Mechanics’ owner faces five safety orders (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Mechanics’ owner faces five safety orders
9:10am Tuesday 16th February 2010 in News By Scott McPherson
Mechanics owner Mathew Singh
Mechanics’ Institute owner Mathew Singh has been told he cannot do anything with the building until safety issues have been sorted out.
A Health And Safety Executive report, exclusively obtained by the Adver, lists a number of potentially harmful practices which have been carried out at the building in Emyln Square and has served five prohibition notices.
The safety issues raised include: the use of 240 volt electrics in wet conditions; poorly installed electrics; the lack of any trained or competent supervisor, no asbestos survey; no suitable precautions to prevent falls of people while working at height and the lack of a fire risk assessment.
In the report, officer Stacey Gamwell said: “A HM Inspector of Health And Safety has recently visited the site and felt it necessary to take enforcement action against those working on the site, preventing them from carrying out further works until certain areas of the development had been made safe and particular shortcomings had been rectified. This inspector has since carried out further site visits in order to monitor the ongoing works and found the site to be under good management.”
This statement was made just weeks before project manager Mark Titcombe was sacked by Mr Singh.
Mr Titcombe said enforcement action could not have come quickly enough.
He said:“I have read the list of work in depth and I am used to programming and resourcing and I can tell you with confidence that unless they agree to take certain items out, he stands absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting the work listed on the notice done within the timescale.
“The average number of people on site in the last five weeks has been approximately four people, including myself and a labourer who was living in the caravan.
“The number of people required to get the work done to the south end flats is at least three times this number of operatives and to get anything achieved in the north end of the building at least 30 operatives on that alone.”
The HSE website states that failure to comply with a prohibition notice – such as those served in this case – can result in a penalty of £20,000 and/or 12 months’ imprisonment with the highest tariff being an unlimited fine and/or two years’ imprisonment.
When contacted, Mr Singh said he had only just been made aware of the enforcement notice.
He said: “I have been served the enforcement notice but I have recently fired the project manager so am working through all the paperwork.
“I am working through all of the points raised and will complete them all.”
Daniel Rose, the chairman of the New Mechanics’ Trust, said: “The trust welcomes the intervention of the Health And Safety Executive as we have been deeply concerned by working practices on site for some time.
“Bearing in mind that general infringement of Heath And Safety legislation was highlighted in the urgent works report back in October, the owner has had more than enough time to take the appropriate action to improve the situation.
“We feel this is yet more evidence that the owner is unable or unwilling to take his responsibilities towards the building seriously.
“The trust will work with all stakeholders, including Swindon Council, to secure a brighter future for Swindon’s most important building.”
Comments(23)
Robh
says...
9:46am Tue 16 Feb 10
There seems to be a lot of do nothing, spend nothing people who want a say in what happens to it.
Bones
says...
9:59am Tue 16 Feb 10
This is a nationally important building and it needs to be protected. SBC are stepping in very late but as they say, better late than never.
Casual Observer
says...
10:07am Tue 16 Feb 10
"The safety issues raised include: the use of 240 volt electrics in wet conditions; poorly installed electrics; the lack of any trained or competent supervisor, no asbestos survey; no suitable precautions to prevent falls of people while working at height and the lack of a fire risk assessment."
How is it a "stich-up" for the HSE to step in and enforce safer practice with this going on?
Not everything is a conspiracy you know, or are you just a bit annoyed they didn't run this by you first.
mrsdoubtfire
says...
10:21am Tue 16 Feb 10
trustnopolitician
says...
10:28am Tue 16 Feb 10
That combination is a really spiteful alliance in so many ways.
None of this excuses the safety issues but they would not have arisen had there been a sensible planning approach in the past.
Bobfm
says...
1:05pm Tue 16 Feb 10
Do any of you use a 110v transformer to mow your lawn with an electric mower, of course you don't you have an RCD plug or an outside RCD socket with a 13 socket.
Most commercial power tools are also double insulated, which means the user is protected from a shock even if the cable is cut.
Of course I do not condone poor workmanship but let's hear from the HSE who instigated an inspection. They rarely do unannounced visits these days.
Casual Observer
says...
1:29pm Tue 16 Feb 10
...wait, don't bother, they would quite rightly ignore you.
Amberflame
says...
1:37pm Tue 16 Feb 10
If this building is such an architectural and historical gem why have SBC or English Heritage not bought it from Mr Singh. Both SBC and English Heritage have had decades to restore it to it's former glory but only after it is purchased privately do they decide to act. Stinks of double standards. While this building was left derelict under the ownership of SBC did they have to complete any repairs under H&S guidlines as surely these issues are not recent but as a result of years of neglect under SBC. I said before i wouldn't be surprised if SBC have someone waiting in the wings to buy this on the cheap after SBC take it from Mr Singh. I could be completely wrong though and SBC are just trying to do what is best for the building and our local heritage!
Casual Observer
says...
1:52pm Tue 16 Feb 10
http://tinyurl.com/y
cfnrad
PaulD
says...
2:15pm Tue 16 Feb 10
trustnopolitician
says...
3:35pm Tue 16 Feb 10
wobsinwalcot
says...
3:43pm Tue 16 Feb 10
I'm really surprised that Mr Singh and his Site Manager allowed these breaches of Health and Safety, especially as the project was bound to be under a great deal of local
scrutiny. It's normal to do a full risk assessment, including any hazards such as working from height, potential dangers such as use of electricity, water etc. This is usually put in a Site Manual, the risks identified and graded, and measures put in place to minimize risk to anyone working on the Site.
MARK TITCOMBE
says...
3:51pm Tue 16 Feb 10
MARK TITCOMBE
says...
4:09pm Tue 16 Feb 10
Your absolutely right about the 110V comments. Which is why Mathew Singh is in trouble over this point. Whilst I was there, I did not allow 240v equipment or supply. This of course was yet another thing that annoyed Mr Singh as it meant he would have to spend money. Everything I advised him on he ignored esspecially if there was any cost involved, so I don't know why he bothered to hire an experienced manager such as myself in the first place.
Having said that, it was probably to look good in front of the council for a while.
Robh
says...
4:57pm Tue 16 Feb 10
Gooey
says...
5:21pm Tue 16 Feb 10
Bobfm
says...
8:35pm Tue 16 Feb 10
wobsinwalcot you are right 240v can and does kill but not if protected by an RCD. Even with 110v transformers, if the RCD is on the incoming side, it offers no protection, it has to be the out put side.
I think once again it's the indoctrination syndrome.
wobsinwalcot
says...
9:28pm Tue 16 Feb 10
110v is accepted "Site Standard". Not only is the voltage (obviously!) lower, but the transformers that convert 240v to 110 are isolated in such a way that you would have to contact both the live and cables at the same time to get a shock. The output winding in the transformer is earthed in the middle giving you a maximum of 55v between earth and either line (live or neutral) of the circuit. So, basically, if you cut through the cable between the transformer and your power tool, you're unlikely to get more than a 55v shock. This of course also makes 110v safer in wet conditions, and, as I mentioned before, the yellow cables and connectors are far more rugged than domestic 240v stuff. RCD's are great, I agree, but the yellow 110v system is used on Sites for the reasons above, plus of course it is easy to identify and far tougher than say a domestic extension lead.
I hope that sort of explains it????!!!!!
faatmaan
says...
10:43pm Tue 16 Feb 10
I Too
says...
12:09am Wed 17 Feb 10
8:35pm Tue 16 Feb 10
"
Mark you were the Contracts Manager did you actually instigated safesty procedures, after al it was your job. Perhaps the reason you were sacked.
"
For crying out loud Bob. The guy has already explained, that he wouldn't tolerate dodgy practice.
Matthew Singh is an estate agent, so he should now full well about 110v being used in place of 240v for long ter site work. Having seen him in action, in council meetings, and watched a televised interview, Mr Singh does not appear to be a pleasant fellow. It's hardly a fair comparison, to use a lawn mower / RCD switch versus 110v. How many people mow there lawn in wet weather?
110 volts, on site work, has been the standard practice for decades.
Give it a rest.You're losing UKIP votes .
Casual Observer
says...
9:22am Wed 17 Feb 10
Someone was on the pop last night.
Mr Blackwell
says...
11:43am Wed 17 Feb 10
.
Seriously, since the Mechnanics is obviously not going to be used for anything of any real value for the town, why not bulldoze it and put something useful up in its place... and by that I do NOT mean a ring of white fencing.
Bobfm says...
9:34am Tue 16 Feb 10
Is Councillor Blur going to launch an enquiry.?
This is becoming quite a stitch up. Mr Singh will not play roll over puppy dog so SBC are out to get him.