Marina fined after worker injured during boat lift
A marina based in the Norfolk Broads has been fined after a man was injured during a boat lift at the site.
The incident happened at St Olaves Marina Limited on 17 May 2023, which resulted in the amputation of the man’s finger.
The man, who was employed by Northern Divers (Engineering) Limited, was injured while assisting with a work boat being lifted by a telehandler operated by St Olaves Marina staff. As the boat was being raised, the man’s hand was crushed by the telehandler forks which resulted in the fourth finger on his right hand being amputated.
The worker’s hands were crushed under the forks of this telehandler
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) determined that St Olaves Marina Limited had failed to implement suitable measures to control the risks involved in lifting operations and that staff had not received appropriate training for such tasks.
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that employers must take effective measures to safeguard their employees and persons not employed by them from the risks created by their work activities.
St Olaves Marina Limited, of Beccles Road, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The company was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £5,700 in costs at Norwich Magistrates Court on the 3 October 2025.
HSE inspector Christopher Booker said: “Every year, a significant proportion of accidents, many of them serious and sometimes fatal, occur as a result of poorly planned and managed work activities.
“In this case, a wholly avoidable incident was caused by the failure to conduct and carry out a simple lift plan. Had the company suitably planned the lifting of the boat, this life-changing injury would not have occurred.”
This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Karen Park and paralegal Melissa Wardle.
Further information:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Global glass bottle maker fined £600k after worker injured
Man suffered burns after molten glass was spilled.
Protective door missing from shovel loader for two years.
HSE guidance is available:
A global glass bottle manufacturer has been fined £600,000 after a worker was burnt by molten glass and hot water spilling into his cab.
O-I Glass Limited pleaded guilty to one charge following the incident at its Glasshouse Loan site in Alloa on 3 February 2024.
A 32-year-old man suffered scald burns to 8 percent of his body but has since been able to make a full recovery.
The basement of the site and the skips being used to collect waste product
The company, which employs around 500 people at the site, continually operates furnaces that are used to smelt raw materials, from which glass bottles are manufactured. The furnaces and production lines are located on the floor above two glass reject basements, which house a number of large, moveable skips. It is into these skips that molten or formed glass is rejected, via chutes, during the production process. Coolant water runs down each chute with the rejected molten or formed glass, which in turn generates very hot water and large amounts of steam.
Due to the continuous nature of the operation, the skips would quickly fill and sometimes reject material and water would spill from the skips onto the basement floors. Employees working in these basements used shovel loaders to clear this spilled material from the floors, which was then emptied into other skips.
On the day in question, the worker had been operating a shovel loader, clearing the waste molten glass and hot water from the basement floor. However, there was no protective door on the cab of the vehicle, so some of that material spilled from the bucket onto him.
The shovel loader with missing protective door
When it was first provided for use, the loader was fitted with a protective door incorporating a glass window, in front of the cab. However, an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) established that the protective door had been missing since March 2022. It had been removed from the vehicle after being damaged, and although this was reported to the site engineer at the time, no action was taken to replace it. In the almost two years that went by, other operatives had reported being struck or having footwear burnt by molten glass falling into the cab.
HSE guidance, specifically the publication “A guide to workplace transport safety – HSE (HSG136) paragraph 219 & 220: states that ‘vehicles should be fitted with additional protection for those working ….in an inhospitable working environment…. where there is a risk of being struck by falling objects, the vehicle should be fitted with a falling-object protective structure (FOPS)’ and Safe use of work equipment – HSE (Approved Code of Practice to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER))
Following the incident, the company removed the vehicle from service, and it didn’t return until June 2024, after being fitted with a steel front door, incorporating a glass window with protective wire mesh.
O-I Glass Limited, of Edinburgh Way, Harlow, Essex, pleaded guilty to Regulation 5 (1) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and section 33(1) of Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to maintain the vehicle in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. The company was fined £600,000 at Stirling Sheriff Court on 23 September 2025.
HSE inspector Kathy Gostick said: “This was an avoidable ordeal for a young worker. It is sheer luck he has been able to recover from his serious injuries.
“This company’s employees worked in this environment with a safety critical part of the loader missing for a period of almost two years.
“Although the protective front door had been removed and reported to the on-site engineer, drivers had continued to work and operate the loader with it missing.
“Some operatives even described being struck or having footwear burnt by molten glass falling into the cab as a result.
“When work equipment is being selected, its suitability for the environment it is going to be used in must be risk assessed. In this case the protective door was not suitable to protect against impacts from hot and molten glass and therefore was often broken and in the end never replaced. Had an appropriate door been selected and maintained in place this accident would not have occurred.”
Notes to Editors
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences in Scotland can be found here.
Builder sentenced after house collapse injures three workers
Three workers injured due to failures.
Homeowner left with £200k bill to rebuild home.
HSE guidance on structural works available.
A builder has been given a suspended prison sentence after a roof collapse destroyed a home and injured three workers in Windsor.
Jack Savva, 70, was given a 13-month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, following the incident on 6 August 2020. Savva, of Wraysbury in Surrey, was carrying out a loft conversion on the property in Springfield Road, when the gable wall fell into the building after the roof was removed.
The devastation following the collapse
Two days before the incident, Savva had informed the home owner about work that was required on the chimney breast. He had told them it was incomplete as it had previously been removed from the first floor bathroom and would need to be propped. However, on the day itself, he instructed his workers to remove key supporting timbers and steels, resulting in the collapse of the brick gable wall which struck the workers and destroyed the first floor of the home, which was occupied at the time.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Savva had failed to ensure the structure did not collapse while it was in a state of temporary weakness. He had not taken steps to address the unsupported chimney breast before dismantling the roof, which caused the brick gable to collapse into the work area. He also failed to take all practicable steps to prevent danger to any person while the building was in a temporary state of weakness.
The homeowner was left with a £200k bill to rebuild their home
One of the injured workers said: “I still suffer from nightmares of the day of the accident.
“I haven’t slept more than two hours a night over the last four years.”
HSE guidance about managing structural stability during alteration or dismantling advises about temporary bracing and propping being required – particularly if it is known or suspected of being weak. You can read more here: Structural stability during alteration, demolition and dismantling – HSE.
Jack Savva, of Friary Road, Wraysbury, Surrey, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 19(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. He was given a 13-month custodial sentence, suspended for two years and was ordered to pay £2,000 compensation to the home owner, at a hearing before Reading Crown Court on 17 September 2025.
Three workers were injured in the collapse
HSE inspector Dominic Goacher said: “Although three men were seriously injured, it was lucky nobody was killed. In addition, the householder faced a bill of £200k to rebuild their house due to Jack Savva’s public liability insurance being invalid.
“This was a completely avoidable incident had he acted on his findings regarding the unsupported chimney breast and taken steps to support the gable wall before removing the roof components.
“Jack Savva should have taken precautions to protect people from the risk of collapse.”
This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Alan Hughes and supported by HSE Paralegal Officer Melissa Wardle.
Further information:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Sign fitting company and director fined after fatal fall from scaffolding
Mr Iftikhar Ahmed Mughal, 64, died four days after falling from unguarded platform.
Fall of just six feet proved fatal due to serious head injuries.
Inspector highlights work at height as leading cause of workplace deaths.
HSE guidance on tower scaffold protection readily available.
A shop sign making and fitting company and its director have been fined after an employee fell from an unguarded scaffolding tower and later died from his injuries.
Mr Mughal, 64, was working for WH Metals Limited installing a metal sign to the front of the shop in Darwen, Lancashire on 22 November 2022. He was standing on the platform of a scaffolding tower without any edge protection in place, when he fell to the pavement below.
Although the height he fell from was only six feet, it was enough for him to suffer serious head injuries which resulted in him being taken to hospital by ambulance. Sadly, he died from his injuries four days later.
The scaffolding tower without edge protection
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that WH Metals Limited and its director, who was on site at the time of the incident, failed to prevent the risk of a fall from a distance liable to cause personal injury.
HSE guidance on working at height is available on the HSE website: Work at height – HSE. The preferred method of fall prevention on tower scaffolds is the fitting of suitable guardrails around the platform. This is a well-known and long-established control measure. If this had been in place at the time of the incident, it is highly unlikely that the worker in this case would have died.
Mr Asad Iftikar, Mr Mughal’s son, said: “My father was like a roof to the family, and since his death, I and my siblings have felt alone. He always supported us in everything we did; he would help us make all the important decisions in our lives.”
WH Metals Limited of Navigation Way, Preston, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £45,000. At Bolton Magistrates Court on 23 September 2025, the company was also ordered to pay costs of £4,826.
Mr Waqas Hanif, the company’s director, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was given a 26-week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay costs of £4,846.
HSE inspector David Hobbs said: “Work at height remains one of the leading causes of workplace injury and death. In this case, a fall of six feet was enough to cause a death, highlighting the dangers.
“This incident highlights the importance of suitable control measures, such as edge protection, to minimise the risk of serious personal injury.”
This HSE Prosecution was brought by enforcement lawyer Samantha Wells and paralegal officer Rebecca Withell.
Further information
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
HSE launches workplace safety inspections for motor vehicle repair
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has launched 1,000 targeted inspections of motor vehicle repair businesses across Great Britain to tackle occupational asthma. Many skilled vehicle paint sprayers develop this life-changing and debilitating disease each year, forcing them to leave their profession permanently.
This inspection campaign will focus on workplaces that use isocyanate-containing paints and coatings – the leading cause of occupational asthma in the UK. Once asthma develops, even small amounts of isocyanate exposure can trigger severe attacks, making continued work in the industry impossible for affected workers.
Legal requirements under COSHH
The inspections will assess compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. Under COSHH, employers must prevent or control worker exposure to isocyanates using effective control measures and safe working procedures. They must also verify these measures are working by arranging regular health surveillance and biological monitoring. Both are legally required for workers exposed to isocyanates.
Health surveillance is required when there is risk of inhalation exposure and skin contact during paint spraying activities. COSHH also requires that exposure is monitored using a suitable procedure. Biological monitoring (urine testing) is the most practicable and cost-effective method to assess exposure levels and ensure control measures are effective.
Protecting workers through health checks and testing
Health surveillance involves regular medical screening by competent occupational health professionals to detect early signs of health conditions like occupational asthma or dermatitis.
Biological monitoring involves laboratory analysis of samples taken from workers to detect chemical isocyanate exposure before health problems develop. This provides an early warning for employers to investigate and correct control failures. HSE recommends urine testing as the most practical and cost-effective method for measuring isocyanate exposure.
Kate Jones, HSE’s biological monitoring team lead, said: “Biological monitoring, a simple urine test, is a quick and cost-effective way to check that control measures are working and being used properly, giving sprayers, dutyholders and HSE confidence that spraying is being done safely.”
Isocyanate-containing materials, commonly known as two-pack (2k) paints, coatings and lacquers, are widely used for their durability and finish quality. However, when sprayed, these paints release invisible mist that spreads rapidly and can reach dangerous levels within minutes.
Three essential protection measures
Businesses must implement three critical safety measures during spray painting operations:
Proper spray booth ventilation – Maintain spray booths or rooms with adequate extraction systems that create negative pressure. This prevents paint vapours escaping into workshop areas and contaminating the wider workplace.
Correct respiratory protection equipment – Workers must use air-fed breathing apparatus certified to the appropriate standard. Filtering respirators do not provide enough protection against paint mist and vapours during spray operations. Breathing apparatus should ideally be full-visor type, but half-mask type with appropriate eye protection is acceptable with more frequent biological monitoring.
Safe clearance procedures – Display measurable clearance times clearly for all workers to see. Workers must not remove respiratory protection until they are safely outside the spray area, or the required clearance time has fully elapsed.
Consequences of non-compliance
Businesses found to be breaching the COSHH Regulations may face improvement notices, prohibition notices, or prosecution leading to unlimited fines.
Motor vehicle repair businesses can access comprehensive information and materials through HSE’s campaign pages to ensure compliance and protect their skilled workforce from preventable occupational disease.
Building firm fined after employee killed by collapsing wall in Bath
Gary Anstey, 57, had just become a grandad
Inspector slams lack of planning that is “all too common”
HSE guidance on temporary structures is available
A building company has been fined after an employee was crushed to death when a 1.8m high retaining wall collapsed onto him.
Gary Anstey, 57, from Bristol, was working for H. Mealing & Sons Limited at a construction site at a school in Bath when the incident happened on 19 March 2019.
Gary James Anstey
An investigation by the Health Safety Executive (HSE) found that H. Mealing & Sons Limited failed to properly plan and supervise the construction of the retaining wall at Swainswick School. This led to it becoming unstable when a large load of aggregate was placed against the incomplete wall which was not supported.
Collapsed wall
HSE guidance Temporary Works – HSE requires that any temporary structure must be designed and installed to withstand any loads placed against it and that it is used in accordance with its design. This includes ensuring appropriately trained operatives are provided with a suitable written design and plan to install to ensure the structure remains stable.
Aggregate at the construction site in Bath
In a victim personal statement, Gary’s wife Anne Anstey, said: “Gary’s workplace should have been a safe place to work – he should have come home as he always did – and now he hasn’t been here to celebrate all the family milestones and that is something that we as a family have to live with.”
She added: “Gary was 57 years old when he died. He was always full of life and he had recently become a grandad for the first time. He has missed Scarlett grow up into a funny loving girl and missed out on the celebration of Scott and his wife buying their first house, all the children starting school and many other milestones in our lives.”
Mealing & Sons Limited of Northend, Batheaston, Bath pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £56,775 and ordered to pay £44,000 in costs at Taunton Magistrates’ Court on 11 September 2025.
HSE inspector Ian Whittles said: “This was a horrific incident which had heartbreaking consequences.
“It happened because of a lack of planning and coordination, which is all too common in construction activity. With simple clear procedures and appropriate training this incident would not have happened.”
Contributions to this statement were made by Gary’s wife, Anne along with their two sons Shaun and Scott.
Further information
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Construction company fined after child injured by falling cast iron soil pipe
A construction company and its director have been fined after being found guilty of safety breaches that resulted in a five-year-old child being injured by a falling cast iron pipe.
Sage Homes Limited and its director were convicted on Monday 4 August 2025, at Southampton Crown Court, for failing to properly assess a foreseeable risk.
The incident occurred on 20 July 2021, during building work on an extension to a house in Totton – a few seconds’ walk from a local primary school. A cast iron pipe fell onto a passing child striking him on the head and fracturing his skull.
The base of the pipe had been broken away by the builder some days before to allow him to excavate into the concrete floor. When a TV cable was freed from the pipe, the top two sections of pipe, weighing over 45kg, fell across the pavement. The cast iron pipe was estimated to date from the 1930s, and both the pipe and the fixings were corroded.
The cast iron soil pipe
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Sage Homes Limited and its director, Jason Scorey, had failed to properly assess what was a foreseeable risk. In giving evidence, Mr Scorey insisted that he could see no need to secure the pipe against the wall.
On 12 September 2025, at Southampton Crown Court, Sage Homes Limited and Jason Scorey were sentenced for breaches of Section 3(1) and Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, respectively. Mr Scorey received a fine of £1,685, with 45 days’ imprisonment in default, and was ordered to pay costs of £10,436. Sage Homes Limited was fined £15,000. Both Mr Scorey and Sage Homes Limited were also ordered to pay a victim surcharge.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Alexander Ashen said: “Properly assessing risk to workers and members of the public is a vital part of any construction project.
“It would have been a simple and inexpensive task to secure the pipe once it had been broken out at its base. The fact that the construction work was being carried out yards from a school gate at the time parents were collecting their children should have prompted even more care on the part of the duty holder.
“This case should underline to everyone in the building trade that the courts, and HSE, take a failure to follow the regulations extremely seriously. HSE will not hesitate to take action against companies and their directors which do not do all that they should to keep people safe.”
This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Rebecca Schwartz and paralegal officer, Melissa Wardle.
Further information
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Company fined after worker run over by forklift truck
Qube Containers Limited, which operates on Ipswich docks, has been fined £30,000 after an employee was run over and dragged by a forklift causing serious injuries to his ankle.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) brought the prosecution following its investigation of the incident involving Harvey Addison, from Ipswich, on 11 December 2023.
Mr Addison was unloading cars from shipping containers at the company’s site in Ipswich. Working with the driver of the forklift truck to empty two small bins, filled with waste packaging, including ratchet straps and chocks, into a larger commercial waste bin.
The two tipping bins had been positioned on a pallet, which was being carried on the forks of the forklift truck.
The forklift truck involved in the incident with two bins on a pallet
HSE provides a range of guidance advice regarding lift trucks in the workplace Lift trucks – HSE.
The 21-year-old was standing on the pallet and as the forklift truck moved some of the straps fell from the full waste bins, trailing on the floor and getting caught in the wheels of the lift truck. One of these straps got caught on his foot pulling him to the ground and the forklift truck drove over his foot.
Mr Addison remained in hospital for nine days, requiring skin grafts on the outside of his left calf and behind his left thigh just above his knee. He also sustained a broken ankle.
An investigation by HSE identified that Qube Containers Limited failed to provide equipment that was safe and suitable for the task and failed to risk assess the system of work for emptying the bins – which was found to be unsafe.
In addition, the traffic routes were not organised in a safe manner, and it was clear from the work practices on site that vehicles and pedestrians circulated in close proximity.
Qube Containers Limited of Forbes Business Centre, Kempson Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £3,752 in costs at Norwich Magistrate’s Court on 12 September 2025.
HSE Inspector Adepeju Sogadgi said: “This injury could easily have been prevented. Employers introducing new processes should make sure they assess the work activity sufficiently and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk. There should be systems in place to ensure safety and the risk should have been considered and documented.”
This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Julian White and paralegal officer Hannah Snelling.
Further information
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Fine for chemical company after worker suffers burns
Worker suffered burns from a steam hose.
HSE investigation found steam hose wasn’t safe.
Company had no understanding of risks involved.
A chemical company has been fined £100,000 after one of its workers was permanently scarred from burns from a steam hose at a site in Motherwell.
A 23-year-old was burnt across his back and other areas of his body as he attempted to clean a process water tank on 23 October 2019. At the time he had been working for Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Limited at its site at Omoa Works in Newarthill for around two years.
The company operates a large rendering plant that processes animal waste and food industry waste to produce proteins, fats and oils used in the oleo chemical, fuel, and feed industries. As a result of this process, the water tank and vickery would need occasional cleaning. The process water tank is shown in the image below:
It was during a nightshift that the man had been instructed to undertake cleaning duties on the process water tank, the vickery and the walls and floors in that area. The company provided pressure washers as well as a steam hose for cleaning down difficult areas where there may be tallow or other animal residues.
The steam hose was heavy and cumbersome to manoeuvre, with the uninsulated nozzle also becoming hot.. The man and a colleague therefore took it in turns to carry out the steam hose task.
After a period of time they stopped to have a break. While his colleague then went on to carry out other duties, the 23-year-old proceeded to finish the cleaning on his own.
He did this with the aid of a small cherry picker – attaching the steam hose to its basket. After the basket had been raised to the required height, the steam hose and nozzle spun round and steam began flowing into the cherry picker basket directly at him. He quickly turned his back to prevent his face being burned, while manipulating the nozzle of the hose away from him and lowering the basket of the cherry picker, at which point he was then able to run through to one of the deluge showers to cool his burn injuries. He was taken to hospital with steam burns to several parts of his body, which have left scars to this day.
The vickery at the site
An investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the nozzle fitted to the steam hose was unsafe as it did not have a trigger or other mechanism fitted to allow the operator to start or stop the flow out of the nozzle at the point of operation. It also found that the mixing valve and set-up for supplying hot water for cleaning purposes was not maintained in an efficient working order or in good repair. Supervisors at the site were aware that the mixing valve was passing steam, however no action was taken to investigate the issue or prevent it from happening.
HSE inspectors also found the maintenance and engineering team had no sound engineering understanding of the risks involved when setting up such a washdown system and how to mitigate or control those risks. The company provided information to HSE that there were no records associated with the maintenance of the valve, hose or nozzle.
Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Limited, of Mosspark, Brasswell, Dumfries, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £100,000 at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 18 August 2025.
HSE inspector Ashley Fallis said: “Had a safe system of work been in place then this incident would not have happened.
“The lack of appropriate risk assessment, method statements, training and supervision for both the maintenance team who installed the valve, and the operators tasked with using the system, led to a situation where those involved were unaware of risks or simple control measures.
“This catalogue of failures resulted in a young man sustaining very serious burns, to which he still bears the scars to this day.
“We will not hesitate to take action against companies that fail to protect their employees.”
Further information:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.
Public consultation opens on restricting PFAS in firefighting foams
Six-month consultation seeks views on UK REACH technical dossier and proposed restrictions.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), in its role as the Agency for UK REACH, today opened a six-month public consultation to gather stakeholder views on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.
The opening of the UK REACH consultation links to the publication of the Annex 15 restriction report, which presents HSE’s scientific analysis and evidence base for potential restrictions on PFAS use in firefighting foams in Great Britain.
The consultation provides an opportunity for those who use foams from industry, and other stakeholders, such as trade associations, to comment on the proposals before the opinions are made and sent to the Defra Secretary of State, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments for a decision on whether to bring a restriction into law.
Dr Richard Daniels, HSE’s Director of Chemicals Regulation Division said: “HSE’s proposals have been developed through robust scientific methodology and where possible we have spoken with interested parties from across Great Britain. Now we are looking for more information from our stakeholders.
“We’re seeking evidence-based feedback on our analysis to ensure any future restrictions are proportionate, effective and tailored to Great Britain’s specific needs.”
This work takes forward the recommendation from our analysis in 2023 that PFAS in firefighting foams are prioritised for action ahead of other uses of PFAS, as firefighting foams are one of the largest sources of direct releases to the environment.
The consultation runs until 18 February 2026 and full details, including the restriction report and supporting documents, are available here. HSE has also published a Q&A document to help stakeholders understand the scope and limitations of the consultation.
Further information:
PFAS are persistent chemicals covering thousands of substances used across many industrial sectors
The consultation focuses solely on PFAS in firefighting foams and does not cover other PFAS uses or legacy contamination
Questions outside the scope of this specific restriction report should be directed to Defra
HSE is Great Britain’s independent regulator for workplace health and safety. HSE also has the role as the Agency for UK REACH under the UK REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulations.
