HSE prosecutions: The cost of poor compliance

Each year, 124 employees lose their lives at work and 680,000 are injured on the job.

HSE investigations show that workplace incidents are rarely isolated - and often symptomatic of wider safety failings. These four cases show how a split-second compliance lapse can trigger life-altering injuries and punitive penalties.

Put the lessons learned to work and head off similar hazards in your own business.

Cardiff University fined £280,000 for COSHH violations

Cardiff University received a £280,000 penalty for causing two employees to develop occupational asthma.

The workers were exposed to animal allergens for over 15 years, leading to reduced lung function, difficulty walking and talking, and reliance on inhalers and medication. Both individuals now suffer from lifelong conditions, and one was unable to continue working.

The HSE found that the university failed to implement appropriate safety measures, despite a legal duty to limit allergen exposure under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH). In lab settings, this can include:

• Restricting access to animal areas.
• Providing respiratory protective equipment (RPE) for dusty jobs.
• Using an extracted enclosure where possible.
• Conducting regular health surveillance to track early signs of ill health.

Occupational asthma can impact long-term quality of life. To avoid workplace health concerns, run a COSHH risk assessment to identify exposure sources and evaluate hazards. Use your findings to introduce targeted controls - such as local exhaust ventilation, face fit-tested RPE, and ongoing health surveillance - to prevent chronic health issues and costly downtime.

Glasgow company fined £129,000 after employee severs fingers in machinery

A Glasgow-based biomass company was fined £129,000 after a worker lost parts of three fingers in a machinery incident.

The experienced operator sustained the injuries while clearing a blockage in a rotary lock valve that contained rotating blades. The valve was remotely operated, with no visibility of the equipment from the control room.

Following a radio miscommunication, the worker believed the valve had been switched off and reached into the surge hopper. The moving blades severed three fingers of his right hand, and he has not returned to work in the three years since the incident.

An HSE investigation revealed that:

• The firm had a safe system of work for clearing blockages.
• The employee had been trained on the process just before the incident.
• However, they had failed to prevent access to dangerous machinery parts.

Even with safety procedures in place, incidents happen. Under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), companies have a duty to implement adequate physical safeguards to ensure workers can't access hazardous machinery parts. With human error accounting for up to 90% of workplace accidents, relying on written processes and remote radio communication is not enough.

Road planing business hit with £92,450 fine after worker loses leg

A Leicestershire road planing contractor received a £92,450 fine following a shocking entanglement incident.

An employee had a leg amputated by emergency services at the scene after his foot became caught by the rotating milling drum. He was dragged into the machine and had to have his limb removed to be freed.

The HSE's investigation indicated that his employer had not taken suitable measures to prevent machinery incidents. Their findings showed:

• The manufacturer's protective bow had not been attached to the machine, allowing access to the dangerous rotating milling drum.
• It was standard practice to operate the machine without protective guards.
• The guard would have prevented the incident.

Machinery guards are essential safety features that protect workers from dangerous moving parts. In many cases of machine-related injuries, guards have been removed or tampered with to allow free access to equipment or to achieve perceived production efficiencies.

Removing or overriding guards - or operating machinery without them - violates health and safety laws that can result in serious injuries and fatalities, fines and legal action, and insurance liability issues.

Roofing fall-from-height incident leads to £20,000 fine

A Hampshire roofing business has been prosecuted after a worker fell from an unprotected loft hatch.

The employee sustained life-changing injuries while stripping out internal insulation within the roof space. He fell approximately 11 feet through the unguarded hatch, fracturing a vertebra and his hip. The worker was unable to return to work and his employment with the company has since been terminated.

The HSE determined that his employer failed to properly plan the work at height. Their investigation found that they had not:

• Ensured adequate measures to prevent falls.
• Provided competent supervisors for the work.
• Sufficiently trained leaders to safely manage construction-related activities.

Falls from height are the number one cause of fatal incidents in the workplace, responsible for more than half of all construction deaths. Always conduct a suitable and sufficient work-at-height risk assessment, aiming to prevent work at height altogether. When that's not possible, plan the job to minimise risks, ensure competent supervision, and train staff to recognise, avoid, and act on work-at-height hazards.

Protect your business from fines and enforcement action

With the correct controls in place, every one of these cases was entirely preventable.

Opus works with employers across the UK to get safety basics right and build company-wide compliance cultures - through comprehensive risk assessments, tailored training solutions, and ongoing consultancy support.

To chat through your safety challenges with a sector specialist, reach out on 0330 043 4015 or email hello@opus-safety.co.uk.

Curious what a similar safety breach would mean for your business? Our free Fine Estimator calculates potential penalties according to incident type, sector, and turnover.