• Two members of the public suffered serious injuries when a scaffold tower toppled onto Putney high street.
• HSE found the tower had been assembled incorrectly and covered with sheeting which acted ‘as a sail’ in windy conditions
• Company had previously been served a prohibition notice for unsafe scaffolding at another site

A London construction company and its sole director have been fined after a tower scaffold fell onto two members of the public on a busy high street in south-west London.

On 19 July 2023, operatives working for Add Prop Limited assembled a mobile tower scaffold on Putney High Street while under the supervision of the company’s sole director, Atif Riaz. The scaffold tower, which had been assembled incorrectly with inadequate measures to separate it from members of the public, was subsequently covered in sheeting.

The sheeting acted as a sail in windy conditions, causing the tower scaffold to overturn. The structure struck and trapped two members of the public, resulting in serious injuries.

Add Prop Limited was acting as principal contractor on a project to convert a commercial building into residential flats. Mr Riaz was both the project manager and site supervisor and was present overseeing the work on the day of the incident.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Add Prop Limited had failed to ensure the temporary structure was designed, installed and maintained so that it could withstand foreseeable loads, including those created by wind acting on the sheeting. The company had previously been served with a Prohibition Notice in relation to unsafe work involving a tower scaffold at another site.

The investigation also found that the tower scaffold had neither been assembled nor inspected by adequately trained and competent persons. It had not been erected in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions or established industry guidance.

HSE further found that Atif Riaz had been negligent in his role as both sole director and project manager. Despite the well-known risks associated with wind loading on scaffold structures, neither the company nor Mr Riaz took adequate account of those risks before deciding to sheet the scaffold.

HSE guidance states that tower scaffolds must be erected by trained and competent persons and in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Dutyholders must also ensure temporary structures are stable and capable of withstanding foreseeable environmental conditions, including wind loading. Further guidance can be found at: Tower scaffolds – HSE.

Following a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Add Prop Limited was found guilty of breaching Regulation 19(2)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £7,000 in costs.

Atif Riaz, the company’s sole director, was found guilty of an offence under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was fined £1,730 and ordered to pay £1,730 in costs.

HSE Inspector Daniel Burton said:

“The public have a right to expect scaffolding they pass by is safe and has been properly installed – yet every year people are injured when scaffold towers overturn.

“In this case, two members of the public suffered serious injuries when a scaffold tower overturned on a busy high street. The risks associated with scaffold towers and wind loading are well known within the construction industry – this kind of incident simply should not happen.

“The fines imposed on Add Prop Limited and Atif Riaz should underline to everyone in the construction industry that the courts, and HSE, take failures to follow health and safety requirements extremely seriously.

“HSE will not hesitate to take action against companies and, where appropriate, directors who fail to do all that they should to keep workers and members of the public safe.”

The HSE prosecution was brought by enforcement lawyer Gemma Zakrzewski and paralegal officer Melissa Wardle.

Further information:

1. 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.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here Tower scaffolds – HSE.
5. 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.

• Antonio Rodrigues, 55, fell from a scaffold platform through an unglazed window
• Lima Construction Limited was principal contactor at a redevelopment site in south west London
• Falls from height remain leading cause of workplace injury and death

A construction company has been fined after one of its employees was killed when he fell through an unglazed window opening.

Antonio Rodrigues, 55, had been working for Lima Construction Limited, the principal contractor on a project to redevelop a former department store on the High Street in New Malden, into a mixture of commercial and residential units.

On 27 July 2022, Mr Rodrigues, who was working as a labourer on the site, fell from an external scaffolding platform through an unglazed window void, landing on an internal concrete ground floor more than three metres below.  Although he was taken to hospital Mr Rodrigues died from his injuries several days later on 1 August.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that in one wall, window voids had been created to install glazed ‘Juliet’ doors. However, when the doors were delivered it was found some had damaged glazing panels so were not installed. Although the company recognised that the four unglazed window voids created a risk to workers on the scaffolding platform – falling from height through the voids – it was only in the hours after Mr Rodrigues fell that protective boarding was installed.

The HSE investigation identified it was reasonably practicable for boarding or additional inside scaffolding guard rails to have been installed over the window voids to prevent falls from height as soon as they had been created.

The company had also not ensured that legally required weekly scaffolding inspections had been carried out after 5 July 2022, so the opportunity for identification of the risks posed by the unglazed window voids by a competent scaffolding inspector was lost.

Lima Construction Limited, of Apsley Road, New Malden, pleaded guilty to contravening Regulation 13(1) of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. It was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,347 at Westminster Magistrates Court on 18 June 2026.

HSE inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers said: 

“This is a case where a company who generally tried to have good standards of health and safety, failed to react effectively to an unusual situation and there were tragic consequences.

“Falls from height are one of the leading causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries in the UK.  Employers and those in control of any work at height activity should ensure a sensible, pragmatic approach when considering precautions for work at height.

“As there was no CCTV and nobody witnessed the incident, we will never know exactly what caused Mr Rodrigues to fall. But if the boards added shortly afterwards had been in place, then there would have been no opening for him to fall through in the first place.”

The HSE’s investigation was carried out by HM inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers, and the prosecution was brought by HSE lawyers Iain Jordan and Tom Ledden-Rocks, and paralegal Anushka Lulith.

Further information:

1. 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.

1. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.

1. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.

1. Guidance on working at height is available at Working at height – HSE and further guidance on construction can be found at Get started – HSE.

1. 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 England and Wales can be found here.

• Roofer risked lives of those working for him.
• He ignored HSE prohibition notice.
• Verbally abused inspector and failed to show at court.

A Cornish roofer has been sentenced after failing to comply with requests for information from an inspector for Britain’s workplace regulator.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) received a concern after workers had been observed carrying out roof replacement work without any scaffolding being in place. The regulator identified unsafe work on a domestic roof being worked on by Steven Hendry, 40, from Liskeard, leading HSE inspector, Hatti Shipp, to serve a prohibition notice against him.

As a result, further information was requested from Hendry, however, he failed to comply with the request, which was made under Section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. HSE guidance states that individuals and companies must co-operate with inspections and investigations.

Hendry, trading as Apex Roofing & Property Services at the time, was verbally abusive towards the inspector. As well as ignoring the request for further information, he went on to do further work without scaffolding, completely ignoring the prohibition notice. He then chose not to attend court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

HSE defines work-related violence as ‘any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work’. This can include verbal abuse or threats, including face to face, online and via telephone and physical attacks. It can include violence from members of the public, customers, clients, patients, service users and students towards a person at work.

Steven Hendry, t/a Apex Roofing & Property Services of Marthus Court, Liskeard, pleaded guilty to section 20(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £400 and ordered to pay costs of £3,852 at Plymouth Magistrates Court on 25 November 2025. The court also approved an application made by HSE under s.42 of HSWA for Hendry to provide the information requested by them under section 20. He has until 1 March 2026 in which to do this.

HSE Inspector, Hatti Shipp, said: “Part of our role to prevent further risk of injury is to follow-up with companies or individuals who work unsafely, ensuring they are held accountable for improving conditions for workers and demonstrating to the HSE that they have done so.

“In this case, the defendant made it impossible for us to conduct this work and confirm the safety of those he was paying to undertake roof work.

“Not only did Hendry demonstrate a flagrant disregard to HSE and its powers, he was also verbally abusive to me in the process.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Daniel Pool and paralegal officer Gabrielle O’Sullivan.

Further information:

1. 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.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Working at height remains one of the leading causes of workplace injury and death in the UK, with 35 people losing their lives in 2024/25. Guidance on working safely at height is available.
5. Relevant guidance on workplace violence and aggression is available.
6. 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.