Images showing a Tayside construction worker being raised around 30 feet into the air by a forklift with no safety gear have sparked an investigation.

Screenshots of a video, which was seen by many on social media before being taken down, appear to show a man in a high vis jacket sitting on wooden pallets attached to the front of a construction vehicle, before being hoisted up into the air.

He is not wearing any safety harness.

Officials from building firm Ogilvie Construction are probing the incident at a Carnoustie construction site.

The site where the footage is thought to have been taken is run by Ogilvie, although it remains unclear whether the people involved worked directly for the firm or had been subcontracted in.

The video was circulated widely on Facebook but was removed after senior staff became aware of its existence.

An investigation is now being held to identify those involved.

One concerned viewer of the video said they believed the man had been lifted “30 feet” into the air.

© DC Thomson

Health and safety staff from Ogilvie attended the site and determined that work could continue as it appeared to be a one off incident.

The identities of the man being lifted up and the operator of the forklift remain unconfirmed.

Sandy Ogilvie, operation director at Ogilvie Homes said: “There is an investigation ongoing. We have spoke to health and safety who have been out to the site.

“We have to carry out the full investigation. The work is continuing.”

(source)

Did you know that window cleaners for The Shard scrub 11,000 panes of glass over 87 floors, up to 300 metres above the ground? As part of the team who abseiled down Big Ben’s clock face to clean, inspect and repair this iconic structure, I am all too familiar with the risks of working at height. However, did you know that the Work at Height Regulations apply to all work at height, where there is a risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury, and that facilities managers controlling this work have a legal duty to keep workers safe?

Falls from height are the single biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of major injury within the workplace. As London’s skyscraper boom sees over 100 new tall buildings proposed for the British capital in the last year, the role of the facilities professional encompasses an ever increasing health and safety responsibility, as they lead a range of site services conducted from height. From gutter cleaning, concrete and joint repairs and vegetation removal, to pest control, building façade cleaning and lift maintenance, facilities managers must ensure work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. As the Regulations have further tightened, safe practice in window cleaning means all work should be completed at ground level if reasonably practicable.

Ensuring that FMs have the knowledge for planning, supervising and managing working at height is imperative. Professional training should cover health and safety and regulatory requirements, selecting and planning staff and equipment, producing work schedules and site supervision.

Just last year, window cleaner Kevin Dolan, 57, plummeted to his death from the third-storey window of a Grade II-listed Pountney Hill House, in central London after his employer failed to ensure safe working conditions[1]. Not wearing a safety harness, Kevin fell to his death through the open floor-to-ceiling window while cleaning the huge glass pane from the inside.

Without doubt, there is definitely no shortage in window cleaning companies in the Capital – my Search Engine identified 4,290,000 results! However, with a legal responsibility for the safety of workers contracted under your employment, FMs must do their research and only work with professionals holding the right accreditation. For jobs requiring rope access or abseiling, FMs should look for companies working to International Rope Access Association (IRATA) guidelines as a minimum standard.

Between two and seven window cleaners are killed every year with an additional 20 to 30 suffering major injuries as a result of falls from ladders[2].  Many more experience minor injuries resulting in days off work for recovery which comes at a high cost to small cleaning businesses and the self-employed. Falling from height is a major contributor to these figures.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 state that employers and those in control of any work at height activity must ensure that the work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. This includes using the right type of equipment for working at height. As part of the risk assessment, FMs must avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so. For FMs keen to tackle the mucky job themselves from the ground, there are now solutions on the market which enable you to work with extended window cleaning equipment up to 20m/65ft safely from ground-level.

The Working at Height 2005 Regulations sets out a simple Hierarchy of Risk Management for managing work at a height:

• Avoid work at height where this is reasonably practicable;
• Use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where you cannot avoid working at height.
• Where you cannot eliminate the risk of a fall, use work equipment or other measures to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall.

Window cleaners often suffer falls from height due to using portable ladders incorrectly by overreaching, stepping off the ladder and working on a window ledge with no safety equipment or working from excessively long and unsecure ladders. Should facilities managers wish to undertake professional training to enable them to handle some of the lower to ground maintenance responsibilities, it is vital that they work with an approved provider of ladder safety training courses. The HSE has also produced a useful guide to safe use of ladders and stepladders[3]. The safest way to manage working at height responsibilities is to remember this…..if in doubt, call in the experts.

References:

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11955408/Window-cleaner-falls-to-his-death-from-third-storey-of-Grade-II-listed-building.html

[2] http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causinj/slips-trips-and-falls.pdf

[3] http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg455.pdf

Working to International Rope Access Association (IRATA) Guidelines, Total Access staff worked on some of the UK’s landmark structures and properties including Big Ben and Spinnaker Tower.

Stuart Alcock, Site Services Manager at Total Access

(source)

A company which manufactured and installed windows has been fined £36,000 after carrying out work in the West End of London with no measures to prevent the workers falling eight metres and after dropping part of a window onto the public area below.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard Ideal Glazing (Euro) Ltd carried out window installation work at Aldford House, Park Street, London, between 19 and 20 January 2015 that put their workers and members of the public at risk of suffering serious injuries or a fatality.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) carried out an investigation into the work after a member of the public provided photos of workers leaning out of window openings eight meters above the ground. They also provided a video showing the workers dropping part of a window which fell to the ground and missed a nearby pedestrian.

The company had failed to provide equipment such as scaffolding which would have prevented the workers and window falling. None of the workers had received any formal training and no one was appointed to supervise the work.

The risks associated with the work had not been sufficiently assessed. The court heard the company had failed to invest in equipment for working at height and had a health and management system which relied entirely on the company’s managing directorn Mr Rashinda Joshi, despite his lack of relevant training and experience.

The work at Aldford House was halted when HSE served a Prohibition Notice (PN) . The court heard the company had previously been given advice by HSE in connection with work at height and that an audit by Ideal Glazing’s bank had previously identified a range of relevant health and safety failings. The court heard that neither written warning was heeded by the firm.

Ideal Glazing (Euro) Ltd of 29, The Green, Southall, Middlesex, pleaded guilty to breaches of Regulation 6(3) and 10(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £36,000 and ordered to pay £1,386 in costs.

HSE inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers commented after the hearing:

“Ideal Glazing (Euro) Ltd put the lives of workers and members of the public at risk. People should be able to walk down a pavement without being exposed to the risk of a heavy window falling eight-metres onto them.”

“The company’s standards were appalling, and this was particularly unacceptable as previous warnings had been blatantly disregarded.”

“This is a case where equipment such as scaffolding was not provided. It’s vital that law abiding companies have confidence they will not lose work to others who underquote them because they take shortcuts at the expense of safety.

“Thanks to the member of the public who alerted us, we were able to avoid the workers or any pedestrians being injured or killed. We encourage people to report unsafe work to us so we can act to protect workers and the public.”

Notes to editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. hse.gov.uk
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

————————————————————————————————-

 

Working at Height Training

Click here to view all the Working at Height Training courses we offer.

Why is training required?

Anybody working at height must comply with the Working at Height Regulations 2005. The Working at Height Regulations stipulate that we must avoid working at height where possible.  Employers must do all that is reasonably practicable to prevent anyone falling.

Total Access (UK) Ltd carries out Working at Height training for a wide range of industries: 

• Wind Turbine
• Telecommunications
• Stage & Theatre
• Scaffolding
• Military & Police
• Maritime
• Manufacturing & Warehouse
• Fire & Rescue Services
• Cleaning & Maintenance

 

A scaffolding sole proprietor from Castleford has been prosecuted after a contractor fell to his death from a roof in Pontefract on 3 September 2012.

Mr Wayne Morgan (Barnsdale Scaffolding T/A) provided edge protection for the safety of  Mr Walter Booth, another sole trader, who was carrying out repairs to the roof of Micklegate Methodist Church.

The scaffolding edge protection provided  by Mr Morgan failed to follow the profile of the roof edge leaving a gap through which 63 year old Mr Booth fell.

Standards for scaffold are well known

 

Wayne Morgan of Castleford, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(a) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and was sentenced to 200 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £15,000 in costs by Wakefield Magistrates Court.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Sarah Lee commented:

“This was an entirely preventable death. In this case the scaffolding edge protection was not sufficient to prevent a person falling from the roof. The scaffold installation should have been erected correctly, follow the profile of the roof and have no large gaps.

The standards for scaffold are well known and have been in place for many years. It is vital that scaffolders ensure that scaffold is erected as per the standards and it is checked after it is erected, to ensure that everything is in place.”

 

 

Working from height remains one of the biggest causes of fatalities and major injuries in the UK. In the first of a four-part series, David Thomas reflects on 40 years of progress.

“Those who work at height should never forget that gravity is no respecter of persons. It affects everyone; too many times with disastrous consequences resulting in serious, permanent injuries or death…” So declares the foreword to BS 8437. [1]

Gravity is a part of nature that will never change and its consequences have affected countless individuals since the dawn of time. Much has been published over the last 40 years to catalogue the toll of misery. Much has been undertaken to improve the planning of work at height; new products have come to market and new techniques adopted to help make work easier, safer and more cost-effective. New regulations have also acted as both a catalyst and a driver in requiring, and promoting, suitable and sufficient measures to be taken.

A number of historical reports provide essential reading for all construction and safety professionals. The four that are reviewed below all include ‘work at height’.

The past

Construction [1978] [2] was published to place the 1976 accident statistics in an historical context and, “… focuses attention on relatively simple measures which, if tackled nationally, could dramatically reduce the toll of accidents in the construction industry…”.

In an interesting review of the development of legislation in construction the report concludes, “… whereas legislation has applied to an ever wider range of building and construction activities, the causes of fatal and serious accidents have generally remained the same for the last 60 or 70 years; falls of persons, particularly from ladders, roofs and scaffolds…”.

There were 154 fatal accidents in building operations (117) and engineering construction (37) in 1976. The “… somewhat gloomy, if predictable, message… is that although overall accident levels may vary from year to year, the construction industry continued … to be unable to cope with a large number of well-known and well documented problems…”.

The incidence rate of fatal accidents was 15.7. Falls of persons accounted for 30 per cent of all reported accidents in construction processes and 48.1 per cent of fatal accidents.

Accidents from ladders and stepladders were consistently the highest category of falls, with the principal cause of ladder accidents being the failure to tie or to satisfactorily foot the ladder. The second highest category of falls was of persons and materials from working platforms, in particular during the erection, alteration and dismantling of scaffolds. It was noted that, “Techniques and equipment should be developed for the scaffolding industry …”.

The similarity in the rate of accidents from platforms less than 6 ft 6 inches above the ground and those from platforms above this was noted. Examples of prohibition notices against steelwork erectors were given.

It was suggested that, “Further research by the industry is necessary into methods of securing the safety of persons laying roof sheets at exposed edges… consideration should be given to… the proper use of safety nets …”. In terms of fragile roofs, “… All too often, inspectors find that no precautions have been taken or that they were wholly inadequate. Although the provision of suitable crawling boards, crawling ladders and duck boards is quite simple, too often little attention is paid to preventing them slipping, tipping or otherwise being displaced.”

Opinion is expressed that, “One of the basic problems is that serious accidents are regarded as happening only to other people. Hazards seen on site are not connected with the accidents which they could cause …”.

Safety in Steel Erection [1979] [3] stated, “The incidence rate for injury and death for steel erection workers present a particularly serious problem…” Investigation of accidents revealed, “…a widespread belief that a pre-requisite for the task of fixing steelwork at heights is a state of mind which consciously accepts risks which would be unacceptable to most construction workers… although safety belts and harnesses are often available, they are seldom used and the provision of safety nets is rare…”. Between 1961 and 1969 there were 253 fatalities of steel erectors, equating to 21 per annum (a rate of 1 in 60).

With very few exceptions the facilities provided for steel erectors to gain access to their working places was, “…exceptionally poor…”. In terms of working platforms, in the majority of cases little or nothing was done and erectors were, “… left to fend for themselves…”. Very few safety nets were used on steel erection sites and safety belts, although usually available, were, “… seldom worn …”. There was, “…no doubt that steel erectors are prejudiced against the use of safety belts and harnesses and it is likely that only a few have even tied to use them…”; a multiplicity of objections being cited. Used correctly, “…safety belts and harnesses can save lives or prevent serious injury …”. It was noted that where it was possible to the drop to exceed 2 ft the shock of the arrest of the fall should be distributed by the use of a safety harness as distinct from a belt only.

Roofs, a study of fatal accidents at work [1985] [4] – part of the series Deadly Maintenance – outlined the dangers to which people are exposed while engaged in maintenance work on roofs, based on information contained in reports of fatal accidents in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and with the aim of promulgating the lessons learnt first-hand by some people at the cost of the life of a colleague or friend.

A detailed analysis is made of fatal accidents on roofs (63), with the largest number being falls through fragile roofs (30). It is reported, “… It is clear that over 80 per cent of the accidents could have been prevented. Management and workforce alike seem unable to appreciate, or chose to ignore, the obvious and ever present risk of falling during roof work…”. It was determined that absence or failure in system of work (26) and absent or unsafe equipment, working platforms or machinery (16) were the two major causes of accidents during the maintenance of roofs.

Precautions advised are pre-work inspection; management; safe working procedures; information; instruction and training; equipment; and lifting materials to roof level. Its conclusion is that, “… The hazards associated with roof work and the means of dealing with them are generally well known in the industry… The consequences of falls from roofs are plain for all those who wish to see … Most could have been avoided.”

Blackspot Construction [1988] [5], a study of five years fatal accidents in the building and civil engineering industries, analysed 739 deaths between 1981 and 1985 and concluded that, “… most of the deaths could have been prevented…” A recurring theme was that people were killed during simple, routine, work. In my experience, this is still the case. Falls accounted for 52 per cent of deaths, with ‘roofing workers’ accounting for 99 deaths, ‘scaffolders’ (23) and ‘steel erectors’ (22). Interestingly, ‘managerial and professional status’ deaths amounted to 49. It is noted, “… People are often at risk because a recognised custom and practice in the industry is not necessarily safe practice. Workers still fall through fragile roofs… steel erectors fall from narrow beams…”. Mention is made of the need to plan and develop safe systems of work, to provide active supervision by line managers, for workers to identify danger and take steps to protect themselves, for better management of sites and the coordination of the work.

With falls being the largest single cause of deaths, the top killers were falls from roofs (142, with 75 through fragile material and 59 from roof edges); ladders and stepladders (66, with 47 during maintenance work); and scaffolds and working places (121, with 24 during erection and dismantling and 11 from cradles and bosun’s chairs, etc.). The main physical cause of ladder incidents (42) was that ladders were not secured or footed. There is little doubt that many of the accident causes, and precautions listed, still apply today.

David Thomas is technical director at The heightec Group Ltd and is also a director of Heightsayfe Ltd.

References:

1. BS 8437: 2005, Code of practice for selection, use and maintenance of personal fall protection systems and equipment for use in the workplace (now +A1: 2012).
2. Construction, Health and Safety, HSE, 1978, ISBN 0 11 883023 6.
3. Safety in Steel Erection, Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Advisory Committee on Safety and Health in the Construction Industries, HSE, 1979, ISBN 0 11 883241 7.
4. Deadly Maintenance, Roofs, a study of fatal accidents at work, HSE, 1985, ISBN 0 11 883804 0.
5. Blackspot Construction, A study of five years fatal accidents in the building and civil engineering industries, HSE, 1988, ISBN 0 11 883992 6.

(source)

 

A scaffolder has been handed two suspended prison sentences after he repeatedly put the lives of workers at risk by allowing unsafe work at height to be carried out on a busy London street. A concerned member of the public sent video and photo evidence of the poorly erected 15 metre high scaffolding, to the HSE.

 

Greg Pearson, from Enfield, trading as ‘Pearsons Scaffolding’, was prosecuted by the HSE after the concerns were raised about scaffolding work being carried out on Tavistock Street in central London.

HSE visited the site twice and found the incomplete scaffold to be poorly erected and unsafe work practices were putting workers at risk. No measures had been taken to prevent any falling scaffolding equipment hitting members of the public below.

HSE served a Prohibition Notice ordering work to be stopped until the scaffold was made safe, but Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that Pearson ignored this and other warnings, carrying on regardless.

The court also heard Pearson failed to respond when required to produce documents for inspection during the investigation, hindering the HSE’s efforts to ensure future work was carried out safely at other sites. Pearsons Scaffolding’s involvement at the site only ended when a second Prohibition Notice was served and the project’s Principal Contractor decided to take on another scaffolder to complete the work.

Greg Pearson, 33, of South Street, Enfield, pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (6(3), 10(1)) and was given two suspended prison sentences of 10 weeks to run concurrently, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £80.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Andrew Verrall-Withers said: “Greg Pearson repeatedly put the lives of other workers and members of the public at risk. He blatantly disregarded all warnings and enforcement action taken against him and it was just good fortune that no one was killed.

“It’s vital that law abiding scaffolders have confidence they will not lose work to others who underquote them because they take shortcuts at the expense of safety.

“This case should send a message to other scaffolders that Courts will sentence robustly even when the reckless working practices have thankfully not resulted in serious injuries or fatalities.

“I applaud the member of the public who alerted us to this as thankfully we were able to avoid the workers or the public being injured or killed. We encourage people to report unsafe work to us so we can act to protect workers and the public.”

(source)

Maintenance work on fragile roof without sufficient precautions

Freight trailer manufacturer, Gray & Adams Limited, has been fined for dangerous work at height after a worker fell whilst working on a fragile roof. John Strachan, aged 50, fractured his hand when he fell on the roof of the company brake department in Scotland in December 2013.

Peterhead Sheriff Court heard that the roof comprised asbestos cement sheeting with a number of roof lights. There were no fragile roof warning notices affixed to the building.

HSE investigators found that installation, maintenance and cleaning work had been carried out on the roof over a period of time with insufficient fall prevention measures in place.

No system or means to arrest a fall

Gray & Adams Limited, of Fraserburgh, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 6(3) of The Working at Height Regulations 2005 and were fined £5,300.

Speaking after sentencing, HSE inspector Niall Miller said:

“Precautions for working on fragile surfaces should have been taken by the company. Everyone within the maintenance team were fully aware that the roof was fragile.

The risk assessment Gray & Adams had in place for working on roofs included the control measure ‘wear safety harness’ however this building roof had no system in place or any means for attaching a harness. The use of ‘crawling boards’ was not suitable or sufficient.

John Strachan was fortunate to have fallen on the roof itself. If he had fallen through it he could have been more seriously injured, or even killed. Following this incident a new risk assessment for roof work was carried out by the company and this identified the need to investigate further fall protection measures.”

A quarter of all workers who died during work at height involve falls through fragile materials, such as roof lights and asbestos cement roofing sheets.

CDM 2015 Information and Templates

We have published a great deal of further information and templates designed to support Clients, Designers, Principal Designers/Contractors and Contractors in meeting their duties under CDM Regulations 2015.

CLICK HERE to view the full range of FREE information available.

 

Fall Protection

The Total Access (UK) Limited Fall Protection Department offers a nationwide service specialising in the design and provision of high level access solutions to facilitate the safe and efficient performance of roof maintenance, abseil cleaning and other high level tasks.

 

Our highly experienced department is approved to provide a wide range  of high level access systems and fall protection systems from the leading manufacturers in the field. We are able to provide a one stop shop from consultation through design, installation and provision of maintenance and recertification programmes.

The systems we offer comply with all relevant British & European Standards and fall into three main categories.

Two brothers have been fined for allowing employees to work at height unsafely after workers were spotted while building an agricultural farm building in Lewes. 

The brothers who are directors of building firm G E White and Sons Ltd had workers constructing a steel frame building at a property on Blakeney Avenue, Lewes on 17 March 2015. 

An inspector from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told the court he saw roof sheets being fitted at approximately four to five meters from the floor with no safety netting or scaffold, and workers standing on roof sheets. 

They were immediately served with a Prohibition Notice preventing them from continuing work until the safety issues were remedied. However when HSE visited the site again six days later the structure was only half netted and one side of the scaffold had been removed.

The court heard back in 2011 exactly the same issue had been identified on another site on the Directors and an Improvement Noticed had been issued to their company, G E White and Sons Ltd to put in place a management system. 

Jason and Gary White, both directors of construction firm G E White & Sons Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failure to comply with Section 4 1(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 at Worthing Magistrates’ Court. 

Jason White of Chapel Field House, Lewes, East Sussex and his brother Gary White of The Meadows, Lewes, East Sussex were each fined £6000 and ordered to pay costs of £1362 between them. 

Notes to Editors: 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/   
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

(source)

 

Rooftop Safety Training

Click here to view the Rooftop Safety Training courses we offer.

 

Arqiva Approved Rooftop Safety Training

Our Rooftop Safety Training provides delegates with detailed knowledge of rooftop safety issues and enables them to identify hazards and reduce the risks of working on a rooftop with unprotected edges by selecting the correct personal protective equipment and the correct methods of working e.g. fall arrest or fall restraint. This does not cover pitched roofs.

 A theory session is included where the Working at Height Regulations and other relevant legislation is covered along with risk assessments, hazards and control measures.  

This is then demonstrated in a practical session whereby delegates are taught to select the correct personal protective equipment, carry out pre-use checks on this equipment then don it correctly. 

Delegates are then shown and practice how to safely use various fall protection systems that are commonly found on rooftops. Delegates are also shown and practice climbing techniques if access to the rooftop is via a fixed ladder.  

Our Rooftop Safety Training also includes the safe use of fixed and portable ladders.

 

For more information give us a call today on: 01785 850333 or email: sales@totalaccess.co.uk

 

A development company has been sentenced for breaches of the Work at Height Regulations.

Landrose Developments Limited of North Circular Road, London, pleaded guilty to safety failings after a routine site inspection on 6 February 2013, which resulted in enforcement action being taken.

Landrose were carrying out construction of 20 domestic properties, including 10 houses and 10 flats at a site in Willesden when HSE inspectors arrived.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that despite this action, the breaches were repeated at the construction site and resulted in further enforcement action.

However, despite the previous action, the breaches were repeated on the 30th August 2013 at the construction site, without any adequate means to prevent persons, materials or objects falling a distance liable to cause personal injury. This resulted in further enforcement action.

Landrose Developments Limited was fined £16,000 with costs of £2,221 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 6(3) and 10(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.There was also a victim surcharge applied.

This was a proactive prosecution for repeated work at height breaches on more than one site, without any adequate means to prevent persons, materials or objects falling and causing injury.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training, new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk.
2. Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states: “Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”
3. Regulation 10(1) of the same Regulations states: “Every employer shall, where necessary to prevent injury to any person, take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object.”
4. Further HSE news releases are available at press.hse.gov.uk

(source)