by admin | Sep 30, 2026 | Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Risk Assessment, Safety Update
A recent HSE prosecution has demonstrated why an established risk assessment cannot simply be stretched to cover a new task, altered method or different use of work equipment. Employers must review risk assessments when they may no longer be valid or when a significant change affects the work. That does not always mean starting again, but it does mean checking whether the existing controls still match reality.
A fatal incident followed a change in working practice
In July 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported a prosecution after a worker died following a fall from a mobile loading ramp during a newly introduced activity. HSE found that the work had not been properly assessed, the manufacturer required handrails for pedestrian use, and alternatives that could have avoided work at height had not been adequately considered.
The important point for construction and industrial employers is broader than the equipment involved. When the planned method changes, the assumptions behind the original risk assessment can change with it.
When must a risk assessment be reviewed?
Under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk. That assessment must be reviewed where there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid or where there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates.
A review may result in a small amendment, a revised method statement or a completely new assessment. The scale of the paperwork should be proportionate to the scale of the change and the risk created by it.
What counts as a significant change?
The test is not simply whether the change is expensive or permanent. A relatively small operational change can materially alter the hazard profile. Examples include:
- introducing new plant, attachments or work equipment;
- using existing equipment for a different purpose;
- changing the work sequence or access arrangements;
- moving an activity to another part of the site;
- introducing pedestrian access into a plant area;
- changing loads, materials or substances;
- starting lone, night or out-of-hours working;
- using less experienced workers or a different subcontractor;
- departing from manufacturer instructions; or
- responding to changed ground, weather or temporary works conditions.
HSE’s workplace transport guidance similarly advises employers to assess risks before significant changes and to keep assessments aligned with the way work is actually carried out.
Does every change require completely new RAMS?
No. A minor variation that does not materially change the hazards or controls may be dealt with through a proportionate review and briefing. However, foreseeable change should not be pushed into a vague instruction to “dynamic risk assess” the job.
A formal RAMS review is particularly important where the change affects work at height, lifting operations, temporary works, vehicle and pedestrian interaction, excavation support, hazardous substances, isolation, guarding, emergency arrangements or the competence and supervision required.
If a revised method creates a new technical question, the right response may be to obtain specialist input from a designer, engineer, appointed person or other competent professional before work resumes.
Manufacturer instructions matter
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 require work equipment to be suitable for its intended use. Manufacturer instructions are therefore important evidence of the conditions under which equipment has been designed and tested to operate safely.
Where a business deliberately departs from those instructions, it should have competent technical justification for the alternative arrangement. Convenience, programme pressure or “we have always done it this way” are not robust reasons.
What should you do now?
- Identify work activities that have changed since the RAMS were approved.
- Check whether the existing assessment still describes the real work.
- Review equipment suitability and manufacturer requirements.
- Apply the hierarchy of control to any new or increased risk.
- Confirm whether additional competence, supervision or specialist advice is needed.
- Update the method before implementing significant changes.
- Brief everyone affected and check understanding.
- Observe the revised method during its first use.
- Update permanent documents if the change becomes established practice.
Our professional view
Many serious incidents happen not because an organisation has no safety arrangements, but because an apparently small change bypasses them. A different attachment, temporary access route, revised sequence or unfamiliar item of equipment can invalidate assumptions that were perfectly reasonable when the RAMS were written.
A practical management-of-change process does not need to be bureaucratic. HSE’s Plan, Do, Check, Act approach provides a useful framework: identify the change, understand the risk, implement the right controls, communicate them and then verify that the revised system works.
Businesses that need an independent review of changed working methods can use our health and safety consultancy service for RAMS reviews, risk assessments and site-based support.
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 23, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Health and Safety, Mental Health, Training
Neurodiversity describes natural differences in how people process information, communicate, concentrate and learn. It can include autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. Neurodivergence does not automatically mean that someone is disabled or unable to work safely, but some workers may face avoidable barriers created by the way information, training and supervision are delivered.
Why construction is talking more about neurodiversity
CITB’s Beyond the Build series has brought renewed attention to neurodiversity in construction and the practical ways employers can enable more people to perform at their best.
Construction is a useful environment in which to consider the issue because safety-critical information is often delivered quickly, in noisy locations and through a mixture of drawings, RAMS, verbal instructions and site-specific rules. Small changes in how that information is presented can make a substantial difference to understanding.
What does the Equality Act require?
Neurodivergence is not automatically a disability. Under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is disabled where they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
Where that definition is met, the duty to make reasonable adjustments may apply. Employers should focus on the actual disadvantage or barrier rather than treating a formal diagnosis as the only route to practical support.
Recruitment also requires care. Section 60 of the Equality Act restricts pre-employment questions about health and disability, subject to specified exceptions. Asking all candidates whether they need an adjustment to participate in recruitment is usually a more appropriate starting point.
Health and safety duties still require individual capability to be considered
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require suitable and sufficient risk assessment and require employers to take account of employees’ capabilities when allocating tasks.
That does not justify blanket assumptions about neurodivergent workers. HSE’s guidance for disabled workers makes clear that health and safety legislation should not be used as an excuse for discrimination. The assessment should consider the work, the person’s actual needs and any reasonably foreseeable safety implications.
Under CDM Regulation 8, construction workers must have the necessary skills, knowledge, training and experience, or be developing them under appropriate supervision. The safety standard remains the same; the route by which someone receives and demonstrates understanding may need to vary.
Make inductions and RAMS easier to understand
A conventional induction may involve lengthy slides, dense text, unfamiliar acronyms and a written test completed under time pressure. That format can create unnecessary barriers without improving the quality of the safety message.
Practical adjustments can include:
- breaking information into shorter sections;
- using photographs, plans and site-specific examples;
- providing written instructions in numbered steps;
- explaining acronyms and technical language;
- allowing additional reading or processing time;
- using a quieter area for assessments or important conversations;
- walking the site to demonstrate routes, welfare and exclusion zones; and
- asking the worker to explain key controls in their own words.
The occupational standard does not change. The objective is to remove avoidable barriers to understanding and communication.
Consider the working environment as well as the paperwork
Noise, lighting, crowding, repeated interruptions and sudden changes may create sensory or concentration barriers for some people. Potential adjustments can include quieter briefing areas, more predictable work arrangements, written confirmation of verbal instructions or reviewing whether alternative PPE models are suitable.
Any adjustment must remain compatible with the risk assessment. For example, noise-cancelling headphones may be unsuitable in an operational area where a worker needs to hear alarms, vehicles or instructions. The correct solution is to identify the barrier and then choose an adjustment that does not introduce a different hazard.
Training and assessment can often be adjusted without lowering standards
Training providers and assessors should consider how a learner can access the process fairly while preserving assessment validity. Depending on the rules of the course or awarding body, this might involve additional reading time, verbal questioning, assistive software, smaller sections of written work or a quieter assessment environment.
Workplace-based Supervisory and Management NVQs and Health and Safety NVQs use real workplace evidence and professional assessment rather than relying solely on classroom examinations.
What should you do now?
- Review inductions for dense text, jargon and unnecessary time pressure.
- Use photographs, diagrams and practical demonstrations where they help.
- Check understanding through discussion or demonstration rather than a simple “yes”.
- Provide a confidential route for workers to request support.
- Discuss functional barriers rather than demanding a diagnosis.
- Record agreed adjustments and review whether they work.
- Share personal information only where necessary.
- Train supervisors in clear, inclusive communication.
- Apply awarding-body rules when adjusting formal assessment.
- Obtain HR, occupational-health or legal input for complex cases.
Our professional view
Neuroinclusive arrangements should not depend entirely on somebody producing a diagnostic report. Clear instructions, visual information, effective supervision and respectful consultation improve safety for the whole workforce.
Reasonable adjustments change the route to understanding; they do not reduce the required standard of safe performance. A construction business that communicates more clearly is likely to benefit workers with different learning styles, levels of experience and first languages as well as those who identify as neurodivergent.
All Star Safety’s Mental Health Awareness training, IOSH courses and health and safety consultancy can support managers reviewing communication, workforce support and supervision arrangements.
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.