Repair to roof

1) Individuals working on roof in close

Stopped work activity until appropriate

proximity to unprotected fragile

controls have been put in place following

clear roof panel light, potential for

a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.

Immediately

individuals to fall through clear

panel resulting in a serious or

Carry out suitable and sufficient risk

major injury.

assessment by competent individuals

10 days

and implement appropriate control

actions to minimise the risk to as low as
reasonably practicable.

Carry out training on awareness on

2 months

working at height to all employees who

are expected to work at heights.
2) Area below overhead work activity

Stop roof repair activity.

Immediately

Cordon off area below.

1 day

Stop roof repair activity.

Immediately

prevent falls no edge protection

Install edge protection/toe boards to

1 week

installed to prevent object falling

prevent objects falling from height.

not cordoned off, potential for

objects to fall from height resulting
in serious injury.
3) Although barriers have been
installed around roof edge to

from height.
4) No signage to identify PPE
requirements while working in
area, this could result in individuals
entering the area without required
PPE.
5) Good access to roof by scaffolding,
access ladder secured.

Install appropriate PPE signage in entry

to work area.

1 week

Office block
6) Area in front of fire escape blocked

Remove obstruction.

Immediately

roofing contractor preventing

Carry out investigation to determine why

1 week

escape in an emergency. In an

the contractor placed skip in front of

emergency situation this could lead

emergency escape.

by waste skip placed there by

to multiple injuries or fatalities.

Introduce weekly inspections on all

4 weeks

escape routes to ensure they are clear

and free from obstructions.

7) Fire assembly point located across

Implement finding of investigations.

8 weeks

Carry out risk assessment on assembly

2 weeks

a busy road, potential for

point location, is there a more suitable

individuals to be struck by a

location that does not require

moving vehicle leading to a serious

pedestrians to cross road. If not can

or major injury.

other traffic control measures be put in

place such as reduced speed limits in
this area.

8) Fire escape route not clearly

Install up to date pictorial signage.

2 weeks

Introduce periodic emergency

4 weeks

marked could cause

evacuation drills so employees become

confusion/disorientation during an

familiar with the access routes and what

emergency.

to do in an emergency.

9) Fire extinguisher not mounted on

wall, this could result in unit falling
over and being accidentally
activated.
10) Emergency break glass units and
emergency lighting in place by the
emergency exit. - GOOD PRACTICE

Purchase correct fixing brackets and fix

to wall.

4 weeks

Workshop
11) Machine being operated with a
damaged guard that could lead to

Stop work activity and isolate machine

Immediately

until guarding is repaired or replaced.

objects being ejected from the

machine resulting in a serious or

Implement a scheduled safety tour

major injury.

focusing on machine guarding.

Implement a pre-start check programme

2 weeks

6 weeks

on all machines.
12) Coolant on workshop floor could

Clear up spill.

Immediately

Carry out a risk assessment of machine

2 weeks

lead to a potential slip resulting in

a serious injury.

and suitability of floor covering to ensure

the risk of slips is reduced as far as
reasonably practicable.

Implement controls identified in the risk

assessment such as installation of splash

6 weeks

guards to prevent spill occurring or

installation of anti-slip mats around the
machine.
13) Signage on machine not clearly

Stop use and clean machine.

Immediately

as smeared with oil and grease.

Review machine maintenance

4 weeks

This could lead to incorrect

programme to see if it is still suitable

operation of the machine which

and sufficient considering the frequency

could result in an injury.

of use and age of the machine.

visible due to wear and tear as well

Implement a pre use check for the

machines. Obtain replacement signage.
14) Operator was trained in the use of
machine. - GOOD PRACTICE

Workshop
15) Vehicles driving down centre of

Restrict vehicle movements within the

workshop with no

workshop during normal working hours,

vehicle/pedestrian segregation.

by scheduling vehicle operation during

Potential for pedestrian to be

lunch breaks or out of hours.

Immediate

struck by a vehicle resulting in a

serious or major injury.

Carry out a vehicle/pedestrian risk

1 week

assessment and put in adequate control

to minimise the risk of
vehicle/pedestrian collisions to as low as
reasonably practicable.

Provide information, training and

4 weeks

instruction of new traffic management

system.

A control to consider is to purchase and

12 weeks

install barriers and have specific signed

and marked up crossing points.
16) Although vehicles were travelling

Purchase and install speed limit signage

at slow speed there was no visible

at entrances to workshop. Typical

signage of maximum speed at the

speeds should be restricted to 5 mph,

entrance to the workshop.

should also consider the installation of

4 weeks

speed restriction devices to vehicles in

use in the workshop.
17) Vehicle parked next to machine
generating a blind spot.

Review parking requirements within the

workshop, if it is required mark out a
specific parking area for the vehicles.

18) Good use of safety/lap belts. GOOD PRACTICE

4 weeks

Workshop
19) High noise levels generated when

Put in place temporary controls, for

press in operation. Operator was

example making the wearing of hearing

wearing ear defenders, however

protection mandatory until a noise

other individuals in close proximity

survey determines otherwise.

1 day

did not have hearing protection,

which could result in noise induced

Carry out noise survey to determine

hearing loss.

individual daily exposure levels.

Carry out noise survey to determine

4 weeks

6 weeks

sources and levels of noise within the

workshop and develop an action plan to
reduce individual exposure levels.

20) A number of radios were in use

throughout the workshop

Implement noise reduction plan.

12 months

Review and risk assess the use of the

1 week

radios within the workshop.

contributing to the overall noise

levels. This could cause
communication issues and prevent
individuals hearing approaching
vehicles.
21) Space heater fan generating
excess noise.

Shut down space heater at earliest

opportunity and replace faulty
components.

22) Overall the workshop

housekeeping was in reasonable
condition. - GOOD PRACTICE

1 week

Introduction
This report covers the workplace inspection that took place on the 15 th November 2012 at the premises of
Sample Engineering. Sample Engineering have 45 employees and manufacture electrical control panels
ranging from panel mounted units to walk in panels. The areas covered by the inspection were the roof
repairs, workshops, and office areas. The activities taking place during the inspection were roofing repairs,
general machine operation and vehicle movements within the workshop.
Executive Summary
During the inspection good health and safety practices were observed, such as the wearing of safety boots
and glasses. Individuals who were approached during the inspection were open and helpful, with regards to
health and safety matters.
The inspection has raised a number of concerns with respect to Working at Height, Contractor Management,
Emergency Preparations, Machinery guarding, Vehicle and Pedestrian interaction and Noise. These concerns
could lead to potential breaches in legislation resulting in possible prosecutions to both employees and the
company.
The concerns raised are:

Two contractors were observed working on a roof near clear fragile roof panels, there was no protection
to prevent these individuals falling through the panels to ground, potentially resulting in a major or fatal
injury. There was no evidence of a suitable or sufficient risk assessment.

The office fire escape was blocked by a waste skip placed there by the roofing repair contractor. The
blocked escape would have prevented the evacuation of fifteen individuals who were working in the office
building at the time.

A machine operator was operating a machine with a damaged guard that could have resulted in objects
being ejected from the machine, potentially resulting in a serious or major injury.

There appears to be little control over vehicle/pedestrian interaction in the main workshop. On a number
of occasions pedestrians crossed the path of a fork lift truck in the main workshop.

A machine in the workshop was found to be generating high level of noise when operated. Although the
machinist was wearing ear protection, other individuals working in close proximity were not wearing
hearing protection.

Main findings of the inspection

Observation No 1 - Refer to observation sheet
Two contractors were observed working on a roof near clear fragile roof panels, access to the roof via
scaffolding was good and there was adequate edge protection.
However there was no protection to prevent these individuals falling through these panels and no safety
netting to prevent the individuals falling to the ground. Also the area below the roof activity had not been
cordoned off. Due to the distance of the potential fall, the fall would likely to have resulted in a major or
even fatal injury not only to the person that could fall through the clear panel, but also anyone who might be
directly below at the time. There was no evidence of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. The work
activity was immediately stopped due to the serious and imminent danger to the individuals involved.
The implication to the company and the contractor could be significant as both have obligations under the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 section 2 and 3. If a fall had occurred or an enforcement officer came
to inspect the activity, potential breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Management of Health
and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Work at Height Regulations 2005 would be found. The
Management Regulations require clients and contractor to coordinate work, and the Work at Height
regulations require work at height to be planned and managed safely.
It is recommended that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is carried out by competent individuals to
see if working at height could be avoided. If not, put in place suitable controls to first prevent a fall and f
this is not possible then reduce the distance and consequence of the fall by installing safety netting or
equivalent type safety devices or fall arrest equipment together with the appropriate rescue plan for the type
of fall protection selected.
Observation No 6 - Refer to observation sheet
The office fire escape was blocked by a waste skip placed there by the roofing repair contractor. The blocked
escape would have prevented the evacuation of fifteen individuals who were working in the office building at
the time, and could have resulted in multiple injuries of a serious or fatal nature. The skip blocking the
emergency exit breaches the requirements of the Regulation 8 of the Management of Health and Safety at
Work regulations which require employers to have emergency procedures in place for individuals to follow in
the event of an emergency.
Immediate corrective action was taken by removing the obstruction. A formal investigation should now be
conducted to determine the failure mechanisms in the contractor management system that resulted in the
contractor placing the skip in front of the fire escape.
It is recommended that a routine inspection should now be scheduled to ensure emergency evacuation
routes are not obstructed and set up routine fire evacuation drills so employees are well informed and
trained in what to do in the event of an emergency.
Observation No 11 - Refer to observation sheet
While inspecting the workshop area one machine being operated was found to have a damaged guard that
reduced the protection against objects being ejected from the machine potentially resulting in a serious or
major injury. There are potential multiple breaches of legislation and prosecutions when using machinery

with faulty guards, the Health and Safety at Work Act section 2(2)(a) - Employers must provide safe plant,
section 2(2)c - Employers must provide information, instruction, training and supervision, Section 7 Employees must take reasonable care of themselves or others who may be affected by their acts or
omissions, Section 8 - No person may misuse or interfere with anything provided in the interest of Health,
Safety or Welfare. The provision and use of Work Related Equipment Regulations also require machinery to
be adequately guarded.
As this observation identified a situation that could lead to serious and imminent danger the machine was
immediately stopped and isolated. It is recommended that this machine must not be bought back into
operation until the defective guarding has been repaired or replaced. It is recommended that a pre start
inspection programme on all machines is implemented together with a scheduled safety tour focusing on
machinery to ensure they are in good condition..
A further recommendation would be to review the maintenance program of the machines in the workshop to
ensure they are fit for purpose based on machine usage, age and recommendation from manufacturer
instructions.
Observation 15 - Refer to observation sheet
There appears to be little control over vehicle/pedestrian interaction in the main workshop. On a number of
occasions pedestrians crossed the path of a fork truck in the main workshop. There was no vehicle
pedestrian segregation, or other traffic control measures in place. There was no evidence of a risk
assessment to identify the hazards, who might be harmed or suitable controls that need to be in place.
It is recommended that immediate controls are put in place to reduce the risk as far as reasonably
practicable, such as using the fork truck or other vehicles in the main workshop during out of hours activities
or during lunch breaks so removing pedestrians from the building while vehicles are in use and setting
appropriate maximum speed limits inside the workshop building i.e. 5 MPH.
It is recommended that a full vehicle pedestrian interaction risk assessment be conducted identifying the
hazard, who might be harmed, and identifying suitable and sufficient control measures to reduce the risk of
collision to as low as reasonably practicable, such as segregation procedures, speed restrictions on vehicles
information and training.
Failure to have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is in breach of the Management of Health and Safety
Regulations and could potentially lead to enforcement notices being issued impacting on the business output,
reputation and employee morale. If enforcement notices are upheld the company could potentially receive
fines or individuals being imprisoned.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations also require safe interaction between vehicles and
pedestrians.
Observation 19 - Refer to observation sheet
One of the machines in the workshop was generating a high level of noise when being operated. Although
the machinist was wearing ear protection other individuals working in close proximity were not wearing
hearing protection. Following discussions with the supervisor no noise surveys had been carried out to
determine individuals daily exposure levels and if they were exceeding the lower exposure action value of
80db(A)Lep.d.

It is recommended as an immediate control measure to restrict the machines operation to when the majority
of the individuals are not present for example out of hours or during breaks.
If this is not possible ensure all employees in the workshop wear hearing protection when the machine is
operating.
It is recommended the company carry out an adequate noise survey to determine the exposure levels of its
employees, should the survey show the exposure level breaches the upper exposure limit of 85db(A)Lep.d
implement plans to reduce the noise exposure by relocating the machine. If the machine cannot be
relocated then consider installing an acoustic booth around the machine or screening the machine from other
individuals working in the workshop. Installing noise dampening materials on the walls and ceilings can also
reduce the noise impact.
The company is at risk of being in breach of the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 as it cannot
demonstrate they have carried out adequate assessment of noise within the workshop so they do not know
the noise levels they are exposing their employees to.
Conclusions
This report has identified several failings in the health and safety management system, and breaches of
legislation. Each of the breaches of legislation could lead to a fine of up to 20,000 or imprisonment of up to
12 months. More serious breaches that result in a major or fatal injury could lead to unlimited fines and up
to two year imprisonment.
In addition to these legal issues, the cost of accidents in these areas could have a serious financial impact on
the company. Lost production time, training costs, increased insurance premiums, management time and
many other costs could result. Spending the money required now will have much greater savings in the long
term.
Additionally, the company has a moral duty of care to look after employees. It is not acceptable to have
employees at work who are at risk of being injured, or even worse, not going home at all.
For these reasons, it is important that the deficiencies identified are addressed within the timescales given.
Recommendations
Recommendation

Likely resource implications

Priority

Target date

Competent individuals to conduct a

Resources required will be Contractor

High

22nd November

suitable and sufficient Working at

personnel and Company Contracts

Height Risk Assessment and

Manager. Depending on the roof

implement appropriate controls to

repair specification and terms and

minimise the risk to as low as

conditions of the contract the cost of

reasonably practicable

the assessment and the

implementation of control actions sit
with the contractor. Estimated costs
3000

Recommendation

Likely resource implications

Priority

Target date

Carry out a formal investigation into

Set up an investigation team,

Medium

End December

the failure of the contractor

consisting of a competent investigator

management system. Set up

and company contract manager.

routine inspection of the emergency

Further internal resources will be

escape routes.

required to modify the contractor

2012

management system based on the

finding of the investigation. Although
not a direct cost, these individuals will
not be able to carry out their normal
working duties during the
investigation and implementation of
corrective actions. Estimated costs
1500
Carry out repair to machine guard.

An external cost will be incurred to

Review maintenance requirements

bring in a machine specialist to

and schedule.

repair/replace the guard. An internal

High

22nd November

High

February 2013

High

December

cost will be incurred carrying out a

review of the maintenance
requirements and scheduled and there
will be a cost associated with
production losses as the machine will
be out of use until the guard is fixed.
Estimated cost 4000 for the repair
Carry out a suitable and sufficient

A team of employees from across the

vehicle and pedestrian interaction

company assisted by an external

risk assessment and implement

vehicle/pedestrian consultant. The

appropriate controls.

large cost will be the design and

installation of any segregation controls
such as barriers and markings.
Estimated costs 20000

Carry out Noise Survey to determine

A competent external specialist would

individual exposure rates and

need to be employed. 1 to 2 hour

sources of noise.

awareness training session need to be

set up for all employees. Further
engineering requirements to reduce
noise exposure levels over the coming
12 months.

2012