by admin | Sep 16, 2026 | Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Safety Update
An HSE Improvement Notice is not an advisory letter to deal with when workload allows. It is formal legal enforcement requiring a specified contravention to be put right within a defined period. Failing to respond properly can turn an inspection issue into criminal convictions, significant costs and personal consequences for company directors.
A recent prosecution shows how far enforcement can escalate
In August 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported the prosecution of a sawmill business and its managing director after Improvement Notices were not complied with.
Inspectors had identified deficiencies involving wood-dust exposure, respiratory protection, health surveillance and lift-truck safety. The company was given formal opportunities to put matters right but subsequently failed to comply with the notices.
The business was fined and ordered to pay costs. The managing director was also prosecuted and disqualified from acting as a company director for five years. The case is a clear reminder that formal enforcement should be visible and actively managed at senior level.
An Improvement Notice is a legal requirement
Section 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provides the basis for Improvement Notices. An inspector may serve one where they believe there is, or has been, a contravention of relevant health and safety law and the contravention is likely to continue or be repeated.
The notice should identify the legal requirement involved, the matters giving rise to the contravention and the period allowed for compliance. The notice normally provides time to remedy the breach rather than automatically stopping the activity.
That differs from a Prohibition Notice, which can be used where an activity involves, or is likely to involve, a risk of serious personal injury and may take effect immediately.
The deadline matters, but so does the standard achieved
Compliance is not simply a matter of completing an action before the date printed on the notice. The business needs to bring the relevant activity or management arrangement into compliance with the law.
If the notice concerns inadequate dust control, for example, purchasing an extraction unit is not enough unless the resulting system actually controls exposure adequately. If it concerns plant competence, booking a training course may not solve a wider problem involving authorisation, familiarisation, supervision or unsafe traffic arrangements.
A useful internal test is: can the business demonstrate that the contravention identified by the inspector has genuinely been corrected and that the new arrangement will continue to work?
Evidence might include revised procedures, risk assessments, training records, competent-person reports, photographs, inspection records, purchase or installation evidence and confirmation that the new controls have been briefed and implemented.
Appeal rights exist, but the timescale is short
Section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provides a formal appeal route. Appeals against Improvement and Prohibition Notices are dealt with through the Employment Tribunal system.
An appeal must normally be lodged within 21 days from the date the notice was served. For an Improvement Notice, an appeal suspends the operation of the notice until the appeal is determined. The position for a Prohibition Notice is different.
A business that believes a notice is technically wrong or disproportionate should therefore obtain competent advice quickly. Informal discussion with the inspector should not be allowed to cause the appeal deadline to pass unnoticed.
Directors can face consequences alongside the company
Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act allows directors, managers and other senior individuals to be prosecuted in certain circumstances where a company offence was committed with their consent or connivance, or was attributable to their neglect.
That does not mean a director is automatically prosecuted whenever the company commits an offence. But where formal enforcement has been served, directors should know what the notice requires, who owns each action, what resources are needed and how completion will be verified.
Ignoring a notice, assuming somebody else is dealing with it or failing to check whether the required action actually happened creates an unnecessary personal and corporate risk.
What should you do now?
- Read the complete notice and identify the exact legal provision involved.
- Record the compliance deadline and appeal deadline immediately.
- Escalate the notice to the appropriate director or senior manager.
- Appoint one competent person to coordinate the response.
- Decide whether interim controls are needed before the permanent remedy is complete.
- Define what compliant performance will look like.
- Allocate the necessary budget, labour and specialist support.
- Keep clear evidence of each corrective action.
- Verify completion independently rather than relying on verbal confirmation.
- Check whether the same weakness exists on other projects or sites.
Our professional view
Receiving an Improvement Notice is serious, but it is also a point at which a business still has a clear opportunity to regain control. The most damaging management failure is to receive a formal, legally enforceable warning and then fail to make sure the required improvement actually happens.
Good directors should be able to answer four questions quickly: what has HSE identified, who owns the corrective action, when must it be completed, and how will we verify that it has worked?
All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service includes site audits, management-system support and competent-person assistance. Our IOSH courses also support managers and supervisors in understanding practical risk management and their legal responsibilities.
by admin | Sep 11, 2026 | Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Safety Update
A near miss can be easy to dismiss precisely because nobody was hurt. But the absence of injury does not prove that the controls worked. A credible near miss can reveal the same underlying failure that later causes a serious accident, giving managers an opportunity to act before the outcome depends on luck again.
A warning came before people were injured
In September 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported a prosecution involving a scrap-metal site where an excavator-related near miss occurred just ten days before two members of the public were injured in a later event.
HSE found that the underlying failures in the earlier near miss were the same. Although the case arose in waste and recycling rather than construction, the management lesson transfers directly to construction sites where excavators, telehandlers, temporary access routes, lifting operations and changing layouts create comparable high-potential events.
Not every near miss is reportable under RIDDOR
Internal near-miss reporting and statutory reporting are not the same thing. Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013, specified dangerous occurrences must be reported by the responsible person.
HSE’s dangerous-occurrence guidance sets out the categories. A site event may deserve urgent internal investigation without meeting one of those statutory categories.
That means the first management question should not simply be “Do we have to report this to HSE?” It should be “What allowed this to happen, and could the next occurrence seriously hurt somebody?” RIDDOR screening then sits alongside the investigation rather than replacing it.
A near miss may show that the risk assessment is no longer valid
Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires risk assessments to be reviewed where there is reason to suspect they are no longer valid or where there has been a significant change.
A near miss can provide exactly that reason. If a lifting plan assumes pedestrians will be excluded but someone enters the lifting zone because a barrier has been moved, the fact nobody was struck does not demonstrate success. It may show that one of the assumptions on which the plan depended is not reliable in practice.
The potential consequence should influence the response. A falling object missing somebody by two metres and the same object striking somebody can originate from exactly the same control failure.
Investigate causes, not just the person closest to the event
HSE’s HSG245, Investigating accidents and incidents, provides a practical framework based on gathering information, analysing it, identifying risk-control measures and developing and implementing an action plan.
Weak investigations often stop at the first human action: “the operator reversed without checking”, “the worker entered the exclusion zone” or “the supervisor did not notice”. Those facts may matter, but they are not always the underlying cause.
A stronger investigation asks why the behaviour was possible. Was physical segregation ineffective? Had the sequence changed? Was the method unrealistic for the actual site? Had a shortcut become normal practice? Was production pressure influencing decisions? Had the issue been reported previously? Was supervision appropriate?
Useful evidence may include photographs, CCTV, equipment data, witness accounts, RAMS, lifting or traffic plans, inspection records, competence information, permits and records of recent changes.
Corrective actions only count when they are implemented and tested
Many businesses investigate reasonably well and then lose control at the action stage. A report identifies actions, they are entered on a spreadsheet, a toolbox talk is delivered and the event is marked closed.
Corrective action should match the failure identified. If pedestrians can physically enter a plant operating area, changing the layout or providing effective segregation may be stronger than another verbal reminder. If a worker misunderstood a new procedure, targeted instruction or demonstration may be appropriate.
Each significant action should have an owner and a realistic completion date. For higher-potential events, an effectiveness check should follow: is the revised barrier still in place, is the new sequence being followed, has the same unsafe condition appeared elsewhere, and have supervisors challenged deviations?
Closing a spreadsheet cell is not the same as closing the risk.
What should you do now?
- Make near-miss reporting simple enough that workers will use it.
- Record the potential consequence, not only the fact nobody was injured.
- Screen RIDDOR requirements separately.
- Preserve useful evidence before site conditions change.
- Identify immediate, underlying and management-system causes where appropriate.
- Review the risk assessment and method if the event challenges existing assumptions.
- Use the hierarchy of control when selecting corrective action.
- Give actions named owners and deadlines.
- Check whether the same weakness exists on other projects.
- Verify afterwards that the corrective action has actually worked.
Our professional view
The phrase “near miss” can make an event sound less significant than it was. What matters is not how close somebody literally came to injury; it is what the event tells management about the controls.
A high-potential near miss is valuable information. The strongest organisations do not celebrate simply because nobody was hurt. They ask what would have happened if the timing, distance or position had been slightly different, and they use that warning to improve the system before the next event.
All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service includes accident and incident investigation, root-cause analysis, RIDDOR support and corrective-action planning. Our IOSH Managing Safely courses also cover incident investigation as part of practical risk management.
by admin | Aug 24, 2026 | Health and Safety, NPORS, Slinger Signaller
Plant operators are often discussed in terms of what their employer or principal contractor should provide: training, suitable equipment, traffic routes, supervision and site rules. Those duties remain important, but operators also carry responsibilities of their own. A recent fatal telehandler case shows that an experienced, qualified operator can face personal prosecution when their actions expose someone else to serious risk. HSE Media Centre
A fatal telehandler incident has put individual responsibility in focus
On 18 August 2026, HSE reported the sentencing of a self-employed telehandler operator following the death of a lift supervisor on a construction site in Ince, Ellesmere Port.
The incident happened in June 2023. The lift supervisor was walking back from the welfare compound when he was struck and then reversed over by the telehandler. He sustained fatal injuries. HSE Media Centre
HSE found that the principal contractor had already taken steps to reduce reversing, including providing a turning circle. Importantly, HSE said that the turning circle was unobstructed when the incident occurred.
Despite this, the operator chose to reverse the telehandler without the assistance of a banksman. HSE also found that he had been using his mobile phone while in control of the machine, contrary to site rules he had signed up to. HSE Media Centre
The operator pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He received a 12-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months, an £800 fine and an order to pay £2,000 in costs. HSE Media Centre
Read the HSE prosecution notice
There is an important point of accuracy here. This should not be reduced to a headline saying that using a mobile phone while operating plant automatically creates a specific criminal offence.
The prosecution was for the operator’s wider failure to conduct his work without exposing others to risk. His decision to reverse, the available turning arrangements, the absence of a banksman and his use of a phone contrary to site rules were relevant facts identified by HSE.
Company duties do not remove an operator’s own responsibilities
Most construction health and safety discussions rightly focus on employers, contractors and principal contractors because those organisations control many of the circumstances in which work is carried out.
That does not mean responsibility ends there.
Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act places duties on employers and relevant self-employed people to conduct their undertaking so that, so far as is reasonably practicable, people who may be affected are not exposed to health and safety risks. HSE
Construction is specifically one of the high-risk activities for which health and safety law continues to apply to self-employed people. HSE confirms that this includes work carried out on construction sites, including both commercial and domestic work. HSE
Employees also have individual duties.
Under section 7 of the Act, an employee must take reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of other people who may be affected by what they do or fail to do at work. They must also cooperate so far as necessary to enable their employer or another dutyholder to comply with relevant health and safety requirements. HSE
HSE’s enforcement guidance makes the position particularly clear: section 7 places duties on employees irrespective of the obligations placed on their employer. Personal prosecution is therefore possible in appropriate circumstances. HSE
That does not allow an employer to transfer its statutory responsibilities to an operator by writing “operator responsible for all safety” into a method statement.
The two sets of duties exist alongside one another.
A competence card is not permission to depart from the safe system
One of the most significant details in the recent case is that HSE described the telehandler driver as a qualified and experienced operator. HSE Media Centre
That matters.
Training and recognised plant certification provide important evidence that someone has been taught and assessed against an appropriate standard. They do not guarantee how that person will behave every minute they are on site.
HSE’s current workplace transport guidance distinguishes between basic training and what happens afterwards. Drivers need information about the particular workplace, routes, hazards, speed limits, loading areas, procedures and the supervision arrangements that apply. Familiarisation with the actual job and workplace remains important. HSE
In practical terms, an operator may have ten years’ experience and a valid CPCS or NPORS card but still be required to:
- follow the current traffic management plan;
- observe one-way routes;
- use designated turning areas;
- stay within speed limits;
- respect pedestrian exclusion zones;
- comply with restrictions on mobile phones;
- follow agreed signalling arrangements;
- stop if visibility is inadequate; and
- follow reasonable instructions from site management.
A qualification demonstrates a level of competence. It does not give an operator discretion to ignore a site control simply because they believe they can perform the manoeuvre without it.
This is also why competent-operator development should go beyond obtaining the initial card. All Star Safety’s NPORS plant operator training and assessments combine machine-specific training and assessment with the wider hazards operators need to recognise in real site environments. All Star Safety Ltd
Reversing should be designed out before relying on a banksman
The recent case could easily lead to another oversimplification: “telehandlers must always use a banksman when reversing.”
That is not what HSE guidance says.
The stronger control is to remove or reduce the need to reverse in the first place.
HSE’s current construction traffic-management guidance recommends planning vehicle movements so that reversing is avoided where possible. One-way systems and turning circles are specifically identified as ways of achieving this. HSE
This is significant because the site in the recent prosecution apparently had exactly that type of control available: HSE said an unobstructed turning circle had been provided. HSE Media Centre
Where reversing cannot reasonably be eliminated, the remaining risks need to be controlled.
That can include separating pedestrians, improving visibility, using mirrors or CCTV, providing adequate lighting and, where appropriate, using a suitably trained plant or vehicle marshaller. HSE
HSE’s wider workplace transport guidance cautions against treating a banksman as the automatic answer. Putting a signaller close to a reversing vehicle creates its own risk. The preferred approach is first to improve layout, segregation and driver visibility. HSE
Where a signaller is required, the arrangement needs to work properly. Driver and signaller should agree the signals, the signaller must remain visible and stand in a safe position, and the driver should stop if visual contact is lost. HSE
For experienced movement guides who need formal recognition of their occupational competence, All Star Safety also provides the Level 2 NVQ Certificate in Plant Operations – Movement Guide, assessed through actual workplace activity. All Star Safety Ltd
Site rules only work when they are monitored
The individual prosecution does not reduce the importance of management and supervision.
HSE says construction traffic must be effectively managed throughout the construction process. Sites should be organised so that vehicles and pedestrians can move safely, with particular attention to segregation, vehicle movements, turning arrangements, visibility, signs and instructions. HSE
Operators and other workers should understand those arrangements through induction and appropriate site-specific instruction.
But having a rule and enforcing a rule are different things.
If the traffic management plan says vehicles must use a turning circle, supervisors need to notice when operators routinely reverse instead.
If site rules prohibit using a mobile phone while operating plant, a supervisor who repeatedly sees the practice and ignores it is allowing the written system and the actual system to diverge.
HSE’s workplace transport checklist specifically asks whether managers and supervisors routinely challenge and investigate unsafe behaviour. It also expects supervisors to set the correct example themselves. HSE
That does not mean every minor error should immediately result in disciplinary action.
It means unsafe practices need a proportionate response. Depending on the circumstances, that might involve stopping the activity, clarifying the procedure, additional familiarisation, reassessment, refresher training, formal warning or withdrawal of the person’s authorisation to operate the machine.
Repeated unsafe behaviour by an otherwise technically capable operator is still a competence problem.
What should you do now?
Principal contractors and employers should review whether site traffic arrangements are genuinely being followed rather than relying on the existence of a traffic management drawing.
Start with the physical site. Look for opportunities to eliminate reversing, improve turning areas and strengthen pedestrian segregation. Then observe what drivers actually do during normal production, deliveries and busy periods.
Check that operators receive site-specific information as well as holding the appropriate training or competency evidence. Make restrictions on phones, reversing, speed, pedestrian areas and manoeuvring arrangements unambiguous.
Where movement guides are required, confirm that they are trained, authorised and clear about the signalling system being used.
Operators should also understand that signing an induction or receiving a plant authorisation carries responsibilities of its own. If the planned route, signalling arrangement or exclusion zone cannot be followed, stop and raise the issue rather than improvising a less safe alternative.
The safest operator is not necessarily the person who can manoeuvre a machine through the tightest space. It is the person who recognises when the planned control cannot be maintained and stops before somebody is placed at risk.
Our professional view
This prosecution is useful because it challenges two unhelpful assumptions at the same time.
The first is that everything that happens on a construction site is automatically the principal contractor’s fault.
The second is that a qualified and experienced operator can be left entirely to their own judgement because they have already demonstrated competence.
Neither is a sound way to manage risk.
A competent organisation provides suitable routes, procedures, equipment, information and supervision. A competent operator then uses their knowledge and experience within those arrangements, challenges anything that is unsafe and does not deliberately bypass the controls provided.
That is what genuine competence looks like in practice.
For contractors wanting an independent review of plant controls, traffic management, supervision or wider site arrangements, All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service includes construction site audits, risk assessment and project-based safety support.