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

    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

    BRICKLAYER FATALLY INJURED BY FALLING WALL

    Masonry collapsed during concrete back filling operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th March 2019

    BASIC LADDER SAFETY FAILURES FINED £150,000

    Repair and maintenance firm had no excuse for errors causing injury

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th March 2019

    HSE ENFORCEMENT DATABASE UPDATE 13th MARCH 2019

    hselogo1Latest online register of prosecutions and enforcement notices

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th March 2019

    HSE ISSUES REMINDER ON SAFE SCAFFOLD DESIGN

    Recent incidents and high winds prompt warning from regulator

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th March 2019

    LORRY DRIVER DIED IN OVERHEAD POWER STRIKE

    Major company failed to communicate precautions to grab arm operator

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th March 2019

    ASSESSMENT SHOWED RISK – PRECAUTIONS NOT TAKEN

    Workman seriously injured when falling into open unguarded stairwell

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st March 2019

    MAJOR FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT SAFE SYSTEM

    Procedures for safe plant refuelling failed to prevent death of workman

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 26th February 2019

    CLIENT PROSECUTED OVER CONTRACTOR FATAL FALL

    Company breached duty to protect contractors as well as employees

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 26th February 2019

    FOURTEEN YEAR FAILURE TO MANAGE ASBESTOS

    Firm failed to implement asbestos management plan following survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 25th February 2019

    CHILD INJURED BY WALL COLLAPSE INCIDENT

    Council failed to carry out “intelligence led” condition inspections

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th February 2019

    BOTTLE JACK SUPPORT FAILED TO PREVENT DEATH

    Director sentenced alongside company over death of engineer

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th February 2019

    TEMPORARY WORKS FAILURES CAUSED FATAL FALL

    Platform not designed and system for installation and inspection inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th February 2019

    SOLVENT IGNITED DURING FLOOR CLEANING WORKS

    Flammable solvent fire fought with water spreading fire further

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th February 2019

    INEVITABLE COLLAPSE OF SCAFFOLD ON TO SCHOOL

    Scaffold not designed or installed to withstand foreseeable loads

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th February 2019

    OIL DRUM EXPLODED DURING HOT CUTTING WORK

    Firm fined £400k after drum lid ejected causing loss of leg

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th February 2019

    ROOFLIGHT FALL ON NUCLEAR POWER SITE

    Energy generating company and maintenance contractor fined

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th February 2019

    DIRECTOR PROSECUTED AFTER 6METRE ROOF FALL

    Untrained worker fell through rooflight in fragile asbestos roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th February 2019

    HSE ALERT: MILD STEEL WELDING CANCER RISK

    HSE announces enforcement action change based on new cancer evidence

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th February 2019

    LORRY MOUNTED LIFTING OPERATION PROVED FATAL

    Steel staircase toppled from vehicle after sling snagged

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th February 2019

    DIRECTOR AND BUSINESS IN COURT OVER DEATH

    Scaffold not priced for on domestic roof-line refurbishment work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th February 2019

    FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT HAZARD PROTECTION MISSING

    Two businesses prosecuted after a worker fell through a fragile rooflight

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th February 2019

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

    CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th February 2019

    FINGERS CRUSHED BY METAL FOLDING MACHINE

    Steel cladding firm fined £600k over failure guard access to danger

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th February 2019

    ASBESTOS ILLEGALLY REMOVED AFTER SURVEY

    Surveyor pricing asbestos work found contractor jumped the gun

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th February 2019

    SITE DUMPER PRECAUTIONS FAILED TO PREVENT DEATH

    Contractor fined £600k for poor management of vehicle/people interface

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th February 2019
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic