H&S consultant fined £1,400 for providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified.

Self-employed consultant Clive Weal was fined £1,400 for  providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified to advise his clients.

The circumstances were:

• Mr Weal provided inadequate and flawed advice to small and medium sized enterprises on the management and control of risk in relation to hand arm vibration, work place noise and the control of substances hazardous to health.
• Weal incorrectly identified risk from exposure to hand arm vibration as ‘low’.
• As a result, he advised the use of ‘anti vibration gloves’ as an appropriate control measure. 
• He also failed to identify that paints containing isocyanates can cause asthma. 
• The poor and incompetent advice resulted in a lack of remedial action being implemented to prevent employees being exposed to levels of noise, hand arm vibration and chemical substances that may have a damaging impact on their health.

The HSE specialist inspector said:
“Employers are more likely to use external consultants to provide assistance in complex situations where a higher level of competence is required.

How consultants achieve competence is up to them, however they will have to be able to satisfy employers that they have a sufficient level of competence for the job in hand.

Being a member of a relevant professional body, which sets competence standards for its members and operates continuing professional development schemes is one way of helping; as is presenting evidence of relevant experience such as references from previous clients; or obtaining qualifications.

Where health and safety consultants are found to be in breach of legislation, HSE will hold persons to account for their failings.

Spartan Promenade Tiles Limited fined £10,000 after employee was caught in in-running nip

Cochester-based tile manufacturing company, Spartan Promenade Tiles Limited, was fined £10,000 + costs after a worker was drawn into the in-running nip.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on the tail drum of a conveyor.
• On 18 February 2019, an employee was removing sand from the inside of a conveyor belt in an attempt to fix the machine. 
• The company failed to suitably assess the risks, implement a safe system of work, and control the risks. 
• Employees were not trained in the use of isolation or lock off procedures for the machinery on site.
• Employees were not made aware that such procedures existed.
• There were no arrangements for the supervision or monitoring of employees to ensure they were correctly isolating and locking off machinery before completing maintenance tasks. 
• There was no functioning emergency stop in the vicinity of the conveyor tail drum. 
• The guard on the conveyor tail drum had been removed.
• The machine had not been isolated or even switched off.
• The employee’s left glove became caught in the in-running nip of the conveyor tail drum, pulling his hand and arm into the machine. 
• The emergency stop button in the building did not work, so a colleague had to run to another building to alert the operator at the control panel to turn the machine off.
• The employee suffered three breaks to his left arm and crush injuries to his forearm.

The HSE inspector said
“This injury could have been easily prevented and the risks should have been identified. Employers need to properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery, and adequately train their workers to use isolation and lock off procedures if they carry out maintenance work.”