AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Firm fined £4,500 after faulty equipment injury

23rd December 2010
Page 20
Page 20, 23rd December 2010 — Firm fined £4,500 after faulty equipment injury
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Loading platform flap that injured stand-in storeman had been faulty for 10 years

voyer.brovvrirarbi.co.uk

STATIONERY SUPPLIER Business Forms Express has been fined £4500 after a long-standing equipment fault contributed to an employee sustaining serious injuries after he was caught between a reversing truck and a loading platform.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution at Bath Magistrates court heard how Nathan Ford, 30, suffered a fractured collarbone and forearm at the Bristol premises of the company on 22 April this year.

Ford, who was standing in for the regular storeman. was receiving a consignment of paper reels to a raised loading bay.

A flap was supposed to automatically rise when the dock leveller — a device used to bridge the gap between the rear of the truck and the loading bay — was operated. However. the flap did not work and Ford held it up manually instead. When the vehicle began to reverse, he became trapped between the back of the trailer and the front of the dock leveller.

The subsequent investigation found that the flap had been broken for 10 years Business Forms Express pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) and Regulation 8(1) of Provision of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The company was ordered to pay £1,500 in fines per breach, plus £500 in compensation to the injured party, and £2,626 costs.

Dominic Goacher, an HSE inspector, says the firm had a health and safety management system in place but failed to address the risks involved with unloading and reversing lorries in the workplace.

He adds: "In the 10 years this equipment had been used by the company, it had never worked as intended by the manufacturer.

"It is astonishing that this company allowed its workers to use equipment which had been broken for so long.

To compound matters, the regular storeman had been forced to develop a way of working using the faulty equipment, but this was not passed on to Mr Ford."

A spokesman for Business Forms Express said it would make no comment on the case apart from that it was pleased Ford had made a good recovery from his injuries.

Tags

Organisations: Bath Magistrates court
Locations: Bristol

comments powered by Disqus