A recent court case illustrates the risks and penalties associated with any failure to properly undertake Principal Contractor duties.

 

Huntsmere Projects Limited, the Principal Contractor on the construction of a new house in Alderley Edge, was fined £240,000 with £14,439.53 costs, when it recently pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 after a worker fell approximately 3.5 metres when a concrete block beneath his feet gave way, suffering serious multiple fractures.

A subcontractor had already installed the first floor of the new property but a gap left between the concrete beams on the landing was not identified by the Huntsmere site manager or the contractor’s supervisor. The HSE found the collapse occurred as a result of some of the installed floor blocks becoming displaced during the work on-site because of the gap.

The case serves as a reminder of some of the fundamental duties of the Principal Contractor and in particular the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, Regulation 13 which makes it clear that the Principal Contractor is responsible for the planning, managing and monitoring of the construction phase, specifically with regards to health and safety.

Christian McCale, Senior Consultant of Lucion Consulting (formerly Innov8 Risk Consultants) is a specialist advisor on the CDM Regulations. He said:

“Huntsmere Projects failed in the management of their sub-contractor by not knowing if the works were complete or whether there was a risk of falling caused by incomplete works before allowing a subcontractor to access the area to undertake further work.

It appears that the gap in the flooring was not identified and therefore the risk of falling was not protected.  Barrier and fall protection would normally require temporary works in accordance with BS 5975.  This requires a temporary works designer and a temporary works co-ordinator to ensure that any barrier or fall arrest system is fit for purpose.”

In the circumstances, the incident raises a number of questions. For example, had the Principal Contractor reviewed the method statement and risk assessment of the sub-contractor?

Had the Principal Contractor provided a suitable induction to site personnel to identify any risks and ensure that the operatives were aware of their own risk assessment and method statement?

Also, was the injured site worker supposed to be in this area, which was not properly protected to prevent unauthorised access?

Christian McCale concludes:

“Although full details of the incident are not known, the outcome of the court case indicates that the Principal Contractor was not monitoring the works to ensure that the sub-contractor was working in accordance with a specific method statement.”