APRIL 2021 •

CONSTRUCTION HEALTH & SAFETY CONSULTANTS & TRAINERS ISSUE 214

WWW.CALLSAFE-SERVICES.CO.UK

editorswelcome

Welcome to the April 2021 edition of • The road to Grenfell - A disaster they All of our face-to-face courses are also Callsafe Today. knew would happen available in the Live Online Training format • New NASC TG20 now available for organisations wishing to book courses Summer is coming; just not here yet! for their staff as an “in-house” course, but Training with delegates participating from various Articles & News Callsafe are still not providing of face-to- locations (home). Included within this edition are the face training due to our risk assessment following articles and other news provided still not considering this to be reasonably Are You Prepared? by the government, the construction practicable. We are still offering our Callsafe are ready to assist organisations industry and health and safety e-learning courses, which are listed on with the arrangements for opening up again publications, and selected by the editor, page 25 & 26, and are available on our post-Covid. See page 21 during April. website at: www.callsafe-services. co.uk/e-learning. Best wishes • 8 common forklift truck hazards managers should look out for We have now developed our platform for Dave Carr • HSE launch the Stress Talking Toolkit for providing Live Online Training, with or first Editor | Callsafe Services the construction sector offering as a public course being the APS • Does the equality maxim of ‘gender accredited CDM2015 Awareness Course, neutrality’ put women at greater health as advertised on pages 24 and 25. The first and safety risk? of the live on-line training courses have • IOSH Interview - Peter Baker, Chief been provided as an in-house course to Inspector of Buildings one of clients, with favourable responses.

A Yardley House, 11 Horsefair, Rugeley, Staffordshire WS15 2EJ T 01889 577 701 E [email protected] W www.callsafe-services.co.uk

callsafeservicesltd @callsafesvcsltd callsafe-services-limited

3 8 common forklift truck hazards managers should look out for

The Safety & Health Practitioner overhead obstructions, crucially, it is weight (load plus packaging and pallet) Magazine (SHP) published on 13th the operator who is responsible for and net weight (load only) and never April 2021the following guidance the safety of any pedestrians in their exceed the truck’s capacity. provided by forklift training provider vicinity. Therefore, it is vital that the Mentor, revealing some of the most operator always completes these Managers should also ensure that common areas of bad practice that checks before they move their truck or operators complete one manoeuvre managers should look out for and raise/lower their load. at a time while carrying a load. For promptly stamp out. example, turning with an elevated One of the main causes of serious load is a common contributor towards Managers are responsible for workplace accidents and fatalities is tip-overs, because the higher the load, overseeing many aspects of lift truck being hit by a moving vehicle, so be the less stable the truck, and adding operations on site, most importantly, sure to monitor standards and ensure the momentum of a turn dangerously ensuring that everyone is working that operators carry out their all- shifts the truck’s centre of gravity. safely. But what do good and bad round observations every time, and Instead, the operator should turn then operating practices look like? Here do so properly (i.e. really look, not just lift (not turn and lift). are a few of the most common turn their heads). examples of dangerous practice that 3. Inadequate pedestrian segregation unfortunately still persist on sites. Any 2. Unsafe load transportation issues like these, that put safety at risk, Pedestrians and forklifts must should be resolved immediately to Managers must ensure that operators always remain a safe distance apart, reduce the risk of serious and costly continue to operate as per their especially in areas where they cannot accidents. training and not allow bad habits or be physically separated. Pedestrians, shortcuts to take root. whether colleagues or visiting drivers, 1. Insufficient observations Loads should always be secured, and Regular weight evenly distributed on the forks. all-round Not only can insecure loads fall and observations injure those in the vicinity, the sudden are vital to loss can also affect stability and cause safe forklift the truck to tip over. operations. Not only will Watch out for overloading too, as this they alert the can also lead to lost loads and tip overs. lift truck driver Make sure that your forklift operators to debris or know the difference between gross

4 should not be permitted to help with to everyone who may need to access 5. Not wearing seatbelts loading/unloading and should never an area where forklifts operate, try and steady a load, as they will put however rarely this may be. This The HSE is clear in its guidance: themselves at risk of trapping injuries includes staff, contractors, visitors and “Where restraining systems are fitted or being hit by the truck or the load, delivery drivers. they should be used.” should it fall. 4. Poor visibility when operating a truck Forklift operators may prefer to not Tragically, injuries to pedestrians wear them but the fact is seatbelts caused by lost loads are almost always Operators may be tempted to pile up significantly reduce the consequences avoidable because the pedestrian their loads to reduce the number of of an accident. If the truck was to should never need to be in the trips required. Even if the weight falls become unstable and tip over, a operating area in the first place. Should within the truck’s capacity, high loads seatbelt will stop the operator from a forklift lose its load with no-one in can obscure the operator’s view of being thrown from the cab, or trying to proximity, the worst-case scenario is their surroundings, increasing the risk escape: which can lead to them being damage to your stock or equipment of them colliding with other vehicles, trapped under the truck. – not ideal, but far preferable to the pedestrians or racking. devastating consequences should a Adding seatbelts to company policies pedestrian become involved. Make sure that operators are travelling makes their use mandatory on site with a clear view, so that they can stay and managers should reinforce this Putting robust, reinforced Safe alert to any surrounding risks. If their through regular monitoring, refresher Systems of Work in place, will help view is obscured by the load and they training, on-site signage, etc. to maintain safe working distances. cannot travel in reverse, then they Communicate these systems should use a banksman to guide them.

5 6. Misusing equipment or using the 8. Dismounting incorrectly Equip managers with the right skills wrong equipment Lift truck operators can become These common hazards are just a few All too often, avoidable accidents complacent during mounting/ examples of risks which managers occur when unsuitable equipment is dismounting, simply due to the must target to help protect your used to complete a task. A common frequency that this is done every day, team and your business. By regularly example is using a forklift to raise a and may be tempted to jump from monitoring operations and making colleague, either on the forks or by the cab. But this increases the risk of time for proper supervision, those lifting a pallet or makeshift cage, rather slips and falls, and also adds additional overseeing your operations can guard than a purpose-built work platform distance between them and their cab, against unsafe practice, proactively attachment or MEWP. potentially putting them into the path rectifying any bad habits day-to-day. of another vehicle. Managers should also look out for According to the HSE’s ACOP (L117), cases where operators are using Managers should ensure that all supervisory staff should be able to: equipment in ways it was not designed operators are using the 3 points of • Carry out effective observations to be used. For example, lift trucks are contact rule: when entering or exiting and know what to look for. built to lift loads, not push them. a truck, keep either one hand and two • Communicate effectively with feet or two hands and one foot on operators and line managers. Ensure that operators have access to the truck at all times, until seated or • Recognise unsafe practice and the correct equipment for the task and stood firmly on the ground. Mentor’s behaviour. understand the importance of using 3 points of contact poster provides a • Maintain and promoting health and it in the way it was designed to be handy reminder to operator’s on site. safety standards. used, to protect themselves and their colleagues.

7. Speeding

Operational pressures, tight deadlines and high demand can influence some operators to compromise on safety in an attempt to save time. But rushing comes at a high cost when it increases the risk of tip overs or collisions. Even a dropped pallet causes delays and disruption when you factor in clean up, aisle closures, stock replenishment and repairs, and that’s if no-one is hurt.

Check that operators are aware of speed limits on site and that they understand the need to stick to them at all times, regardless of any operational pressures.

6 HSE launch the Stress Talking Toolkit for the construction sector

Developed with the help of Stress, depression and anxiety industry stakeholders, HSE are the second biggest cause has published a Work-related of work-related ill health in Stress Talking Toolkit for the the construction industry. The construction sector. earlier this problem is tackled, the less impact it will have on Starting the conversation is an workers and business. Taking important first step in preventing positive action can help to create work-related stress, and the a more engaged workforce, toolkit will help to do that. boost productivity and save money. This toolkit is aimed at This is the first time HSE has small businesses with a regular produced something specifically workforce (employed and for the construction industry contracted) who want to start on work-related stress. The looking at this issue. It will also industry has introduced its help site managers wanting to own initiatives to help promote identify project-specific issues. positive mental health and support those in need. The new Download the Talking Toolkit toolkit builds on this work and (PDF) and find out more about is a key part of a wider approach work-related stress. to managing mental health on construction sites. Content of the Talking Toolkit Introduction The toolkit is primarily aimed Purpose of this toolkit at small and medium sized Using the talking toolkit businesses with a regular Conversation one – demands workforce (employed and Conversation two – control contracted) who wish to be Conversation three – support proactive in addressing this Conversation four – issue. However, it is a flexible relationships tool that can be used across the Conversation five – role whole industry. Conversation six – change

7 DESIGNED & DEVELOPED BY book your place on one of our live webinars Are you compliant with PAS 1192-6?

Along with a whole host of additional features, BIMsafe is fully compliant with the NEW PAS 1192-6

BIMsafe provides a best-practice solution to incorporate health and safety information into the BIM process and 3D models, as required by PAS 1192-6, with compliance methods for CDM 2015 and BS 5795.

Additional benefits include: > 30+ years Construction Health & Safety and CAD experience at your fingertips. > Information attached to 3D symbols from secure cloud-based databases > Not reliant on external software and compatible with industry utilised design/drawing software > QR codes also generated for each 3D symbol to access the associated information > Bespoke Design Risk Register, Temporary Works Register and RAMS databases > Guidance on risks provided by linking to the HSE website, CIP Knowledge and Callsafe Hazard Videos > Access to Health and Safety, CAD and BIM advice and training > A 'single source of truth' for health and safety information

Does the equality maxim of ‘gender neutrality’ put women at greater health and safety risk?

The Safety & Health Practitioner There is a measurable difference in predominantly confined either to Magazine (SHP) published the risk exposure of men and women, lower level positions or to female following blog on 6th April 2021. This even in the case of equal job title sub-specialties such as paediatrics or blog, written by Lorenzo Visentin, across their exposures to toxic family law. This gets worse when you Group Head of Environment, Health chemicals, ergonomic demands, consider working in private homes. and Safety at Arriva, explores the risk of accidents and psychological In Europe, the 1989 framework gender sensitive approach to risk, stressors. Balance this against directive didn’t initially exclude delving into some historic and more the differences in education, domestic workers. It was the Council recent case study examples. socialisation and upbringing that of Ministers that took the initiative may lead to differences in the way to exclude it when adopting its Occupational health & safety risks workers manage their illnesses, common position. For the ministers for women are underestimated their perception of risk and the of employment, it seemed obvious, a and span biological, physical, propensity to take sick leave or seek mark of common sense, housework psychological and social risks. Many treatment – and there is a real risk wasn’t ‘real’ work. physical occupational risks such as of consequential loss or injury for cancer, musculoskeletal disorder women workers that is different and OSH professionals have a challenge and heart disease are higher among greater to that of male workers. to establish a climate of gender women workers. However as there Three quarters of all employed sensitive workplace precautions to is a naive belief that gender-neutral women are in teaching, health, maximise the protection offered to policies support equality, has there clerical or sales and service jobs and all workers but, to women workers been a delay in identifying women- are disproportionately represented in particular, in an HR-led context relevant health & safety issues? in lower status, lower paid jobs. where gender neutrality is king [sic]. Gender sensitive risk reduction must This quickly develops into the Of course, this shift in approach is become the new norm as women live misperception that “women’s jobs” set within the challenging context of longer than men in contemporary are by definition low risk. In reality, male dominated research, masculine industrialised societies, but still have the risks may simply be different, and workforces and workplaces. It is higher rates of morbidity and health in particular, the health risks longer no longer sufficient to add women service use than men do. “Longer term. workers to theories developed for, by and sicker” – not a great advert for and about male workers. increasing numbers of women in Even where there have been inroads work or retaining them. into male dominated fields (such as Three quarters of all employed medicine and law), women are still women are in teaching, health,

10 Dangerous substances Turning to the occupational context and why OSH professionals need to review their approach to risk assessment. Let’s look first at dangerous substances. In vivo human studies (for pharmaceuticals as well as to establish occupational exposure limits) prefer male test subjects for no reason other than men do not have a menstrual cycle. As the hormone variability of this normal process threatens the stability of any test results, it is easier to use male participants rather than adjust for it. This matters because, broadly speaking, at the population level, women have more body fat than men. For example, in the 20-39 age clerical or sales and service jobs and women, with a long wooden stick. bracket, men have a typical body fat are disproportionately represented range of 8-20% and women of the in lower status, lower paid jobs. Coming more up to date, while some same age 22-33%, starting above the people select their car based on high limit in men. Skirts and a long wooden stick colour and the quality of the stereo, There are many great examples of I suspect safety professionals may Why is this important to the control this bias, and to help you understand take more than a passing look at of substances with health risks? Many the point, let me offer two. In the UK the NCAP rating (a European New substances are fat soluble, therefore in the 1970’s there was a long running Car Assessment Programme), and more likely to be found in higher domestic terrorism crisis in Northern in particular the seat belt safety concentration in women than men, Ireland, called “the Troubles”. The tests. The use of crash test dummies retained for longer with the risk of army was deployed to the streets has been in existence for years, but more health damaging effects as a and in a display of gender equality, they were typically male crash test result. Fat soluble toxins include heavy female soldiers were deployed. To dummies, with heavier upper bodies metals such as lead, mercury, a number ‘protect’ women soldiers they initially and slimmer hips than a woman. of pesticides, plastics, not to mention patrolled with their male colleagues Following protest, NCAP realised the active ingredient in cannabis. but, unarmed and in skirts in the now this put women at greater risk and incredible belief that the terrorists developed female crash test dummies Many substances are fat soluble, would not fire on an unarmed woman. with lighter upper body weight therefore more likely to be found in The point of the skirt was to create distribution and wider hips; and higher concentration in women than a feminine silhouette in low light used this to test seatbelt safety – but men, retained for longer with the and darkness. Of course, this was only in the passenger seat. Women risk of more health damaging effects very quickly refined – by arming the apparently didn’t drive! as a result.

11 PPE police services have moved to in the professional and domestic It isn’t limited to the purely biological. contoured body armour that spheres; paid work allows greater It is also physical. Again, talking at reduces this risk – indeed offers socialisation, substantial financial the population level, women tend greater comfort that then improves independence and is a major to be smaller than men, which leads compliance in wearing – including contributor to self-esteem. Women to challenges in personal protective that of larger male officers. Here at work do however face problems equipment from safety boot fit to we have to think of unintended with reconciling the role conflict high visibility clothing arm and leg consequences, there is some between paid and unpaid work, length, shape and overall size. Having emerging evidence that to permit the other role expectations, threatened a gender sensitive approach will drive contour there is now a larger gap at male colleagues, work overload, manufacturers to develop a range of the armpit, which increases the risk of blocked promotion and expectations more suitable sizes and shapes – not knife attacks being successful. to be wonder-women – and these offer a range of ‘women’s’ safety problems appear to be increasing. shoes that have had pink laces added. Social roles, unpaid domestic work Of course, if you extend this logically, and role conflict Stress it will also improve protection for the As women do most unpaid domestic In stress research, like in many other smaller man. work, the health effects of this can be research areas, male domination often treated as a simple confounding of populations is common and This is no more important area of variable. The refusal to give has been blamed on tradition, personal protective equipment recognition to the musculoskeletal convenience, comparability between than the body armour worn by disorders of women workers is studies and – again – the assumed police personnel, as it can be excused by the suspicion that their influence of women’s biological literally lifesaving. Here, the single domestic activities may be the main rhythms (menstrual cycle and shape body armour has had grave cause of their physical condition the effects of the menopause) on consequences. A TUC report entitled, (how many times have you done that the measurement variables. This Personal protective Equipment and when looking at managing sickness “ignoring phenomenon” is not new in women, highlights that, in 1997 a absence?). the history of occupationally related women police officer was stabbed disease of women. and killed while using a hydraulic This ‘unpaid shift’ (childcare, elder ram to enter a flat. She had removed care, homemaker) leaves women with So this is going to be a big challenge her body armour because it was too less possibilities to unwind and relax when planning organisational difficult to use the ram while wearing outside their paid job and therefore interventions for women workers, it. Two years later a woman police less able to find opportunities for organisations must prioritise officer disclosed she had to have relaxation. This ‘second shift’ leaves prevention programmes that breast reduction surgery because employed women workers competing promote and facilitate a gender of the health effects of wearing her for limited amounts of time, physical sensitive approach in the context body armour. After the case was energy and psychological resources. of an OHSMS and employment reported another 700 officers in the system made in a male-dominated same force came forward to complain We’ve got to remember though workforce, with a regulatory about the vest. that women who work only as approach that has traditionally been homemakers suffer far worse health to apply the same standards to men Very conscious of this risk, many than women who combine work and women. The United Kingdom

12 (UK) health and safety minister Since women are more likely to use ‘Stress Management Standards’ ‘admitted this approach may be social support as a stress coping and not any law. In this climate with inadequate for many women in the strategy, with resultant better levels lack of attention to organisational labour market today’ but Regulations of psychological wellbeing and job preventative stress management, is remains gender neutral. satisfaction than men, this “tend or encouraging gender-oriented stress befriend” strategy should be developed management programmes, a step too Gender should be included in risk as a cornerstone of organisational far, or at least, too early? assessment after making positive involvement in the development of commitment to female worker safety workplace women workers’ stress Mainstreaming gender into risk and not assuming what the hazards management techniques, rather than assessment are and who is at risk, as well as the more masculine interventions Approaching the issue of gender including commitment to gender playing to “fight or flight” management. sensitivity in health & safety has mainstreaming and linking OSH into Consider though the resistance to to be done carefully to avoid any workplace equality plans and completing any stress risk assessment misunderstandings. What it is actions. in many organisations (exemplified not is gender neutrality. The right by the opposition in the UK by the approach for organisational women Broadly speaking, those people with Confederation of British Industry worker protection (and indeed this high feminine trait (predominantly during the HSE’s consultation period holds for national approaches to but not exclusively women) prefer a to their proposed legal regulation the framework for occupational tend or befriend coping strategy over of workplace stress). This was so psychological health too), is to the more widely accepted fight or effective that there has only been the mainstream the gender dimension flight approach. development of the good practice into risk assessment and preventative measures so as to take account of the specific characteristics of women in terms of health and safety at work.

Organisational interventions then, should approach the workplace as a social context in which men and women interact with each other, their environment and the demands made of them by superiors, peers and subordinates as well as their families and social networks outside of work. Strong social norms pull women inexorably back to roles of homemaker and mother, while pushing men into the role of breadwinner. Organisations that ignore these strong variables in their strategies for maintaining occupational psychological wellbeing do so at their peril.

13 IOSH Interview - Peter Baker, Chief Inspector of Buildings

The regime’s most direct effect will fall on Higher-Risk Residential Buildings (HRRBs), where the BSR itself will act as the building control body for new builds while enforcing safety standards and professional competency requirements in around Reported in the IOSH Magazine on 12,500 existing HRRBs across 9th April 2021 was the interview of England. Peter Baker. However, the BSR’s influence will An inspector for 30 years, Peter reach a far wider range of projects. management and control. While the Baker, head of England’s new Building Reforms to the building control construction industry generally will Safety Regulator, talks about his process will affect every new build be in a reasonably good place, when role in delivering a new regime for or refurbishment that must meet it comes to understanding those high-risk buildings, and how he plans Building Regulations, plus there is concepts, and getting ready for those, to increase the competence of all a widely-held expectation that the landlords and building owners who professionals working on buildings Bill’s scope could – either during its have not been subject to this level of and ensure effective oversight of the progress through parliament or a intrusive regulation in the past will entire building safety environment. later stage – be extended beyond be starting from quite a low base of HRRBs. The new regulator will also understanding and knowledge,’ Peter As the new Building Safety Regulator set up a new mandatory reporting says. (BSR) takes shape ahead of the system for structural and fire safety Building Safety Bill coming into force breaches. While changes to the shape and scope in 2023, construction businesses and of the Bill are still possible, it’s clear landlords have been warned by its new Speaking to IOSH magazine as part that the BSR will create a far more head and chief inspector of buildings of an initial round of interviews regulated operating environment for to prepare for a ‘level of intrusive following his appointment, Peter many in the construction industry. regulation’. HSE stalwart Peter, sought to project reassurance but New build HRRB projects – that appointed to the newly created role in also be realistic about the scale of the is, any building with two or more February, will take charge of the post- culture change ahead. dwellings that reaches either 18m Grenfell regime of project gateways, or six storeys – must submit to the safety case reports and dutyholders ‘From my experience in regulating BSR’s scrutiny at three ‘project – all backed by sanctions, compliance major hazards, it requires a gateway’ hard stops at planning, pre- notices and criminal liability. different mindset, in terms of risk construction and pre-handover. No

14 new HRRB will be occupied until it Peter has held several senior roles staff and building IT systems. Once has been signed off as safe to occupy; at the HSE, including chief inspector the BSR is running ‘at full tilt’ it can thereafter, HRRBs must be managed of construction from 2015 to 2018, expect a team of 700, including in accordance with the BSR’s Building a role that followed two years as technical and construction specialists, Assurance Certificate or – for existing head of the chemicals, explosives policy experts and project managers. HRRBs – the approved safety case and microbiological hazards division. In addition, many of the ‘boots on the report. His new appointment represents a ground’ assessing HRRB submissions continuation from his previous post will be drawn from local authorities’ New legal dutyholders will be key as director of the HSE’s response to building control inspection teams, to HRRB projects; namely Principal the building safety programme. and from the technical teams at Designers, Principal Contractors, and regional fire and rescue services. Accountable Persons. Applying the ‘WE KNOW CDM HAS EFFECTED ‘It’s quite a significant proposition,’ principles of health and safety law for SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES Peter says. ‘At the moment we worker protection to construction IN WORKPLACE SAFETY are identifying what the broad safety and residents’ protection, PERFORMANCE. SO WHY NOT components of the new regulatory these individuals (or legal entities USE A SIMILAR FRAMEWORK?’ regime need to look like. We’ve got a taking on the roles) could face fines or reasonably good idea of the capability imprisonment under criminal law in Currently, he is engaged in building we’re going to require to deliver all the event of a prosecution. the new organisation from first of those functions. Not surprisingly, principles: scoping its needs, hiring because they’re very broad functions,

15 we’ll need to bring a range of Peter will also become, in effect, the ‘registered building inspectors’. Both skills into the BSR, ranging from first head of the building control categories must register with the BSR programme and project management profession, charged with raising and will be subject to its oversight, skills; policy and operational policy standards in a specialism whose creating a more joined-up profession. skills as well as technical skills.’ profile, status and legal powers have On the BSR’s role in raising standards never quite matched its importance in building control services, Peter is Operating across England and in ensuring construction safety aiming to establish consistency and piggybacking on the HSE’s own office and quality. Meanwhile, clients or ‘levelling up across the piece’. ‘The estate, Peter explains that the BSR projects that breached building aim of the oversight function is to is likely to have a ‘headquarters’ regulations were rarely sanctioned or make sure that whether you engage presence in London. ‘Staff will be prosecuted. your local authority or whether you located where there’s the business engage an approved inspector is that need, and when around about 50% to The Building Safety Bill will amend you can expect a consistent standard 60% of high rise residential buildings the Building Act 1984 to position of professionalism, a consistent in scope are in London, that gives you the BSR itself as the building control standards and technical competence, a sense that we’ll have a footprint in authority for HRBs; reforms also and a consistent approach to the southeast, either in or around means that private sector ‘Approved the application of the building London.’ But he adds the BSR will also Inspectors’ will need to register regulations. have a physical presence in other with the BSR as ‘building control major cities with a concentration approvers’ while local authority ‘It’s about establishing a consistent of HRRBs, such as Manchester and building control staff can transition set of performance expectations Birmingham. into the new advisory role of so that, whoever you engage, whether it’s Newcastle, Plymouth or London, you can expect a consistent approach from your building control body. Along with that, the BSR will have an audit function, to test the competence and the performance of building control bodies.’

‘IT’S ALL ABOUT SETTING THE RISK, UNDERSTANDING THE VULNERABILITIES, AND HAVING PROPORTIONATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS’

In his post of chief construction inspector, Peter oversaw the introduction of the refreshed CDM 2015 regime, built around the principle of locating legal responsibility with the party that

16 created the risk. The BSR regime – originally mapped out by former HSE chair Dame Judith Hackitt – in turn ‘leans heavily’ on that principle and the CDM framework. ‘We know CDM has effected substantial changes in workplace safety performance. So why not use a similar framework?’ In fact, some construction safety specialists are concerned that alignment with CDM could prove problematic, particularly as the Principle Designer dutyholder has different roles and requirements in the two regimes. The Bill states that leadership and management controls environment, as to how we can bring a Principal Designer under the BSR that are required to build a safe their constituencies along with the regime needs to be able to ‘carry building – the principles are exactly new regime and how industry can out their duties specified in building the same. step up and demonstrate leadership.’ regulations in a way that is compliant with building regulations’ – in other ‘THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST With enactment of the Building words, be well-versed in technical REFORMS IN A GENERATION …. Safety Bill not due until 2023, and design matters. However, Principal AND THE CHANGE IS GOING TO BE changes to its scope and shape Designers under CDM are often QUITE SIGNIFICANT’ still possible in response to the closer to design safety co-ordinators deliberations of Select Committees than technical specialists. ‘It’s all about setting the risk, and then the parliamentary process, understanding the vulnerabilities, and it’s only the “early adopters” and the However, Peter stresses the having proportionate management more progressive elements of the advantages of close alignment and systems to deal with the construction construction sector that are aligning overlap between the two regimes. of the building and also the typical their processes to the forthcoming ‘The challenge, for my MHCLG and inevitable changes that happen requirements. colleagues [drafting the Bill and during construction of a building and secondary legislation] is to make it being able to manage all of that as Peter’s message, however, is that fit as much as possible so that there well as manage the competence and substantive change is coming over isn’t any confusion between the performance of your supply chain.’ the horizon. ‘This is one of the biggest expressions, terms, taxonomy and reforms in a generation …. and the roles and responsibilities. My hope Peter is also scoping out ways to change is going to be quite significant,’ is that the two will fit seamlessly engage the construction sector he concludes. ‘As soon as people together as possible – for one key in productive two-way dialogue, can engage in this thinking about reason. I don’t see in principle any to prepare the ground for the how they’re going to change their difference between the management necessary culture change: he plans management systems or the way they and control of risks to do with keeping to engage with ‘leaders and opinion approach risk, the better it will be.’ workers safe, then the necessary formers, in construction and the built

17 The road to Grenfell - A disaster they knew would happen

The following article was published I have worked in and around this How we got to Grenfell in the IFSECGLOBAL magazine on sector for over 30 years and, I believe that this culture of 7th April 2021. following a site inspection at a high- indifference had its roots in the early- rise residential building, I once told 1990s recession, when the property As a Specialist Roofing & Cladding a building specifier that the selected market crashed and many firms were Consultant Mike Fox has over cladding was unfit for purpose. It looking at ways to save money on 30 years’ of experience in the was not only inadequate in terms both new builds and refurbs. Cladding construction industry. Now Director on insulation, it also posed a clear was seen as a cheap and effective way of MAF Associates which launched fire risk. I concluded the site visit, to revamp older buildings, especially in 2015, the business has grown got in my car and drove back to the the 1960s tower blocks that were rapidly in the past 18 months due to office. When I got to my desk less then coming to end of their originally- thousands of buildings requiring full than one hour later, there was a intended lifespan, with insulation external building inspections as a legal letter from the manufacturer and glazing that fell far below result of the Grenfell Tower disaster. of said cladding in my email inbox, contemporary standards. Here, he offers his take on the threatening immediate legal action revelations that continue to come out if I continued to warn against use of It started off with the need to find of the Grenfell Inquiry, and explains their product or disseminate the risks a compromise, almost certainly his belief that the tragic event was an it presented. without malign intent, at least in the inevitable consequence of a damaged beginning. Effective heat insulation industry culture. I share this story not to defend myself is thick – Just think of how much and my peers, but to give you some insulation you find in the average Listening to coverage of the Grenfell context on the situation we were in. It loft – but that simply isn’t practical Inquiry on the news, day by day, it was quite openly discussed within the on a high-rise block. You either put it would be easy to believe that it was industry that a Grenfell-type disaster inside and make the rooms smaller, or some huge conspiracy and, to some was likely. There had been previous you hang it on the outside, but there extent, you would be right. The use of fire incidents, such as Lakanal House is a limit to how thick these external flammable cladding was effectively in Camberwell, in 2009, where six panels can be. hidden in plain sight, but the fact is people died, but cladding was not that its manufacturers were doing seen a direct factor and the death Since the demise of asbestos, nothing technically illegal at the time toll was not high enough to register. materials that are fire-retardant and, more importantly for potential The fact is that these materials were are not necessarily effective as whistleblowers, they made Robert within the letter, if not the spirit, of heat insulation, and vice versa. So, a Maxwell look lax when it came to the law, and many within the industry compromise was found whereby the litigiousness. felt powerless to act. cladding could contain a relatively thin layer of insulative material within

18 a metal casing. This became known as Class 0 (Zero) and was written into official guidance in Part B of the Building Regulations 2000 (Modern Regulations 2000). This stipulated that ‘the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building’.

The problem with Class 0 and the regulation of the standard is that it was relatively undefined in terms of the precise nature of the materials used and the method of manufacture. This allowed manufacturers to create cladding products that were within the letter of the law, while Not just the cladding could have helped to mitigate this cutting costs in both materials and While the flawed design and from happening, such as steel barriers production. This is what led, in turn, specification of the cladding was within the cladding framework or to the situation where cheaper, undoubtedly the primary factor extension of the fireproofing to flammable cladding was specified that made Grenfell such a major come between the cladding of each for the Grenfell refurbishment, disaster, there were other factors. apartment. Again, either due to the resulting in a cash saving of £126,000, Despite their negative reputation, pressure on costs or pure ignorance or roughly £1,774 for each of the the builders of many of these 1960s on the part of the specifiers, this did eventual victims. tower blocks did actually take the not happen. time to design fireproofing into the I don’t deny that a compromise was fabric of their buildings, and this was Learning the hard way needed, but it would have been the case at Grenfell itself. All disasters are ultimately perfectly possible to create a cladding In subsequent decades, we have seen preventable and most teach product that was fire retardant and these measures compromised by us lessons we should already also compliant with the required internal and external renovations, have learnt, but some are more levels of thermal conductivity. What which have often led to the straightforward than others. When we ended up with was a combustible impairment or total negation of the the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized, product marketed in plain sight, with fireproofing measures. This is exactly for example, the ferry industry was organisations like the NHBC cowed what we saw at Grenfell, where the reminded of the need for better by the power and influence of the flammable cladding allowed the monitoring and communication within cladding manufacturers. It was a flames to bridge the internal fire an effective chain of command. The disaster waiting to happen. barriers between each apartment. Kings Cross Fire taught Transport for Even with the use of the defective London that dirty wooden escalators cladding, there were measures that and cigarettes are never a good mix.

19 Grenfell has exposed a rotten culture It is to my eternal regret that many The legacy of Grenfell is 30 years of that should never have been permitted specifiers and engineers were fully dangerous buildings, where cost- to develop in the first place. aware of the issues with cladding conscious specifiers were willing as well, but as I’ve explained, the to cut corners, even if it meant “While short-term measures such cladding itself was perfectly legal and risking lives. In fire management and as waking watch, enhanced fire the cladding manufacturers were evacuation strategies, cladding barely systems and sprinkler installations highly adept at closing down any hint received a mention, so fire engineers will hopefully mean that there are of a whistleblower. The Government were left in blissful ignorance while no more deaths as a result of this also seemed largely uninterested, the bean counters rode roughshod scandal, leaseholders in blocks below which probably contributed to the over the safety of millions of building 18 metres are going to be living with unwillingness of so many to speak out. occupants. the financial consequences for many years to come, and some may lose Putting things right There are no quick fixes and, even their homes altogether.” Grenfell was a short, sharp shock to now, my team are constantly an apathetic and arrogant industry criticised for being too strict or too We know from the emails read out that had, almost literally, got away lenient when we survey a residential at the Grenfell Inquiry that the risks with murder for too long. Culture is block in line with the revised (post- with this cladding were not only a thing that’s slow to develop and, Grenfell) regulations. The truth is that known about, but were actively like endemic racism in a police force, compliance is only one small step. discussed between colleagues who this is not something we are going to Replacing the cladding and updating expressed their hope that a disaster put right overnight. As an industry, the regulations will not be enough, would never happen, but knew that we face a multitude of issues and it is unless we can transform the culture it might. It’s all the more galling now up to those of us who really care of the entire sector and move away when you consider the fact that the about doing the right thing to rebuild forever from the central focus on manufacturers would probably have the reputation of our industry. value for money above all else. been able to sell a more expensive and fit for purpose product, if only With so many people still living with Risk assessors will always have they were collectively honest about the after-effects of Grenfell and the priorities that compete with those of the issue. Government refusing to recognise building specifiers, and that’s not a that the Class 0 guidance was a factor bad thing in itself, but what we need in the disaster, or even at fault, we are is a workable compromise, and I hope going to be living with the aftershocks that’s what will be achieved in the for a long time yet. While short-term future. Before Grenfell, the industry measures such as waking watch, behaved like a driver who gets his enhanced fire systems and sprinkler MOT and then proceeds to drive like installations will hopefully mean that a crazed idiot for the rest of the year. there are no more deaths as a result What we need are drivers who get of this scandal, leaseholders in blocks their MOT and then drive carefully, below 18 metres are going to be living making sure that their passengers with the financial consequences for and pedestrians are kept safe and many years to come, and some may secure. lose their homes altogether. Are You Prepared?

With further Covid-19 restrictions lifting, you might be preparing your office for re-opening. There are a number of points to consider to ensure that employees can enter premises safely as well as how Covid-safe measures can be maintained.

• Social distancing measures • Walkways and traffic routes • Kitchen and bathroom facilities • Sanitisation stations • Cleaning regime • PPE requirements • Important maintenance inspections • Employers’ policies for symptomatic staff & vaccinations • Procedure for visitors to site • Staff training • Updated written procedures

It is so important that we all do everything we can to help drive those Covid-19 numbers down whilst getting back to some level of normality. Callsafe Services can help. We have been working with our Clients throughout the pandemic to ensure safety at work.

If you would like to chat about your health and safety requirements, please contact our Consultancy Workstream Manager, Tam Bream, on 07471 228208 or email: [email protected] New NASC TG20 now available

The National Access & Scaffolding Confederation (NASC) have updated and expanded their scaffolding compliance software, which is now on sale.

As with TG20:13, development has been carried out in conjunction with CADS (Computer and Design Services Limited), an international specialist in structural engineering design and technical authors of the TG20 eGuide software.

By using the TG20:21 eGuide, users can produce a wide range of standard scaffolding structures, without the need for bespoke design. The latest version builds upon TG20:13, retaining its user-friendly look and feel, but includes a number of revisions to make the process of producing compliant scaffolding – in accordance with the European standard BS EN 12811 – even simpler, and incorporates a wider range of scaffolding types.

Additions include exterior birdcages, tube and fitting mobile towers, tube and fitting loading bays without beams, and tied independent Users can access TG20:21 – including TG20:21 is available on an annual scaffolds with three inside boards. the associated and updated Operational subscription basis, costing £300 TG20 compliance sheets are now and Design Guides – via the NASC + VAT per login per year, which is double-sided, with an illustration ePortal here. The updated User Guide discounted to £75 for NASC full and principal compliance criteria on booklet will be published in May, and members. To ensure the transition the front, and detailed compliance printed versions of the Operational and from TG20:13 to TG20:21 is as fair criteria listed on the reverse. Design guides will follow. as possible, there is a period of free

22 made on a regular basis.

The NASC and CADS held a webinar on Tuesday 27 April 2021 to give delegates a deeper understanding of TG20:21 and how it builds upon TG20:13.

More than 300 construction industry professionals discovered how the TG20:21 eGuide enables users to produce a wide range of standard scaffolding structures without the need for bespoke design.

Terry Roberts, of software developers CADS, explained how the latest version expands upon TG20:13, retaining its user-friendly look and feel, but includes a number of use of the new software for existing Dennis Braithwaite, NASC Technical revisions to make the process of users, which can be accessed using Advisor, commented: “With the producing compliant scaffolding – the TG20:13 serial number. introduction of TG20:21, we are in accordance with the European entering a ‘transition period’ to give standard BS EN 12811 – even NASC President Lynn Way said: the industry adequate time to adjust simpler, and incorporates a wider “We’re delighted to launch TG20:21. to the new requirements, in a planned range of scaffolding types. We’ve been working on this update and controlled way. Existing scaffolds for 18 months, and I’d like to thank constructed in compliance with A video of the session – including every single person that has played a TG20:13 and associated compliance Terry Roberts’ responses to the part in its development. sheets remain acceptable and do not 100+ questions posed by delegates require modification. during the webinar – can be found at: “We’re confident that users of https://youtu.be/TRkI3gpues4. TG20:21 will recognise how we’ve “TG20:13 compliance sheets are still taken the best parts of TG20:13, valid and may continue to be used for made it better and easier to use, the next few months. It is anticipated but also kept the original mission that TG20:13 will be formally statement in the front of our minds withdrawn, in favour of fully adopting – creating a tool that scaffolding TG20:21 in the Autumn.” contractors can use to produce compliant structures for day-to-day TG20:21 will be supported by a scaffolding, and ensure that their comprehensive maintenance and scaffolding projects are safe and development agreement, ensuring conform to legal requirements.” that updates and improvements are

23 With live online training courses, you get all the benefits of face-to-face learning with the convenience of online study wherever you are.

Benefits • No travel or accommodation costs. • No hours spent on long journeys to and from the course. • Converse with the tutor in real time. • Interactive group break-out sessions. • All the course materials sent electronically prior to start.

How it Works Our courses are delivered by the tutor in the same way as face-to-face training. Delegates download the software in advance and receive the course handouts before joining, then they can join the course remotely through their own device.

The platform allows delegates to interact with the tutor in real time and they will also take part in group break-out sessions with other delegates to work through exercises just as they would in a classroom.

All exams are done virtually at the end of the course and results can be viewed immediately.

What our delegates have said

“Course was good and well delivered.” “I found the introduction, legislation and relationships between the duty holders at the beginning very valuable.” “Clear, engaging and well time-managed course."

Our next APS CDM2015 Awareness Course will be available Live Online with limited spaces available:

11th May 9.30am-12.30pm Part 1 12th May 9.30am-12.30pm Part 2 Book Here 15th June 1.30-4.30pm Part 1 16th June 1.30-4.30pm Part 2 Book Here 5th July 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 1 6th July 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 2 Book Here 16th Aug 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 1 17th Aug 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 2 Book Here 8th Sept 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 1 9th Sept 9.30am-12.30pm – Part 2 Book Here

£199.00 + VAT per delegate

Cost includes: • 2 x half days professional virtual training, includes presentation, group & individual exercises, and course examination • APS fee • APS-accredited electronic certificate on passing the course • Electronic main and additional handouts

If you would like to book Live Online training for a group, please get in touch! [email protected] 01889 577701

24 Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 CDM2015 Awareness Live Online Training Course

This course is designed to provide all persons involved in construction projects, including current and potential clients, project managers, principal designers, designers, principal contractors and contractors with a broad overview on the CDM Regulations 2015. This course is accredited by the Association for Project Safety (APS).

Session 1 Introduction and Setting Course Objectives

Session 2 Legislation History, application and definitions of CDM. CDM2015 transitional provisions. Domestic clients. Accident statistics and causations.

Session 3 Relationships between the Client, Principal Designer, Designers, Principal Contractor and Contractors An outline of the interfaces between the parties involved in the construction process from concept to maintenance. Relationships between design, PCI, CPP & HSF.

Session 4 Client Who is the client? Duties of the client. Evaluating competence and resources. Information to be provided by the Client. Notification to HSE.

Session 5 Principal Designer The appointment and duties of the principal designer. Pre-Construction Information. Assessment of the design and the use of BIM. Health and Safety File. Optional assistance to the client.

Session 6 Designers Who is the designer? The designers’ duties. An illustration of the requirements to eliminate and reduce risks by design. Information transfer and co-operation with the principal designer and other designers, etc.

Session 7 Principal Contractor The duties of the principal contractor. Development and implementing the construction phase plan and the requirements for the health and safety file.

Session 8 Contractors The duties of the contractors. Management, co-operation, co-ordination, communication, information and training. Summary of CDM2015, Part 4, General Requirements for all Construction Sites.

Session 9 Examination Closed book, multi-choice examination.

Session 10 Course Review and Conclusion

Course Objectives Upon completion of the course, delegates should: understand the need and application of the CDM regulations; appreciate the framework of the regulations and the interfaces between the key parties; and understand the duties and responsibilities of the client, principal designer, designers, principal contractor and contractors.

Maximum number of delegates: 8

©Callsafe Services Ltd. Prog-APS CDM2015 Awareness - Live Online Course (Issue 4-May20) Page 1 25 onlinetrainingcourses

DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS ONLINE UKATA ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING £25.00 ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL PANDEMIC CALLSAFE SERVICES +VAT SAFETY LIMITED HAVE SUSPENDED £35.00 +VAT ALL OF OUR FACE-TO-FACE ONLINE CPD ASBESTOS IN-SERVICE INSPECTION TRAINING, BUT WE STILL HAVE AWARENESS TRAINING £20.00 AND TESTING OF ELECTRICAL OUR E-LEARNING COURSES +VAT EQUIPMENT PAT TESTING AVAILABLE, THAT CAN BE (REFRESHER) AWARENESS ONLINE CDM REGULATIONS 2015 £15.00 +VAT ACCESSED THROUGH OUR – OVERVIEW £25.00 +VAT ONLINE CONTROL OF WEBSITE AT: WWW.CALLSAFE- SUBSTANCES HAZARDOUS TO SERVICES.CO.UK, AS FOLLOWS: ONLINE CDM REGULATIONS 2015 HEALTH COSHH - THE CLIENT £25.00 +VAT £15.00 +VAT

ONLINE CDM REGULATIONS 2015 ONLINE CONTROL OF – THE PRINCIPAL DESIGNER / SUBSTANCES HAZARDOUS TO DESIGNER HEALTH COSHH REFRESHER £25.00 +VAT £10.00 +VAT

ONLINE GDPR COURSE ONLINE DISPLAY SCREEN £15.00 +VAT EQUIPMENT TRAINING £15.00

26 +VAT VENTILATION TRAINING £15.00 +VAT +VAT ONLINE DISPLAY SCREEN ONLINE FALLS PREVENTION- EQUIPMENT TRAINING ONLINE LOCAL EXHAUST WORKING AT HEIGHTS REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT VENTILATION TRAINING REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT ONLINE FIRE SAFETY TRAINING ONLINE FOOD SAFETY TRAINING £15.00 +VAT LEGIONELLA AWARENESS £15.00 +VAT £15.00 +VAT ONLINE FIRE SAFETY TRAINING ONLINE FOOD SAFETY TRAINING REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT LEGIONELLA AWARENESS REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT REFRESHER ONLINE ABRASIVE WHEEL £10.00 +VAT ONLINE SLIPS AND TRIPS TRAINING TRAINING £15.00 +VAT ONLINE OFFICE SAFETY £25.00 £15.00 +VAT +VAT ONLINE ABRASIVE WHEEL FIRE WARDEN TRAINING £30.00 ONLINE SLIPS AND TRIPS TRAINING REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT TRAINING REFRESHER £10.00 +VAT +VAT FIRE WARDEN TRAINING ONLINE HEALTH AND SAFETY REFRESHER ONLINE BASIC FIRST AID LEVEL 2 £18.00 +VAT TRAINING £25.00 +VAT £15.00 +VAT ONLINE FALLS PREVENTION- ONLINE RISK ASSESSMENTS ONLINE LOCAL EXHAUST WORKING AT HEIGHTS £15.00 TRAINING

27 latestprosecutions

SCHOOL FINED AFTER MEMBER OF £10,040. company had failed to carry out a THE PUBLIC SUSTAINS FATAL HEAD Speaking after the hearing, HSE suitable and sufficient assessment of the INJURY IN FALL inspector Graham Tompkins said: “This risks from using handheld emery cloth On the 31st March 2021 a school was tragic incident was easily preventable, and had failed to implement a safe system fined after a member of public tripped and the risk should have been identified. of work for polishing. A prohibition notice over a retaining wall and sustained a was issued during the investigation, fatal head injury. “The school should have taken prohibiting the use of hand-held emery measures to improve lighting and install cloth on powered lathes. Peterborough Magistrates’ Court a handrail on top of the wall to increase heard how on 17th February 2017, a the overall height.” Anderson Hydraulics (Doncaster) Ltd family member attended The Leys & St pleaded guilty to breaching Section Faith’s Foundation School in Cambridge COMPANY FINED AFTER 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc to watch an evening performance. WORKER’S HAND CRUSHED IN A Act 1974. The company has been fined LATHE £30,000 and ordered to pay £4679.54 While walking towards the hall the On the 1st April 2021 Engineering in costs. woman tripped over a small retaining company, Anderson Hydraulics wall and fell to the ground sustaining (Doncaster) Ltd was fined after a Speaking after the hearing, HSE a serious head injury. She died six days worker suffered compound fractures of inspector Jane Fox said: “A suitable and later in hospital. his left arm and wrist. sufficient risk assessment would have identified the risk of entanglement An investigation by the Health and Sheffield Magistrates’ Court heard that from using a handheld emery cloth. Safety Executive (HSE) found that The on 24th May 2018, the 52-year-old was “HSE industry guidance stipulates that Leys & St Faith’s Foundation School working at a metalworking lathe at a handheld emery cloths should not be had failed to ensure the area was site in Rotherham. He was using a piece used on rotating machinery. adequately lit. A pedestrian site safety of abrasive emery cloth held between assessment failed to identify the risk his fingers to polish a rotating metal “This injury could have been easily of tripping over the wall and did not workpiece when his hand was pulled prevented and the risk should have take into consideration the lighting into the machine. been identified.” conditions or potential effect of poor lighting on pedestrian safety at night. He suffered multiple compound BUILDING CONTRACTOR AND fractures of his left arm, loss of skin, CLIENTS FINED AFTER CATALOGUE The Leys and St Faith’s Foundation friction burns and tendon damage. He OF SAFETY BREACHES School pleaded guilty to breaching was hospitalised for a week and has On the 9th April 2021, the clients and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety undergone skin grafts and surgery to principal contractor of a construction at Work Act 1974. They were fined of insert metal plates and bolts. project were sentenced following £52,800 and ordered to pay costs of The HSE investigation found that the numerous serious health and safety failings.

28 latestprosecutions

Basildon Crown Court heard principal contractor complied with his Section 21 of the Health and Safety at how London and Essex Property duties under the Construction Design Work Act 1974. He received a 29- Partnership Ltd, principal contractor and Management Regulations, and in week suspended custodial sentence, Ludovic Calo and commercial client Richard Ball’s case, did not comply with 3 months electronic curfew 9pm-6am Richard Balls were involved in the one HSE improvement notice issued to and ordered to pay costs of £5,000. construction of two semi-detached improve health and safety standards houses at Central Wall Road, Canvey on the site. The project’s principal London & Essex Property Partnership Island. Health and safety concerns contractor, Ludovic Calo, failed to Ltd was found guilty of breaching were raised by members of the public plan, manage, and monitor effectively Regulations 4(3) and 4(6)(b) of and the HSE visited the site on five to ensure the construction work was The Construction (Design and separate occasions between 26th July carried out safely, failed to ensure work Management) Regulations 2015. 2017 and 23rd March 2018. They at height was properly planned and The company was fined £20,000 and identified ongoing health and safety carried out safely, failed to take suitable ordered to pay costs of £5,000. breaches relating to work at height, measures to prevent the fall of materials Speaking after the hearing, HSE site welfare and security, as well as from the scaffold and did not comply inspector Glyn Davies said: “Property an accumulation of domestic and with two HSE-issued improvement developers and construction firms construction waste on site. notices served to improve health and should be aware that HSE will not safety standards on the site. hesitate to prosecute those who There were also reports that bricks fall below the required standards, had fallen from the scaffold, and Ludovic Calo was found guilty especially where advice and the building’s gable end wall apex of breaching Regulation 13(1) of enforcement fails to improve their section had at one point collapsed The Construction (Design and management of health and safety. onto the neighbouring property. Management) Regulations 2015; Despite HSE serving a number of Regulations 4(1) and 10(1) of The “Commercial clients and principal enforcement notices and notification of Work at Height Regulations 2005; and contractors have significant and contravention letters, serious breaches two charges under Section 21 of the wide-ranging duties to comply with of health and safety law continued and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. construction health and safety law, there was a failure to comply with the He received a 29-week suspended and it is not acceptable to cut costs enforcement notices. custodial sentence, 3 months electronic and maximise profit at the expense of curfew 9pm-6am and ordered to pay putting people at risk.” The resulting investigation by the costs of £5,000. HSE found the project’s joint clients, CONSTRUCTION WORKER Richard Balls and London and Essex Richard Balls was found guilty of SUFFERS MULTIPLE SERIOUS Property Partnership Ltd had failed to breaching Regulations 4(1) and 4(3) INJURIES DUE TO FALLING OBJECTS make suitable arrangements to manage of The Construction (Design and On the 9th April 2021 a specialist the project. They did not ensure the Management) Regulations 2015, and construction company was fined after

29 latestprosecutions

a worker was injured when a number North Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court to undertake gas work, but still put the of wooden floor panels fell on him at an heard how, in April 2018, Jeffrey Lewis occupier and her family at serious risk industrial unit in Fen Street, London. incorrectly installed a new boiler in a by carrying out the work. Westminster Magistrates’ Court domestic property in Stoke-on-Trent. “All gas work must be done by a heard how on 11th September Mr Lewis was, nor had ever been, registered Gas Safe engineer to ensure 2018, a steelworker employed by Gas Safe Registered. He also issued the highest standards are met to Mr Mezzanine Limited was working an invalid gas safety certificate to prevent injury and loss of life. A gas beneath a partially constructed the occupier using a false Gas Safe boiler must be properly commissioned mezzanine floor when several panels, registration number. by a competent gas engineer before each weighing 38 kg, fell from the edge being left operating otherwise you onto him. He was struck repeatedly The HSE investigation found that cannot be sure that it is working safely.” and sustained serious injuries which Mr Lewis had not undertaken any included multiple fractures of his skull, appropriate training in gas work since DEMOLITION COMPANY FINED spine, legs and 11 ribs. He has not the 1970s. By carrying out this gas AFTER WORKER SUSTAINED returned to work. work, Mr Lewis was also in breach of LIFE CHANGING INJURIES WHEN a Prohibition Notice issued to him by OPERATING A CHERRY PICKER An investigation by the HSE found that the HSE in 2015. The notice prohibited On the 9th April 2021 a Preston the company had been contracted Mr Lewis from carrying out further gas demolition company was fined after the to install a mezzanine floor in the work until he was competent to do so operator of an articulated boom type unit. They failed to properly plan or and had become registered with the cherry picker became trapped between supervise the work, which resulted in a Gas Safe Register. the vehicle platform rail and the roof of lack of exclusion zones or measures to an industrial shed prevent the panels from falling. Jeffrey Alan Lewis pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Gas Safety Manchester Magistrates Court today Mr Mezzanine Limited pleaded guilty (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 heard how on 2nd November 2017 to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the and breaching Section 33 of the Health a worker contracted by Bradley Work at Height Regulations 2005. and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He Demolition Ltd was accessing the They were fined £16,000 and ordered received a one-year custodial sentence underside of the roof in Bredbury to pay £7,284 costs. suspended for 18 months, a four month to remove asbestos sheets and was curfew (7pm-6am), was ordered to trapped by his neck between the basket UNREGISTERED GAS FITTER carry out 20 rehabilitation activity days of the machine and a roof truss. As SENTENCED FOR ILLEGAL GAS and pay costs of £1,000. a result of the incident the operator WORK suffered life changing injuries which will On the 9th April 2021 a self-employed Speaking after the hearing, HSE require lifelong care. plumber was sentenced after carrying inspector Wendy Campbell said: “Mr out illegal and unsafe gas work. Lewis knew that he was not registered The investigation by the HSE into the

30 latestprosecutions

incident found that the vehicle was not members of the public and operatives inspector Jacqueline Western said: suitable for the work undertaken and on site. As a result, work was carried “This was a very serious incident, it is that it was not fitted with proprietary out in an unsafe manner and a large fortunate that nobody was injured and devices to avoid the likelihood of section of System House at the junction it occurred on a Sunday when the level operators being crushed. The risk of Accrington Road and Rose Grove in of traffic on the main road was low. The assessment did not sufficiently identify Burnley collapsed into the adjacent car consequences could have been much the entrapment hazard, and there was no park and across the main road. graver had the building collapsed onto effective communication with banksmen a vehicle. on the ground. An inadequate plan led A HSE investigation found that to the operator being trapped for a Northwest Plumbing Supplier Limited “This situation could so easily have sustained period of time. had failed to appoint a contractor with been avoided by ensuring someone the appropriate skills, knowledge, competent was carrying out the work Bradley Demolition Ltd pleaded experience and organisational capability; in a planned and organised manner. guilty to breaches of Regulation 2(1) and failed to adequately plan and manage “Companies should be aware that HSE of the Health and Safety at Work etc. the project. Mr Georghiou hired and will not hesitate to take appropriate Act 1974. The company was fined sourced equipment and material to enforcement action against those that £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of complete the building work but failed fall below the required standards.” £21,838.56. to ensure the structural integrity of the building and ensure lifting operations PLASTIC COATED FABRIC PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY were carried out in a safe manner putting MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND CONTRACTOR FINED AFTER members of the public at risk. IN LANCASHIRE FINED AFTER BUILDING COLLAPSE MACHINE INCIDENT On the 9th April 2021 a plumbing Northwest Plumbing Supplier Limited On the 12th April 2021, a Lancashire supply company and its building pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation based manufacturer of plastic-coated contractor were fined after unsafe 13(1) of the Construction (Design fabrics was fined after an employee’s construction work took place at the and Management) Regulations 2015. hand was drawn into an unguarded company premises in Burnley. The company was fined £75,000 and part of a machine, resulting in the ordered to pay costs of £10,843. surgical amputation of three fingers. Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard that on 21st October 2018, Northwest Daniel Georghiou pleaded guilty to Manchester Magistrates’ Court Plumbing Supplier Limited and breaching Section 3(2) of Health and heard that on 20th August 2019, a contractor, Daniel Georghiou, carried Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was machine operator at the Earby site, out construction work on their sentenced to six months imprisonment was carrying out work activities on a retail building without measures suspended for 18 months and was large embossing machine, known as the to adequately plan, manage and ordered to pay costs of £750. Briem machine, when his hand became monitor the work, including protecting Speaking after the hearing, HSE drawn into the nip point between two

31 latestprosecutions

counter rotating rollers; referred to as Speaking after the hearing, HSE to the ground and the forklift truck the shell and the bole. Inspector Leona Cameron commented: ran over his legs causing severe crush “A number of unsafe practices were injuries. For product quality, the shell roller uncovered. needed to be kept at an ice-cold The resulting HSE investigation found temperature. This was achieved by “This included unguarded access to the that there were inadequate control using water cooled from a chiller unit, dangerous parts of the Briem machine, measures in place to segregate situated outside the building. Previous failings in maintenance and the quality pedestrians and vehicles at the delivery incidents leading up to the incident of of the risk assessment process in yard. the chiller “cutting out” had therefore allowing an unsafe working practice to made it custom and practice for the develop. Skillbeech Services Ltd pleaded guilty operators to check the temperature of to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health the moving roller by hand. This resulted “For example, the company had and Safety at Work Act 1974. They in the irreversible crush injuries to the identified the risk of entanglement were fined £32,000 and ordered to pay operative’s right hand. from in-running nips, but had chosen costs of £8,222. not to take practicable measures to An investigation by the HSE found that prevent such risk. Speaking after the hearing, HSE there was insufficient guarding to the inspector Nicola Pinckney said: “The machine with at least four exposed nip “If suitable guarding and robust injuries sustained in this incident were points and a heavy reliance on training maintenance procedures been in place, life changing and could have easily been rather than engineering controls, such then the life changing injuries to the fatal. as fixed guarding. operative would not have occurred.” “This incident could have been Following the incident, the company COMPANY FINED AFTER avoided if basic vehicle and pedestrian undertook remedial measures to EMPLOYEE SERIOUSLY INJURED IN segregation and control measures such ensure machinery safety, including COLLISION WITH FORKLIFT TRUCK as barriers, marked walkways and safe suitable guarding to prevent access to On the of 13th April 2021 a warehouse working practices had been in place. dangerous parts of the machine. and storage company was fined after an employee sustained serious injuries “Companies should be aware that HSE The company Uniroyal Global Ltd when he was hit by a forklift truck. will not hesitate to take appropriate pleaded guilty to breaching Section Southampton Magistrates’ Court heard enforcement action against those that 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work how on 11th July 2019, the delivery fall below the required standard.” etc Act 1974. The company was fined driver was in a delivery yard at Driver’s £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of Wharf in Southampton, while his £5,462.75. vehicle was being loaded, when he was hit by a forklift truck. He was knocked

32 latestprosecutions

GARAGE DOOR INSTALLER FINED and sufficient assessment to establish MOT CENTRE SENTENCED AFTER FOR ASBESTOS SAFETY FAILINGS whether asbestos was liable to be WORKER FATALLY INJURED IN OIL On the 14th April 2021 a garage door present in the premises, and what type DRUM EXPLOSION installation company was fined after of asbestos containing material may On the 16th April 2021, an MOT failing to manage asbestos safely during have been present, was not carried out centre was sentenced after oil drums work on a house in Bamber Bridge. prior to the start of the job. Subsequent supplied by them exploded and killed testing of the material came back an agricultural engineer. Preston Magistrates’ Court heard how positive for Chrysotile and Amosite. on 9th October 2019, two employees Luton Magistrates’ Court heard how on of Garage Doors (Northern) Ltd, Garage Doors (Northern) Limited 21st April 2017, Christopher Chatfield, were carrying out work to remove an pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation an experienced agricultural engineer, existing integrated garage door and fit 6(1) of the Control of Asbestos was making metal pheasant feeders a new door at a property in Brownedge Regulations 2012 and Section 3(1) of for the local game shoot at Puddock Lane, Bamber Bridge. the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act Down Warboys, Cambridgeshire. 1974. The company was fined £10,000 This involved converting empty 200 The workers removed old fittings and ordered to pay costs of £1,589. litre oil containers by cutting open from the side of the garage door with Speaking after the hearing, HSE the lids using a plasma torch. While an angle grinder and some of the inspector Stuart Hadfield said: cutting open the third drum it violently ceiling fittings with a crowbar. Holes “Exposure to asbestos is a serious exploded resulting in fatal injuries to Mr were drilled into the ceiling to fit new health issue and without companies Chatfield. roof bars and in doing so they caused fully assessing the risk when carrying damage to the ceiling, which was made out intrusive work they are potentially The HSE investigation found that of Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB). putting their workers and members of the empty drums, labelled as having the public at risk. contained motor oil, were found to The resulting dust containing asbestos have also previously contained highly fibres was spread through the house “This incident could so easily have been flammable gasoline, but had not been via the central heating system, resulting avoided by identifying the presence labelled correctly. The residual gasoline in the homeowner having to leave his of asbestos and putting in place the vapour present within the drums home, and live in an hotel for eleven correct control measures and safe violently ignited upon the action of months, whilst the house was deep working practices to prevent the the hot cutting process, causing fatal cleaned to remove all traces of asbestos release of, and exposure to, asbestos. injuries to Mr Chatfield. There was a fibres. “Companies should be aware that HSE failure to provide any labelling to show will not hesitate to take appropriate that the empty motor oil drums had The investigation by the HSE found enforcement action against those that been repurposed to store gasoline that despite undertaking work on a fall below the required standards.” and this created a risk of fire and or building built before 2000, a suitable explosion.

33 latestprosecutions

Stonehill MOT Centre Ltd pleaded heard that on 21st November 2018, a apprentice electrician falls from height guilty to breaching Section 6(1)(c) of 17-year-old apprentice, who had been On the 20th April 2021 Greenway the Health and Safety at Work etc Act working at Amber Industries Limited Partnership Limited, a Herefordshire 1974. They were fined £80,000 and in Oldham for 18 months, was reaming based construction company, was fined ordered to pay costs of £8,167. work pieces using an unguarded pillar after an apprentice fell two metres drill whilst wearing gloves. The glove on during the demolition of part of a Speaking after the hearing, HSE his right hand became entangled in the school premises. inspector Parmjit Gahir said: “Those drill bit resulting in three of his fingers who are involved in the sale or supply being severed. Bristol Magistrates’ court heard that of an article or substance, in this case on 8th February 2018, the apprentice used oil drums, have a responsibility to The investigation by the HSE found electrician fell from height, causing ensure that adequate information is that there were no guards in place to facial and head injuries. He was in provided so that the person buying the prevent access to rotating parts and the process of removing the flat roof article can ensure that it can be safely that the company had failed to provide of Block 2 Lydney CofE Community used, cleaned and maintained. suitable information, instruction and School in Lyndney when the incident training to the apprentice, including occurred. “Failure to provide any labelling clear instructions not to wear gloves. information on the used drums, to They also failed to provide adequate The HSE investigation found that the show that they had also contained supervision and monitoring. Greenway Partnership Limited did gasoline, did not allow for the necessary not adequately plan for the removal precautions to be considered and Amber Industries Limited pleaded of the flat roof. Operatives had not adopted when cutting the drums open. guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the been trained in working at height or If appropriate labelling had been in Health and Safety at Work etc Act demolition, and there was inadequate place this incident could have been 1974. The company was fined £52,500 supervision of the work. As a result, no avoided.” and ordered to pay costs of £14,442. measures were put in place at the time to prevent or mitigate a fall. MANUFACTURING COMPANY Speaking after the hearing, HSE FINED AFTER AN APPRENTICE inspector Jane Carroll said: “This injury Greenway Partnership Limited pleaded SUFFERS LIFE-CHANGING INJURY was easily preventable, and the risk guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) WHIST USING A PILLAR DRILL should have been identified. Employers of the Work at Height Regulations On the 16th April 2021 a should make sure they properly assess 2005. Despite being in liquidation manufacturing company was fined and apply effective control measures to the company was fined £21,319 and after an apprentice’s hand was caught minimise the risk from dangerous parts ordered to pay £6,284 in costs. in machinery. of machinery”.

Manchester Magistrates’ Court Construction company fined after

34 latestprosecutions

COMPANY AND DIRECTOR the control of Mr Chegounchei dating CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROSECUTED FOR REPEATED back over 10 years. The investigation FINED FOR BREACHING WORK AT POOR STANDARDS OF SITE SAFETY also identified that poor safety HEIGHT REGULATIONS On the 21st April 2021, a buy to let management and leadership had On the 22nd April 2021, a construction property developer and company continued at sites controlled by Mr company was fined after HSE director was fined for poor health and Chegounchei, despite him receiving inspectors found unsafe working at safety standards on their construction director health and safety training as height practises and other unsafe site site in Cardiff. a result of previous HSE enforcement operations during a routine inspection. action. Cardiff Magistrates’ Court heard Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court that JNR Developers Limited had JNR Developers Limited,pleaded guilty heard that on 8th October 2019, a consistently performed below to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health routine inspection was undertaken required health and safety standards and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The at a construction site in Redditch, over a period of 10 years, despite company was fined £32,000 ordered to Worcestershire following a report interventions from HSE and pay costs of £8,000. of a fall from height. During the enforcement action to remedy poor inspection there was evidence of practice. Mehrded Chegounchei pleaded poor management of work at height, guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of and numerous other uncontrolled HSE inspections of refurbishment the Health and Safety at Work etc site safety risks. This included unsafe projects under the control of JNR Act 1974. He received a six months work on a flat roof where there was Developers Limited in February, March custodial sentence, suspended for no edge protection as required by and April 2018 uncovered serious twelve months, and ordered to the regulations to prevent a fall from management failings that had resulted undertake eighty hours of unpaid work. height, despite there having been a in site activities being performed fall from the same flat roof eight days unsafely. Multiple risks were identified Speaking after the hearing, HSE earlier. including structural safety concerns, inspector John Caboche said: “This unsafe work at height, poor electrical company and its director failed to adopt Prohibition Notices were served safety, substandard plant management correct control measures and safe immediately in response to the work and inadequate welfare that resulted in working practises to maintain expected at height breach and for unsafe access immediate enforcement action. health and safety standards on site to and egress into the building. An protect workers. Improvement Notice was served in A subsequent HSE investigation relation to planning for work at height into JNR Developers Limited and “Companies should be aware that HSE and a Notification of Contravention its director, Mehrdad Chegounchei, will not hesitate to take appropriate was also served for other identified identified a long history of enforcement enforcement action against those that failings. by HSE at construction sites under fall below the required standards.”

35 latestprosecutions

SSF Construction Limited pleaded ASBESTOS REMOVAL Enviraz (Scotland) Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) CONTRACTOR FINED FOLLOWING guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of of the Work at Height Regulations FATAL GAS EXPLOSION the Health and Safety at Work etc 2005 and Regulation 13(1) of On the 27th April 2021, an asbestos Act 1974. The company was fined the Construction (Design and removal contractor was fined after a £150,000. Management) Regulations 2015. They worker was fatally injured and another were fined £48,000 and ordered to pay worker seriously injured in a gas Speaking after the hearing, HSE costs of £3,443. explosion. inspector Helen Diamond said: “This incident could so easily have been Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Hamilton Sheriff’s Court heard how avoided if the company had ensured Chris Gregory said: “The company had on 5th October 2017, workers were that the gas pipe in the boiler room not learnt the lesson from the recent removing a boiler and pipework, and had been isolated and purged prior to fall from height and failed to ensure that overspraying walls to remove asbestos removal. Within the asbestos licensing appropriate fall prevention or mitigation residue, at the former Pastoral Centre permissioning regime, HSE expects measures had been put in place, so there in Bonkle Road, Newmains in Wishaw. licensed contractors to have adequate was the potential for further falls from The work was being carried out prior management arrangements in place to height and serious injuries or fatalities. to demolition. The plan was to cut the control non-asbestos risks. Other significant risks identified during boiler and pipework into sections to the inspection confirmed a widespread make it easier to remove. However, “Given the potential consequences of failure to manage and monitor the site the gas supply had not been isolated, using a power tool on live or unpurged to protect workers and others from and the workers cut through a live gas pipework, the management system to foreseeable risks. outlet pipe, the gas ignited causing an establish the status of the pipework explosion. needs to be robust and there should be “Those in control of work have a written confirmation of isolation. responsibility to ensure that work Two workers received extensive burns activities are appropriately planned, to their body and underwent surgery. “Tragically, one man has lost his life as managed and monitored, and that One of the employees died in hospital a result of this incident and a second suitable control measures are both several days after the incident. worker has sustained life-changing identified and implemented. injuries.” The HSE investigation identified that “HSE will not hesitate to take proactive the risk assessment and plan of work Port fined after employee suffers life enforcement action against those that for the job had identified services were changing injuries in truck incident fall below the required standards – it is present in the boiler room, but the On the 27th April 2021, the Port clear that in this case we were left with company failed to ensure the gas pipe of Sheerness Limited, one of the no choice but issue these notices and was isolated and purged of gas before core terminals of Peel Ports London prosecute.” work commenced. Medway, was fined following an

36 latestprosecutions

incident where an employee was Speaking after the hearing, HSE WOODWORKING COMPANY seriously injured by a clamp truck. inspector Joanne Williams said: “This FINED AFTER WORKER SUFFERED Folkstone Magistrates’ Court heard incident has resulted in life changing MULTIPLE LEG INJURIES DUE TO that on 28th October 2018, an injuries in a wholly avoidable incident, FALLING OBJECTS employee was hit by a five tonne caused by the failure of the company to On 27th April 2021 Arnold Laver & clamp truck in a paper reel shed on identify the roles of the supervisors in Company Ltd were sentenced for the Sheerness Port. The employee the reel sheds and how the work was safety breaches after a worker was sustained an open leg fracture and actually being undertaken. struck by objects falling from an was knocked unconscious. He was articulated trailer. subsequently airlifted to hospital and “They did not learn from the previous had to have his leg amputated. incidents involving supervisors and lift Bradford Magistrates’ Court heard trucks to review supervisory activities that on 24th July 2019, the 45-year-old An investigation by the HSE into across the port. There is no excuse for worker had been unloading the bottom the incident found that the Port of companies that neglect this risk. deck of the double deck articulated Sheerness Limited failed to ensure trailer, which was being used for pedestrians and vehicles could “Pedestrians, whether they are overflow storage at the company’s circulate and operate safely, putting the employees or not, should be kept Manningham Sawmill site in Canal employee and others at significant risk. separate from these types of vehicles Road, Bradford. Supervisors were frequently working through physical barriers or safe amongst five to six clamp trucks whilst systems of work that are clear and well A HSE investigation found that the undertaking the supervision of the supervised. trailer was being used to store mainly paper reel unloads. It was found that composite decking on the lower deck. there had been previous incidents “Every year many people are killed or The upper deck contained packs of where supervisors had been in close seriously injured in incidents involving MDF architrave, timber stock, and proximity of the vehicle operations on workplace transport, and there are various promotional materials. the port and had been hit by vehicles significant risks associated with or product. Port of Sheerness Limited operating vehicles on ports, particularly Another operative needed to place a had only reviewed the immediate work when, as in this case, the vehicles have pallet of decking on the bottom deck, relating to the incidents. restricted visibility due to the lifting and to make more space to do that he of large paper reels. These risks can removed a side support, which helped Port of Sheerness Limited pleaded be easily controlled using reasonably to hold the top deck of the trailer up. guilty to breaching Section 2 of the practicable precautions.” However, another side support had Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. already been disengaged and when They were fined £60,000 and ordered the second support was removed the to pay costs of £10,886. loaded top deck of the trailer partially collapsed. Part of a pack of architrave

37 latestprosecutions

slid off the top deck and hit the worker. the unsupported wall of the excavation inspector Duncan Officer said: “This He suffered a broken left femur and collapsed and crushed one of the incident could so easily have been other bones in his left foot. employees, causing serious injuries. avoided had the excavation work been properly planned and carried Arnold Laver & Company Ltd pleaded The resulting HSE investigation out by suitably trained individuals to guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the identified that W & E Lammie had ensure that the appropriate safety Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. failed to plan the precautions or measures were implemented to The company has been fined £150,000 practicable steps necessary to prevent prevent excavation collapse. Had the and ordered to pay £1,719 in costs. danger to any person entering the principal contractor carried out suitable excavation, failed to provide supports checks they could have been identified Speaking after the hearing, HSE or battering to ensure the excavation that those carrying out the work inspector David Beaton said: “The use did not collapse and failed to provide were untrained and that safe working of the trailer as a storage facility had not appropriate training and supervision practices were not being followed on been properly risk assessed. to the employees carrying out the site. drainage works. The investigation also “This incident could so easily have been identified that in their role as principal “The requirement for control measures avoided by simply using correct control contractor, Auberne Homes Limited, and safe working practices during measures and safe working practices.” failed to plan, manage and monitor the excavation work are well-known in drainage works being carried out on the construction industry. HSE will TWO CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES their construction project. not hesitate to take appropriate FINED AFTER WORKER SERIOUSLY enforcement action against those INJURED IN EXCAVATION W & E Lammie, a now dissolved responsible for the excavation works COLLAPSE partnership, having previously had a and those in control of the construction On 28th April 2021 Auberne Homes place of business at Muirkirk Road, site where these required standards Limited and groundworks contractor Cumnock, pled guilty to breaching are not met.” W & E Lammie have been fined after Regulation 15(2) of The Construction an employee of W & E Lammie was (Design and Management) Regulations crushed and severely injured during an 2015 and were fined £18,000. excavation collapse. Auberne Homes Limited, of Beresford Ayr Sherriff Court heard that, on Court, Ayr pled guilty to breaching 20th February 2018, employees of Regulation 13(1) of The Construction W & E Lammie were carrying out (Design and Management) Regulations drainage works within an excavation 2015 and were fined £35,000. at a construction site at Holmhead Gardens, Cumnock, when a section of Speaking after the hearing, HSE

38 ALL THE LATEST INDUSTRY NEWS, REPORTS, PROJECTS AND PROSECUTIONS STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

39 A Yardley House, 11 Horsefair, Rugeley, Staffordshire WS15 2EJ T 01889 577 701 E [email protected] W www.callsafe-services.co.uk

callsafeservicesltd @callsafesvcsltd callsafe-services-limited