Easter egg hunt - Prizes of 50 Scissor and boom lifts to give away!

Enter our 2012 Great Easter Egg Hunt Competition for your chance to win one of 50 Scissor and Boom lifts, example as shown in the picture.

There are 12 eggs to find on our web site. Click on each egg you find to reveal a clue for the next egg, we'll give you the first which is on our Home page. The clues are simple and fun, most are only one click from the home page, once you've found the 12 eggs fill in the form presented to you. This will be entered into a draw which will take place at the end of April.

The first 50 correct entries drawn will each receive either a Scissor or Boom lift, die cast scale model, with an approximate retail value of £50.

With your submission there is also an option to specify your preference of either scissor or boom lift, which we will aim to meet, however as we have an even number of each we cannot guarantee that we can supply as requested for everyone.

Enter the Easter Egg Hunt

Read more

Lack of fall protection lands construction business in court with hefty fine

An Edgware-based construction company and its director have been fined after carrying out demolition and construction work without fall protection and other safety measures at a house in Surrey.

?The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Laxmi Developments Ltd and its director, Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, for failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice (PN), failing to provide adequate safety protection for employees and failing to carry out an asbestos survey on a property before demolition.

Redhill Magistrates' Court heard that during a visit to a building site at Mellow Close, Banstead, on 23 June 2011, an HSE inspector was confronted with such poor standards, he consequently served a PN and three Improvement Notices on the firm.

The PN was issued as the inspector found workers knocking down the house at first floor level with no edge protection to prevent falls. Though aware of the requirement for scaffolding and edge protection, Mr Madhaparia had instructed workers to go ahead with the demolition without these measures in place.

The three Improvement Notices were served to ensure sufficient demolition planning was carried out, to improve the welfare facilities on the site and to ensure the site supervisor was competent to carry out the works.

However, on the 6 September 2011, photographs were sent to HSE showing the PN being contravened and the same poor demolition practices continuing on site. HSE telephoned Mr Madhaparia to discuss the previous PN and to remind him of the dangers of working at height.

An HSE inspector visited the site again on 3 October 2011 and standards at the site were again found to be very poor. Two further PNs were issued for the risk of a fall from height and unsafe electrics on the site. After this visit, HSE was made aware that workers were continuing to work from height with no protection.

The court was told that in addition to the earlier offences, Mr Madhaparia had also failed to produce an asbestos survey prior to the demolition, despite HSE inspectors having requested one. This clear breach of asbestos regulations was aggravated because the site is in a residential area and next to a school. It was also discovered that much of the waste was burnt, potentially increasing the dispersal range of any asbestos fibres.

HSE's inspector Russell Beckett said:

"The disregard for health and safety shown by Vijay Madhaparia and his company was shocking. This man exposed workers and the site's neighbours - including young children - to appalling risks and the management of health and safety was non-existent even at the most basic level.

"There was a complete disregard for the safety of both workers and the public. Even after a Prohibition Notice had been served at the site workers were instructed to continue to work in exactly the same way.

"For anyone to conduct themselves or their business in this way is completely unacceptable and HSE will have no hesitation in bringing perpetrators before the courts."

Laxmi Developments Ltd, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The firm was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay the full costs of £11,930.

Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 37(1) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act by virtue of breaching section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. He was fined £1,500 and disqualified from acting as a company director for three years.

Read more

Free Facelift 2012 Access Guide

Our 2012 Access Guide has up to date listing of all of the Access Equipment  available for hire, and a guide to range Training Courses available.

Download a pdf copy of the Access Guide 

Request Free copies of the Access Guide

Read more

Ladder training - not to be laughed at

More workers are killed by falls from height than any other type of accident, according to figures from the Health and Safety Executive and the insurance industry. With over two million ladders in use daily throughout the UK, ladder safety must be taken seriously, as a key contender to working at height.

Why do you need ladder training?

Tried and tested, the humble ladder may be overlooked in terms of training. However, just like any other access platform - operators need to undertake training before using ladders, to avoid any potential injury.

Many users have never received any formal training in the way ladders should be selected, positioned and used. This encourages a complacent, over-confident and sometimes dangerous mentality, that can easily lead to accidents.

Users expect to receive formal training on other types of access equipment such as access towers and elevating work platforms, so why not on ladders? That’s why, as a member of the Ladder Association (LA), we’re supporting the call for more training in all aspects of ladder use, including risk assessment and inspection. You shouldn’t decide if a ladder is the right piece of equipment to use when you’re climbing up it!

Facelift states the importance of choosing the right ladder for the job and getting trained to use it safely. Possible consequences of not being fully trained in the correct use of ladders can be severe - for example, a school caretaker successfully sued his local authority employer and claimed £50,000 in damages, for it's failure to train him to use a step ladder properly.

Where to get training

You can do ladder training courses through the Ladder Association, which are a combination of theory and practice and on average last seven hours. The course will provide you with a nationally recognised certification, which is valid for five years. 

As with all working at height equipment - there's more to ladders than you may think - pre-inspection use, action if faults are found, legislation and regulations regarding working at height, potential hazards and correct ways to dispose of equipment. This course will enable you to safely use ladders and step ladders, as well as to carry out and document ladder inspections. 

More information on ladder training courses.

To promote the safety and best practice of using ladders - Facelift is giving away the Ladder Association's 'Be Ladder competent' poster. This poster emphasises the five key safety considerations of using ladders and stepladders.

Download the LA booklet on ladder training and safety.

Read more

Company fined due to unsafe demolition and construction work

Unsafe demolition and construction work has led to an Edgware-based construction company and its director being fined.

Laxmi Developments Ltd and its director, Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, have been prosecuted for failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice (PN), failing to provide adequate safety protection for employees and failing to carry out an asbestos survey on a property before demolition.

This follows several visits to a building site at Mellow Close, Banstead. On 23 June 2011, an HSE inspector was confronted with such poor standards, that he issued a PN and three Improvement Notices on the firm.

The inspector found workers knocking down the house at first floor level, with no edge protection to prevent falls. Despite being aware of the need for scaffolding and edge protection, Mr Madhaparia had instructed workers to go ahead with the demolition without the necessary measures in place.

The three Improvement Notices were served to ensure sufficient demolition planning was carried out, to improve the welfare facilities on the site and to ensure the site supervisor was competent to carry out the works.

However, on the 6 September 2011, photos sent to the HSE showed the same poor demolition practices were being maintained and the PN being contravened. HSE telephoned Mr Madhaparia to discuss the previous PN and to remind him of the dangers of working at height.

On a further visit by an HSE inspector on 3 October 2011, the standards at the site were again found to be very poor. Two further PNs were issued for the risk of a fall from height and unsafe electrics on the site. After this visit, HSE was made aware that workers were continuing to work from height with no protection.

Added to the earlier offences, Mr Madhaparia had also failed to produce an asbestos survey prior to the demolition, despite HSE inspectors having requested one. This clear breach of asbestos regulations was aggravated because the site is in a residential area and next to a school. It was also discovered that much of the waste was burnt, potentially increasing the dispersal range of any asbestos fibres.

HSE's inspector Russell Beckett said:

"The disregard for health and safety shown by Vijay Madhaparia and his company was shocking. This man exposed workers and the site's neighbours - including young children - to appalling risks and the management of health and safety was non-existent even at the most basic level.

"There was a complete disregard for the safety of both workers and the public. Even after a Prohibition Notice had been served at the site workers were instructed to continue to work in exactly the same way.

"For anyone to conduct themselves or their business in this way is completely unacceptable and HSE will have no hesitation in bringing perpetrators before the courts."

Laxmi Developments Ltd, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The firm was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay the full costs of £11,930.

Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 37(1) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act by virtue of breaching section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. He was fined £1,500 and disqualified from acting as a company director for three years.

Read more

The City of London and working at height

The City of London classes both window cleaning and the use of suspended access equipment as a high risk activity. As such, there are annual inspections, in support of the HSE Falls from Height Priority Programme and it is involved at the planning application stage for large developments - to minimise risk to 'As Low As Reasonably Practicable', in line with the HSE policy. 

Being  aware of the unavoidable risks involved in the development of major city buildings, (associated with the use of suspended or facade access equipment for window cleaning and building maintenance), The City of London is pro-active in its approach to setting standards for working at height - engaging with architects, planners and designers from early on - to minimise risks and promote health and safety for the future use of the building. 

The City Of London District Surveyors Office deals with Building Control throughout the square mile and has been since the London fire of 1666. The office is a short distance away from any City site - ready to give on-site assistance and advice for working at height. They support any size project - from the smallest projects to landmark developments - and encourage businesses to contact them early on, rather than waiting until the application is ready.

National bodies working in partnership with the HSE, also represent The City of London and industries such as the Federation of Window Cleaners - who review guidance on safety in window cleaning and actively engage with and support initiatives with other local authorities facing similar issues. 

Please see below for a Code of Practice for Developers on the Design and Installation of Suspended and Facade Access Equipment in the City of London. This has been designed by The City of London with London's Building Control Services - to guide developers, architects, designers and installers through the process of minimising risks, to help meet their responsibilities under CDM.

Read more

Keep things in check, with the Health and Safety Executive's Safe Maintenance Campaign

The Health and Safety Executive has a Healthy Workplaces European Campaign on Safe Maintenance, in partnership with the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), the EEF and the TUC. 

This Europe-wide campaign promotes a safe and healthy workplace - through encouraging an in depth and structured approach to maintenance. Maintenance affects each area of health and safety. Poor standards and a failure to keep the work environment in a good condition lead to a large number of accidents and diseases.

What Maintenance means and why you need it

Maintenance means keeping the workplace, its structures, equipment, machines, furniture and facilities operating safely, whilst keeping everything in good condition. This maintenance also prevents any sudden and unexpected failure.

Two types of maintenance include preventative maintenance - which includes periodic checks and repairs - and corrective maintenance - which means carrying out unforeseen repairs on facilities and equipment, after breakage or failure.

These accidents relating to maintenance, are a real concern - given that 25-30 per cent of manufacturing industry fatalities in the UK in recent years are due to maintenance activity.

The campaign is open to all organisations and individuals at local, national and European levels - such as employers and SMEs, managers and supervisors, trade unions and safety representatives, health and safety institutions and training providers.

You can download these posters here

For a self maintenance health check, see the HSE website

To see the NAPO in Safe Maintenance video, go here

Read more

Unsafe loading leads to worker's fall

An employee fell around two metres while unloading a shipping container, attached to the back of an HGV.  As a result, a partner in a Leicester food company has been fined.

The 18-year-old employee was asked to unload barrels, stored in layers with plywood separating each layer, from the container at Simtom Food Products factory in Merry Lees.

The teenage worker was then lifted on a pallet on a fork lift truck, to climb onto a stack of pallets near the container doors. From there he entered the container, dragging the barrels onto the pallet held at height by the fork lift.

The man fell whilst stepping from one pallet to another, and suffered severe bruising to his abdomen, as well as sprains to his shoulder and wrist. This left him off work for several weeks.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Mr Chandarana for the 4 January 2011 incident.

Mr Chandarana, 57, of Hastings Road, Kirby Muxloe, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £7,500 with costs of £1,380.

After the hearing HSE inspector Alison Cook said:

"Had a safe system of unloading been used then this incident would not have happened. Lifting people up on pallets on a fork lift is utterly unacceptable because of the potential consequences of a fall. It was pure luck that a young man was not more seriously injured.

"Since the incident Mr Chandarana has contracted out unloading to a firm with a level loading dock to eliminate the risk of a fall. It is a pity someone had to be hurt for this to be chosen."

For more information on training for safe loading and unloading go here

Read more

Nine metre fall from mobile access tower

A 38-year-old employee of M-tech Engineering Limited fell from a mobile tower scaffold being used to install a steel staircase at a building in Convent Street, Nottingham, on 15 April 2009.

Two Nottingham companies have been fined after a worker fell more than nine metres, injuring his back.

He fractured two vertebrae and was off work for almost seven months.

The building was undergoing extensive refurbishment. Thomas Long & Sons Limited were the principal contractor and M-tech Engineering Limited had been contracted to install the staircase.

The system of work was developed by M-tech Engineering.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the scaffold tower had not been erected to the manufacturer's instructions or industry guidelines, the tower was supported on a platform that was not sufficiently rigid to provide a suitable base and the working platform was not fitted with adequate guardrails to prevent falls.

HSE inspector Kevin Wilson said:

"Work at height should be properly planned and a safe system of work developed with access equipment provided that is suitable for the task.

"The system of work in use at the time of the incident put operatives at risk of falls into the stairwell from the landings, the part installed staircase and from the mobile scaffold tower and supporting platform which did not provide a safe working platform.

"As a result a man suffered serious injuries. It was only chance that his injuries were not more severe as he fortuitously landed on a surface that absorbed the energy of his fall.

"Falls from height are the biggest cause of workplace deaths and it's crucial that employers make sure work is properly planned, appropriately supervised and that sufficient measures are put in place to protect staff from the risks."

M-tech Engineering Limited, of Third Avenue, Greasley, Bulwell, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees. Today, Nottingham magistrates fined the company £8,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £4,000.

Thomas Long & Sons Limited, of Mile End Road, Colwick, Nottingham pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for failing to plan, manage and monitor construction in a way that ensured it was carried out without risks to health and safety. Magistrates fined the company £6,000 with costs of £3,000.

Read more

Great shot! - F100 Winner Chris Gareze

Chris Gareze is our F100 Winner for February. Chris's shot was taken at during concrete repairs to the soffit of Callowbrook Bridge, on the A38 Birmingham Rd, Rubery. Platform used was the Ascendant 17 truck mounted platform, Chris commented 'The controls in the basket allowed us to carefully move the platform in to the best possible position, to carry out the work.'

View the High res image here

Congratulations to Chris, the f100 competition is open to everyone to enter, so even if you're just driving by and happen to see one of our machines, take a picture and send it in, you could win £100!

To enter the competition upload your image  here

.

Read more