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 10, 2026 | Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Risk Assessment, Safety Update
Could Someone Reach the Dangerous Parts of Your Machinery?
A machine may have been used without incident for years, but that does not make an exposed drive, belt, roller or blade acceptable. A new HSE prosecution in East Anglia is a timely reminder that machinery guarding must physically prevent access to dangerous parts — and that training or instructions are not substitutes for proper engineering controls.
Why this matters now
On 7 August 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported the prosecution of a Thetford chemical manufacturer following an incident involving an unguarded powered conveyor.
An employee removed a cardboard box from a running conveyor and his hand became entangled in the machinery. He suffered a broken finger and bruising to three other fingers, required surgery and was unable to work for six weeks.
HSE found that the business had failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of the conveyor. Easy Cleaning Solutions Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £100,000 plus £6,468.18 in costs.
Although this incident occurred in manufacturing rather than construction, the underlying requirement applies to work equipment across construction workshops, fabrication facilities, plant yards and other workplaces. PUWER defines work equipment very widely, covering machinery, appliances, apparatus, tools and installations used at work.
What does PUWER actually require?
Regulation 11 of PUWER 1998 requires employers to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery or to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person enters the danger zone.
Importantly, PUWER establishes a hierarchy of protective measures. Physical prevention comes before reliance on human behaviour.
The starting point is normally fixed guards or enclosures. Where those are not practicable, other guards or protection devices should be considered, followed where appropriate by jigs, holders or similar devices. Information, instruction, training and supervision sit further down that hierarchy rather than replacing the higher-order controls.
That distinction matters.
A warning sticker saying “keep hands clear” does not make an accessible roller safe. Neither does a toolbox talk, a trained operator or a written instruction telling people not to reach into the machinery.
If someone can foreseeably reach a dangerous moving part during normal operation, the first question should be how access can be physically prevented.
When should a fixed guard become an interlocked guard?
HSE guidance says fixed guarding will normally be the preferred method of preventing access to dangerous parts. A fixed guard should require a deliberate action, normally involving tools or secure fixings, before it can be removed.
However, some machines need regular access for loading, adjustment, inspection, cleaning or clearing material.
Where routine access is genuinely necessary, HSE advises that an interlocked guard may be more appropriate. The interlock should prevent the dangerous movement from operating while the guard is open and, where necessary, prevent the guard being opened until movement has stopped.
This is particularly relevant to:
- Conveyors and rollers.
- Workshop saws.
- Fabrication machinery.
- Cutting and forming equipment.
- Plant-processing equipment.
- Crushers and screening equipment.
- Machinery where blockages or offcuts require regular removal.
The correct safeguarding arrangement depends on the particular machine and risk. Simply replacing a missing fixed panel with an easily removable cover may not be sufficient if workers must repeatedly remove it during normal production.
What about clearing jams, cleaning and maintenance?
Some of the most dangerous interactions with machinery happen when the equipment is not performing normally.
A blockage develops. Material becomes trapped. Something sounds wrong. A worker reaches in to investigate.
PUWER applies not only to normal operation but also to activities including starting, stopping, repairing, maintaining, servicing and cleaning work equipment.
For maintenance, HSE guidance says plant and equipment should be made safe before work starts. In most cases that means stopping the machinery and isolating energy supplies. Where accidental reconnection is possible, locking off may be necessary. Stored hydraulic, pneumatic, gravitational or other energy may also need to be released or physically restrained.
PUWER regulation 19 separately requires suitable means of isolating work equipment from all sources of energy where appropriate, with the isolation means clearly identifiable and readily accessible.
A useful rule for supervisors is therefore:
If somebody needs to put part of their body into an area normally protected by a guard, normal operating controls should not automatically be treated as safe isolation.
The appropriate method should be determined through the machinery risk assessment and manufacturer’s instructions.
Why training cannot compensate for missing guards
Training remains important. Regulation 9 of PUWER requires people using work equipment to receive adequate training for health and safety purposes, including the methods to be used, risks arising from use and precautions to be taken.
Managers and supervisors also need enough knowledge to recognise unsafe machinery arrangements and challenge practices such as removed guards, defeated interlocks or inadequate isolation. IOSH Managing Safely provides practical training in risk assessment, hazard control, legal responsibilities and incident investigation for people responsible for managing or supervising others. For employees and operatives, IOSH Working Safely provides a broader introduction to identifying hazards and reducing workplace risks.
But training is not permission to operate fundamentally unsafe machinery.
A competent, experienced employee can still make an error, react instinctively to a blockage or become distracted. Machinery safeguarding is designed on the basis that foreseeable human interaction needs to be controlled.
This is why the hierarchy matters. Engineering controls should prevent the worker reaching the danger in the first place wherever reasonably practicable.
The same principle should inform supervision. If operators routinely defeat an interlock, remove a guard, prop open a cover or use an improvised method to clear material while machinery is running, simply reminding them of the rules is unlikely to resolve the underlying problem.
Managers should ask why the unsafe behaviour has become convenient or necessary.
It may reveal:
- A poorly designed access arrangement.
- Repeated blockages.
- Unrealistic production pressure.
- An unsuitable machine for the task.
- A damaged or unreliable interlock.
- Inadequate isolation arrangements.
- A maintenance problem that has become accepted as normal.
What should you do now?
Businesses using powered machinery should take the HSE prosecution as an opportunity to walk their workplace and look at the equipment as it is actually used — not simply as it appeared when the risk assessment was first written.
Start with machinery capable of drawing, trapping, crushing, cutting or entangling someone.
Check:
- Are all original guards present and secure?
- Can hands, fingers, clothing or tools reach belts, chains, rollers, blades, gears or drive components?
- Have guards been modified, removed or defeated?
- Do interlocks actually stop dangerous movement?
- Are emergency stops accessible and functioning?
- How are routine blockages cleared?
- How is machinery isolated before maintenance?
- Can stored energy cause unexpected movement?
- Are operators trained in the actual safe method?
- Are supervisors challenging shortcuts?
- Are recurring machinery faults being repaired rather than worked around?
Where a machine has been modified, refurbished or adapted, the safeguarding should also be reviewed. HSE confirms that refurbished and modified machinery must remain safe in use and meet PUWER requirements.
For higher-risk or unfamiliar machinery, specialist engineering input may be necessary. The objective is not simply to produce another PUWER checklist; it is to confirm that a person cannot foreseeably reach a dangerous moving part.
Frequently asked questions
Can a machine be used temporarily with a guard removed?
Not merely because the period is short. Where the guard is necessary to prevent access to dangerous parts, operating without it could breach PUWER. Any exceptional activity requiring access must be properly assessed and controlled using suitable safeguarding, isolation or another engineered method appropriate to the task.
Is an emergency stop a substitute for a guard?
No. Emergency stops are an additional protective measure. HSE’s machinery-safety hierarchy prioritises preventing access to dangerous parts through guards and safeguarding arrangements.
Can trained maintenance staff work on moving machinery?
Most maintenance should be carried out with machinery stopped and isolated. There are specialist circumstances where work cannot be undertaken completely de-energised, but these require specific assessment and additional controls rather than simply relying on experience or training.
Does PUWER apply to old machinery?
Yes. PUWER applies to work equipment used at work, including older equipment. Older machinery may in fact require particular attention where guarding standards, modifications or previous repairs have changed over time.
All Star Safety provides health and safety consultancy and workplace auditing across construction, engineering and industrial environments, including reviews of risk assessments, equipment controls and safe systems of work.
For businesses employing plant mechanics and maintenance technicians, our workplace-based Plant Maintenance NVQs assess competence through the inspection, servicing, fault diagnosis and repair activities people already undertake at work.