Reset Password

Welcome to our new website

If you have previously had an account with us, please use the forgotten password link to reset your password here. This does not include the password for our CAT system, your existing password will still work. Thank you.

No-show building firm prosecuted over “shambolic” site

A Kent construction firm has been fined after repeatedly failing to manage risks on a building site and exposing workers to needless risk of injury.

Ecobuild Homes Ltd, from Ashford, was sentenced at Canterbury Magistrates' Court on 20 August after failing to attend the hearing.

The HSE visited the Ramsgate site where the company was redeveloping a restaurant into flats on seven occasions between July and November 2012.

The court heard that on one visit, inspectors had no choice but to stop work immediately owing to the potential risks of workers falling from height and hazards relating to electrical safety.

The company was served three Prohibition Notices, which halted specified work activities, and two Improvement Notices. The site manager was also issued with a Prohibition Notice.

The HSE also found issues relating to fire safety, the accumulation of debris and bricks falling into a neighbouring property, and site security.

Ecobuild Homes Ltd was found guilty in its absence of breaching section 33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974, by failing to comply with an Improvement Notice, and of contravening regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Magistrates fined the company, which had failed to appear at court for the second time, a total of £40,000, with costs of £10,035.

Following the hearing, HSE inspector Caroline Penwill said: "There were elements of this development that had evidently become a shambles.

"If HSE visits a construction site and has to issue Prohibition Notices preventing further work, that in itself shows that there is a very real and immediate risk to workers there, and possibly to members of the public.
"Proper management of work activities and competent site supervision are essential but the company fell well below the required standards."

Throughout the investigation the company was reluctant in its cooperation and failed to respond to written correspondence.
 

Source