. FFI recovers costs from those who break health and safety laws.

    The government believe it is right that businesses and organisations in ‘material breach’ of health and safety laws should pay for the time HSE takes in putting matters right, investigating and taking enforcement action.

    Law-abiding businesses will not pay a fee

    Detailed provisional guidance has been published setting out how the scheme will work including examples of how FFI will be applied. A ‘test run’ of the scheme has been carried out in preparation for start in October 2012.

    Gordon MacDonald, HSE’s programme director, said:

    “Confirming the date for the start of Fee For Intervention and publishing the guidance will give dutyholders clarity and certainty about the start of the scheme and what they can expect.

    We have worked with industry representatives in shaping the final form of the scheme and the published guidance explains how the scheme will work and what businesses can do to comply with the law and avoid incurring a fee.

    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. Firms who manage workplace risks properly will not pay.”

    Comment

    FFI is a major change for HSE and all businesess involved with UK construction projects. Our immediate observations are:

    1. Cost: fees will be imposed for ‘material breach’ investigations or enforcement action even when the HSE decide to close an investigation and a prosecution is not proposed. The cost of such investigations may be significant with FFI fees reaching tens of thousands of pounds;
    2. Impact: there is no limit to FFI fees and some firms may be go out of business as a consequence. This contrasts with court prosecution costs which reflect the defendant’s ability to pay;
    3. Complexity: construction projects involve clients, designers, coordinators, contractors and suppliers where allocation of responsibility for a material breach may be highly complex;
    4. Avoidance: all organisations should use FFI as a spur to review current H&S arrangements. The examples given in the guidance provide a good starting point and checklist.
    5. Minimisation: businesses should understand the guidance and consider how costs might be minimised when material breaches are found by HSE.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    POSITIVE STORY ON FRAGILE SURFACE HAZARDS

    Major roofing contractor testifies to working from below roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    LEISURE CENTRE USER FELL ILL AFTER SHOWER USE

    Legionella risk assessment and control measures found wanting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    STONE CUTTING MACHINE GUARDS FAILED HSE TEST

    Precautions taken following HSE enforcement fell into disuse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    ROOFWORK CREATED CARBON MONOXIDE RISK

    Falling rubble damaged and blocked home chimney flue

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 19th DEC 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    HSE SAFETY ALERT: TOWER CRANE BRAKES

    Collapse of tower crane jib in high winds prompts HSE warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    VISITING ENGINEER CRUSHED BY SCAFFOLD TUBES

    Principal contractor “signed off” contractor storage arrangements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    CONCRETE EJECTED BY PUMPING UNIT CLAIMED LIFE

    Company and director failed to train and supervise pumping operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    REFRESHED GUIDANCE ON FITNESS TO OPERATE PLANT

    Construction plant medical fitness Good Practice Guide

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR & LUL USED UNSAFE SYSTEM

    Work method to eliminate moving vehicle hazard not adopted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    OVERTURNING LORRY CAUSED DEATH OF DRIVER

    Groundworks project stockpiling arrangements not properly managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    FORTH BRIDGE LIFTING OPERATION NOT PLANNED

    Major project PC failed to plan, supervise and carry out lift safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    DEVELOPER FAILED ON ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    HSE inspection revealed refurb works without asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    POST DRIVER HAMMER CRUSHED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Unsafe system of work for vehicle crash barrier installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    WORKER FELL FROM LOFT THROUGH CEILING

    Major house builder lacked understanding of loft fragile surfaces risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    NEW SITE DUMPER SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Construction plant sector concerns prompts CPA consults on draft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    CCTV INSTALLER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT

    Contractor failed to properly plan and control the risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    VISITOR DIED FALLING INTO CONCEALED BASEMENT

    Contractor failed to protect basement void on domestic project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    RACKING FALL REVEALED UNSAFE SYSTEM OF WORK

    European firm fined £300,000 after UK sub-contractor employee fell

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    FAILURE TO ACT ON VIBRATION AND SILICA HAZARDS

    Worker health put at risk during stripping of furnace lining

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    MAJOR FM FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN BACK-UP POWER

    Power loss at laboratory site created potential risk from biological agents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    IGNORING HSE PROHIBITIONS COST FIRM £250,000

    CDM 2015 and work at height requirements repeatedly breached

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th November 2018

    ROOF COLLAPSED UNDER EXCESS LOADING

    Director and company fined over roof design failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th November 2018

    FORK LIFT OVERTURNED IN SCAFFOLDING YARD

    Untrained operator suffered life changing crush injuries

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th November 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    2 Responses to “HSE TO INTRODUCE ‘FEE FOR INTERVENTION’ IN OCTOBER 2012”

    1. HSE REVEAL DETAILS OF ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR 2012/13 | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] package for the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and introduction of Fee for Intervention will be important work. Investigation of work related incidents and ill health plus associated […]

    2. UPDATE ON HSE REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION SECTOR | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

      […] It will be interesting to see the guidance to HSE Construction Inspectors when it is published. This appears to be in addition to the provisional guidance. […]