• Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    FEE FOR INTERVENTION: DOES PAYMENT = ADMISSION?

    Law firm warns over danger of blindly accepting HSE FFI invoices

    Law firm Wragge & Co has published an interesting article concerning the relationship between HSE Fee for Intervention charges and the admission of guilt regarding health and safety breaches.

    Background

    From October 2012 health and safety duty holders who the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) believe have committed a material breach of health and safety legislation have been required to settle invoices for advice given by the HSE pursuant to the Fees for Intervention (FFI) scheme. The HSE estimates that the FFI scheme could potentially generate £37 million per annum by shifting the cost of Health and Safety Regulation from the public purse to the businesses and organisations that breach health and safety laws.

    Whether that provisional estimate proves to be accurate remains to be seen. It is early days. Between October to November 2012, 1419 invoices were issued by the HSE totalling £727,644.81. Of these around 10% were for more than £1,000, 70% for less than £500 and 20% for between £500 and £1000.

    Potential implications

    n subsequent criminal proceedings for a breach of health and safety legislation, there is Inothing preventing the HSE from seeking to use the payment of the invoice as an admission of guilt. Such an approach might be unfair where a commercial decision is made to make payment rather than contesting the FFI invoice submitted. In addition, FFI will inevitably arise early on in any potential case and well before a potential defendant realises that they may actually have a defence or are likely to be prosecuted by the HSE.

    Therefore, if a case could potentially be contested there is the possibility of unfairness where an early FFI invoice has been settled. Notification of an apparent material breach is in any event based solely on the opinion of the individual HSE inspector concerned. It is therefore subjective. The notice of breach must include the following information:

    • The law that the inspector’s opinion relates to;
    • The reason(s) for the opinion;
    • Notification that a fee is payable; and
    • Confirmation of which contraventions are material breaches.
    No comfort from the HSE

    Peter McNaught, the current HSE chief legal adviser, has gone on record to say that the HSE cannot give assurances regarding how evidence about FFI will be used in any subsequent case. At the same time the HSE says it is not “actively looking” at using paid FFI invoices in this way.

    According to Mr McNaught the situation regarding FFI invoices is similar to where an Enforcement Notice is issued which is then complied with and not appealed. However, the dilemma for the duty holder is that by paying the invoice, they may be seen to be accepting the material breach. That perceived acceptance may be used as an admission in any subsequent criminal prosecution.

    Whether the HSE will decide to use an FFI payment in evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution will no doubt be dependant on the facts of each particular case. What is clear is that the risks of the HSE using an FFI payment in this way are very real and the potential consequence of making a payment needs to be considered at the time of the HSE attendance and again when and if an invoice is sent through.”

    Wragge & Co also provide some practical action points to consider:

    “Protective steps

    Given the possibility that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) may consider using the payment of its Fees for Intervention (FFI) invoices as evidence of a sign of guilt in subsequent proceedings, the duty holder might wish to consider trying to protect their position in the following ways:

    1. Dispute the invoice using the FFI disputes procedure. All queries and disputes about an FFI invoice will initially be treated as a query. Anyone receiving an FFI invoice has 21 days from receipt to query whether there was a material breach or that the time for which the fee is charged is incorrect. If the subsequent HSE response is considered to be unsatisfactory then the appeals process must be commenced within ten working days of the initial response to the query.

    The process operates in two distinct stages. A level 1 dispute results in the invoice being reviewed by a HSE senior manager who is independent of the management chain that generated the invoice. The HSE’s response must be sent within 15 working days of receipt of the dispute. If this does not resolve the issue then the matter is escalated to a level 2 dispute where the matter is considered by a panel of HSE staff and an independent representative.

    If at the end of this process the challenge is not upheld then the HSE will seek to recover the costs of dealing with the dispute at levels 1 and 2 using the FFI rate of £124 per hour. Where the challenge is not upheld and a decision is made to pay the invoice, then consideration should be given to steps (2) or (3) below;

    2. Pay the invoice to acknowledge that work has been undertaken by the HSE under the FFI scheme but include a clear covering statement that such payment should not be taken as an admission of there having been any material breach;

    3. Settle the FFI invoice in full but only once the HSE has agreed in writing not to use the fact of the payment as evidence of any material breach in the event that any future criminal proceedings arise;

    4. Don’t pay the invoice. The risk then is that the HSE may begin civil debt recovery proceedings. However, that risk may be seen as small because the HSE might be reluctant to issue civil proceedings before it has made a decision about whether to bring a criminal prosecution. To proceed straight to civil proceedings to recover an FFI invoice might result in the issues having to be tried. The HSE may lose making a criminal case more difficult.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 13th JUNE 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th June 2018

    DIRECTOR FAILED COMPLY WITH HSE PROHIBITION

    Precautions not taken to prevent excavation collapse and falling

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th June 2018

    SCAFFOLD NOT TO INDUSTRY STANDARD OR DESIGN

    Specialist and contractor in court over unsafe work at height

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th June 2018

    ROAD WORKER RUN OVER BY ROAD ROLLER

    Reversing alarm not working and warning light not fitted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    CLIENT AND SURVEYOR FINED OVER ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey proved inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    FATALITY: ROAD WORKER DRAGGED ALONG ROAD

    Night shift worker loses life when struck by road sweeping vehicle

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS AVOID HSE ENFORCEMENT

    Regulator enforcement database reveals few notices involve CDM PDs

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    PROPERTY MANAGERS FINED WITH CONTRACTOR

    Defendants failed to check for asbestos during soffit replacement works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    EXCAVATION CAUSED RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE

    Precautions not taken to secure stability of free-standing wall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    OVERHEAD CABLE STRIKE FIRM FINED £500,000+

    Inadequate system caused risk of harm despite lack of worker injury

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    CDM 2015 PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FINED OVER FIRE RISK

    PD and PC failed to comply with CDM 2015 responsibilities

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    SENTENCING GUIDELINES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

    Lawyer argues guidelines undermine reduction in ‘regulatory burden’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    PANEL STRUCK WORKMAN DURING LIFTING OPERATION

    Third party contractor falls victim of poor lift planning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    DIRECTOR LED HAZARDOUS WORK AT HEIGHT

    Three occasions when work lacked suitable and sufficient precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RISK ASSESSED BUT CONTROLS FOUND WANTING

    Joiner fell through unprotected opening on roof of new building

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RIBA CRITICAL OF HACKITT REVIEW FINAL REPORT

    High rise residential review dismissed as “major missed opportunity”

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DEATHS: THE ‘BIG THREE’

    HSE in-year fatalities for 2017/18 may indicate upward trend

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th May 2018

    SCAFFOLDING SITE ACCIDENTS AT RECORD LOW

    NASC Annual Report reveals all time low in 2017 incidents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    DUMPER TRUCK HAND-BRAKE NOT MAINTAINED

    Workman injured when pinned against stack of concrete blocks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    SPARE POWER INTERLOCK KEY CAUSED DEATH

    Dangerous machinery safety precautions defeated for maintenance tasks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th May 2018

    COLLAPSED CAR PARK WAS UNDER REPAIR

    Rusted steel supports triggered collapse of fascia and floor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    DUMPER OVERTURN CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Precautions during spoil heap creation were inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    HARDWOOD DUST CONTROL NOT MAINTAINED

    Manufacturer failed to examine and test local extraction system

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    SCAFFOLD CONTRACTOR OVERLOOKED MAJOR HAZARD

    Well-known risk unidentified during scaffold erection project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    THREE FIRMS FINED £1/2M FOR FRAGILE RISK FAILURES

    Fall through rooflight hazard poorly planned and managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd May 2018
    Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data