Construction News

Fri March 05 2021

Related Information

Roofing firm fined for safety breaches

28 Apr 14 A Lancashire roofing firm and its managing director have been fined after they allowed workers onto a house roof without safety measures in place.

No fall protection in evidence
No fall protection in evidence

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) was alerted to the dangerous work at a semi-detached house by a member of the public on 6th June 2013, who took a photo showing a man standing halfway down the sloping roof using a jet washer to clear moss and other debris.

An HSE inspector visited the site the same day and issued a prohibition notice ordering the workers from IQ Roofing Solutions to come down until scaffolding or other safety improvements had been implemented.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that managing director Stuart Bell had visited the site on the morning the work was due to start, and so knew it would be carried out without scaffolding around the edge of the roof.

The company also failed to provide proof that it held Employers’ Liability Insurance – a requirement under UK law – which allows workers to claim compensation if they suffer a workplace injury.

The court was told that the company had previously been served with a prohibition notice in 2011 relating to unsafe roof work and so was well aware of the dangers.

Related Information

IQ Roofing Solutions pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and one breach of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. The company, of Nelson Street in Tyldesley, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 towards the cost of the prosecution on 24 April 2014.

Stuart Bell, of the same address, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1,619 after admitting two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

HSE inspector Laura Moran said after the hearing: “Both IQ Roofing Solutions and Stuart Bell put workers’ lives in danger by allowing them onto a slippery roof without safety measures in place. This meant that workers could have been badly injured if they had slipped and fallen to the ground below. If workers had been injured then they may not have been able to claim compensation as the firm also failed to provide us with any proof that it had Employers’ Liability Insurance.”

Got a story? Email news@theconstructionindex.co.uk

MPU
MPU

Click here to view more construction news »