This is a useful case for many purposes:
Animal feed producer Provimi needed repairs to a warehouse roof at its site in Eastern Avenue, Lichfield. Managers obtained two quotes: one from a roofing maintenance firm and one from Alan Riley, trading as Riley & Sons. Riley was a general builder, with no experience of working on fragile roofs.
Riley’s quote was £20,000 less than the roofing specialist – presumably, because the roofing firm included the cost of erecting scaffolding or using another means of access. Provimi did not check whether Riley was competent to carry out the work.
Boards on the roof had no guardrails, workers had no harnesses, and there was no netting underneath to prevent them from landing on the concrete floor. Provimi staff were aware of the situation, as some helped Mr Riley by lifting materials using Provimi equipment to the unprotected roof edge. They made no attempt to stop the work.
Riley employed an unnamed 27-year-old woman to do part of the job. While she was repairing a gutter on 4 April 2011 she tripped and fell five metres through a fragile rooflight.
She fractured two vertebrae and suffered extensive bruising in the fall, keeping her off work for two months.
In March 2012 at Burton-on-Trent Magistrates’ Court:
Although the client Provimi did pay a higher penalty than the contractor, it was only half the money saved by using Riley & Sons! This would not serve as a deterrent to companies cutting costs. Sentencing Guidelines introduced in 2016 were an attempt to overcome this problem.
More case studies are listed in Appendix 1 by theme or Appendix 1 by date.
See the full contents list for the book
You can use the Contact form to send me feedback. If you’d like to receive an email when I add or update a chapter, please subscribe to my ‘book club’