Strategic Safety Systems Ltd. - Low risk

At Strategic Safety Systems Ltd., we often get mistaken for companies with a similar name.
This has been beneficial as people have struggled to contact these companies and, being easy to contact, we've picked up their business.

Please note that 3 of these companies have financial warnings on Experian Business Express Alerts.  These are:

• Specialist Safety Solutions - Risk score = 8, Maximum risk.
• Strategic Safety Solutions - Risk score = 0, Serious adverse information
• Strategic Safety Services - Risk score = 20, High risk

At Strategic Safety Systems Ltd., our risk score is 86, Low risk.

Don't get us mixed up with the others. We're going to be around for a long time.
.

Waste company fined £120,000 after accident on moving conveyor belt

Waste and recycling company F&R Cawley Limited was fined £120,763 (inc. costs) after a worker suffered serious fractures when his arm was dragged into the rollers of a moving conveyor belt. 

The circumstances were:

• The company’s procedures for lock-off/isolation and clearing blockages were inadequate. 
• A previous inspection by HSE in 2012 requested the company to review their blockage processes after it was observed they were not following safe procedures. The potential for a breakdown in communication between the blockage team and the person in the control room was also discussed. 
• The company provided a new documented procedure but the court heard it fell into disuse within weeks. 
• The computer system in the control room had not been working properly for some time and walkie-talkie radios were faulty.
• Blockage team members were inadequately supervised and trained. In addition the injured worker was not suitably trained to work as a mechanic.
• On 28 February 2014, the 32-year-old employee was asked to clear a blockage on a material recycling facility machine (MRF). 
• The control room operator turned off the power to the machine but the company’s lock-off and isolation procedure had not been followed on site for some time. 
• As attempted to remove a bit of waste from the rollers the power was turned back on by the control room operator and his arm was pulled into the rollers. 
• He sustained serious fractures and required three metal plates in his left arm which he is still unable to use. He will need further operations involving transplanting bone from his hip – with no guarantee of success, it is unlikely he will be able to do manual work again. 
• The judge was satisfied that HSE’s 2012 intervention constituted a “warning that was ignored” and that if they had followed their own procedure, the chance of this accident happening was remote. 

The HSE Inspector said: 

“This worker has been left unable to work following an incident that could easily have been avoided if the company had ensured their staff were properly trained and supervised. This man used to enjoy cycling with his two children but now can’t do this or any other active play with them”. 

Dundee company fined after worker died from inhaling paint stripper fumes

Diamond Wheels (Dundee) Limited, of Nethergate, Dundee, was fined £50,000 after a worker died after inhaling fumes while cleaning a chemical stripping paint tank at a motor vehicle repair company. 

The circumstances were:

• Steven Conway, 33, from Dundee, was employed by Diamond Wheels (Dundee) Limited to undertake general duties 
• These duties included collections and deliveries, removing and replacing tyres, and moving alloy wheels into, and out of, the chemical stripping tank.
• Mr Conway was provided with no formal training in respect of the use of the chemical stripping tank and the chemical stripping agent used by the company. 
• Instead he was given ‘on the job’ training. 
• On 18 August 2011, he was attempting to remove stripping debris from within the chemical stripping tank.
• He was overcome by dichloromethane vapour while and died as a result of his exposure to those vapours. 

Lorry driver hit by pallet falling from a forklift truck

Logistics company CWT Commodities (UK) Limited, of Tilbury Docks was fined £26,639 (inc. costs)  after a lorry driver was injured when he was hit by a pallet that fell from a fork lift truck. 

The circumstances were:

• Although a risk assessment for unloading vehicles using forklift trucks had been undertaken, it did not specifically detail a risk to visiting drivers. 
• It did indicate that the driver should return to his cab, or to stand a ‘safe distance’ away from the operation.
• However, it was common for visiting lorry drivers to stand next to their cabs or in the vicinity of the forklift truck, so the outcome action of the risk assessment was not robustly or consistently implemented.
• On 19 December 2014 Darren Andrews, a 49-year-old employee of a transport services firm was making a delivery to CWT in a lorry. 
• The delivery consisted of a shrink-wrapped pallet of a number of boxes containing castor wheels sitting on top of a wooden case
• A CWT forklift driver was offloading the delivery from the lorry’s trailer. 
• Having reversed clear of the trailer, the pallet fell to the side of the forklift truck, striking the Mr Andrews as he was standing to the side of the cab watching the operation. 
• Mr Andrews suffered significant, life threatening injuries as a result of the impact and was airlifted to Royal London Hospital where he stayed for three weeks. 
• He was transferred again to a Bristol hospital for a further week. The incident has had profound and long-term effects on him and he will be unable to return to work as a HGV driver. 

HSE "complex case" prosecutions double for year ended April 2015

The number of prosecutions brought by the unit within the HSE responsible for complex cases in England and Wales has more than doubled in the last three years. The unit brought 52 prosecutions in the year to April 2015, up from 24 three years previously.

Fines between £100,000 and £500,000 are becoming increasingly common in cases where the breach causes a fatality, although larger companies can expect to pay more than £1 million. Company directors or secretaries, managers or other similar officers, found guilty of "consent or connivance" in relation to a breach, or if the breach is attributable to their  neglect, face unlimited fines and prison sentences of up to two years.

See more

Lodematic fined £42,000 after worker was blinded in one eye by a flailing hydraulic hose

Lodematic Components Ltd, a Clitheroe hydraulic cylinder manufacturer, was fined £42,835  after an employee was badly injured when he was struck in the face during a test procedure.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred when pressure testing a hydraulic cylinder.
• The test zone was not segregated or safeguarded. 
• The test equipment was not maintained and suitable for the task. 
• Lodematic Components had also failed to carry out a risk assessment.
• On 23 January 2014 a worker was helping pressure test a cylinder.
• The hose connector to the cylinder catastrophically failed and he was struck in the face by a pressurised hose. 
• The worker suffered a broken jaw multiple facial lacerations and total blindness in his right eye.

The HSE inspector said:“Lodematic (Components) Limited failed to assess the risks or provide a safe system of work for pressure testing hydraulic cylinders. The test was carried out without segregating or safeguarding the test zone, and the test connectors were not subject to maintenance or inspection. If these measures had been in place at the time of the incident then the employee’s life changing injuries could have been avoided.”

Worker loses 2 fingers in circular saw

Countrywide Farmers PLC, a national company specialising in products and services to rural communities was fined £35,157 (inc. costs) after a worker was injured in a woodworking machinery incident.

The circumstances were:

• On 3 September 2014, a worker’s hand came into contact with the blade of a rotating circular saw.
• As a result, he lost 2 fingers on his left hand.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident and the disfiguring injury that it caused resulted from basic failings in the appreciation and control of a well-known hazardous operation. Necessary guidance and physical means to carry out the work safely were both readily and cheaply available, and the firm should have provided both. Had the person in control been well informed and provided with competent supporting advice, this incident would not have happened.”