by admin | Sep 25, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Consultancy Services, Health and Safety
A competent person is not someone who is expected to know everything about health and safety. Employers need access to people with the right skills, knowledge and experience for the risks they face. In construction that often means combining effective in-house management with specialist advice where the work goes beyond the competence of a general adviser.
Why the definition matters in real construction work
Construction businesses sometimes appoint a health and safety manager, adviser or external consultant and then assume that person can independently deal with every specialist issue that arises. That is not what the law requires, and it is rarely a sensible way to manage complex work.
The more useful question is whether the person providing advice is competent for the particular risk, project and decision being considered.
What does Regulation 7 require?
Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires employers to appoint one or more competent people to assist them in complying with health and safety law.
HSE’s guidance on getting competent help describes competence in terms of having the skills, knowledge and experience needed to recognise hazards and help the employer establish sensible controls.
The wording “one or more” is important. The law does not assume that every organisation will find all of the expertise it needs in one individual.
Does a competent person need a formal qualification?
Not necessarily for the general Regulation 7 role. Formal qualifications can provide valuable evidence of knowledge and professional development, but competence must still be considered against the work being undertaken.
Holding a recognised health and safety qualification does not automatically make somebody competent to design temporary works, calculate a complex lifting operation, carry out occupational hygiene monitoring or provide specialist fire-engineering advice. Equally, substantial practical knowledge and experience should not be ignored simply because someone does not hold a particular certificate.
Construction adds its own competence requirements. Under Regulation 8 of CDM 2015, contractors and designers must possess the skills, knowledge, experience and organisational capability needed for the work they undertake.
Where does general competence end?
A competent construction health and safety adviser may be well placed to support general risk management, RAMS, inspections, contractor management, incident investigation, policies, training arrangements and compliance monitoring.
Depending on the work, additional specialist expertise may still be required for matters such as:
- occupational hygiene monitoring;
- asbestos surveying or analytical work;
- structural engineering;
- complex lifting operations;
- specialist temporary works design;
- occupational health; or
- specialist fire engineering.
Recognising that boundary is part of competence. The strongest adviser is often the person who knows when the issue has moved outside their own expertise and obtains the right additional support.
Managers and supervisors remain part of the competence system
External advice does not transfer the employer’s legal duties. Directors still need to make decisions, provide resources and ensure controls are implemented. Site managers and supervisors turn those arrangements into what actually happens during construction.
A consultant can write a strong procedure but will not usually be standing beside every excavation, item of plant or work-at-height activity. Contractors therefore need competence at several levels: leadership, professional advice, project management, frontline supervision and workforce execution.
Workplace-based Supervisory and Management NVQs can provide evidence of competence in real management activities, while IOSH Managing Safely can support managers and supervisors in understanding risk and their responsibilities.
How should employers check competence?
Do not reduce the check to a list of certificates. Consider the person’s relevant training, knowledge, practical experience, recent work, familiarity with the industry and ability to deal with the particular risks involved.
For an external consultant, the scope should be clear. If the business needs advice on lifting operations, for example, establish whether the adviser has relevant lifting knowledge and experience rather than assuming a general health and safety qualification covers the subject automatically.
The same principle applies to employees, subcontractors and supervisors. Cards and qualifications may form part of the evidence but should be considered alongside actual capability and the support available.
What should you do now?
- Identify who is formally providing competent health and safety assistance.
- Define the areas they are competent to advise on.
- Review whether the company’s work has become larger, more complex or higher risk.
- Identify activities requiring specialist expertise outside the core team.
- Check that site managers and supervisors can implement the advice in practice.
- Review qualifications, relevant experience and continuing professional development.
- Make responsibility clear where several advisers or specialists are involved.
- Act on competent advice once it has been provided.
Our professional view
A strong competence system is layered rather than dependent on one individual. Employers need competent managers, supervisors and workers as well as access to specialist professional advice where necessary.
Expecting one health and safety adviser to be an expert in every technical discipline can create false confidence. Good professional judgement includes understanding the limit of your own competence and bringing the right specialist into the team before the issue becomes a problem.
All Star Safety provides construction-focused health and safety consultancy, including retained competent-person support, site inspections and project-specific advice, while working alongside other technical specialists where the project requires them.
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 | 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.