|
Ombudsmen
Reports on Complaints against the HSE
This page provides you information about investigations
undertaken by the Parliamentary Ombudsman into the
work of the Health and Safety Executive.
You
cannot access this information on any
other website other than this one!
If you want to find out what is the Parliamentary
Ombudsman or if you want to make a complaint against
the Health and Safety Executive, please Click
Here
The CCA has identified twelve complaints since 1990
concerning the HSE that have resulted in a set of
findings published by the ombudsman.
| • |
Five
of these reports concerned allegations of an inadequate
investigation. Four of these were "partially
upheld". |
| • |
Five
concerned allegations of inappropriate refusal
to provide information. Only one of these was
partially upheld, and four were not upheld |
| • |
One
concerned alleged inappropriate advice which was
upheld |
| • |
One
concerned alleged mishandling of a complaint,
which was partially upheld |
The
findings are either published in a summary form or
in a full report.
Below
you can access the summary reports of all the cases.
However,
you can only access the full reports if they have
been formally ‘laid before parliament’ -
and not all of them have been. This depends on whether
the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to do so.
When
the report has been ‘laid before parliament’
(and subsequently published), you can access them
here. Otherwise they are not available.
The
only way of accessing the full reports concerning
the ‘unpublished’ cases is through contacting
the complainant or the MP involved in making the complaint
on the complainants behalf.
The table below explains
what is available. Click on the case number to see
the summary, click on ‘download’
to download the full report. All the reports
that can be downloaded are in "word"
Date
|
Case
No
|
Title/Subject
of Inquiry |
Title/Subject
of Inquiry |
Full
Report |
| 2001 |
C.752/01 |
Conduct of an investigation into an industrial
accident |
Partially Upheld |
Download |
|
2000 |
C.515/00 |
Shortcomings
in the investigation of a complaint about working
conditions |
Partially
Upheld |
Not
Available |
| 1999 |
A.7/99
|
Refusal
to release information about workplace stress
which was obtained by inspectors |
Partially
Upheld |
Download |
| 1998 |
C.66/98 |
Investigation
into injury |
Partially
Upheld |
Not
Available |
| 1996 |
C.958/96 |
Complaint
concerning an investigation into an ‘accident’
at a school |
Partially
Upheld |
Not
Available |
| 1996 |
A.34/96 |
Refusal
to release a report of an accident investigation |
Not
Upheld |
Download |
| 1996 |
A.37/96 |
Refusal
to disclose information about defects at a nuclear
power station |
Not
Upheld |
Download |
| 1995 |
C.676/95 |
Provision
of wrong advice by the HSE |
Upheld |
Not
Available |
| 1995 |
A.25/95 |
Refusal
to release an assessment report relating to the
feed pond at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
(THORP) at Sellafield |
Not
Upheld |
Download |
| 1995 |
A.32/95 |
Refusal
to disclose information about prosecutions and
enforcement notices free of charge |
Not
Upheld |
Download |
| 1993 |
C.724/93 |
Failure
to investigate a reported incident |
Not
Upheld |
Not
Available |
| 1991 |
C.132/91 |
Mishandling
of a complaint about the use of wood treatment
chemicals on domestic premises |
Partially
Upheld |
Not
Available |
Case
No: C.752/01
Conduct of an investigation into an industrial accident
Mrs. E complained about the conduct by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) of an investigation into
the industrial accident that had caused her husband’s
death. She alleged that there had been unreasonable
delays during the course of the investigation, that
HSE had failed to keep her informed of progress, that
they had not given proper consideration to the possibility
of culpability on the part of the directors of the
company that employed her husband, and in that respect
had not attempted to interview the relevant company
personnel at the appropriate time. The Ombudsman found
that there had been delays, only in part justifiable,
in HSE’s investigation into the accident. Those
had been exacerbated by poor communication by HSE
with Mrs. E about progress. The decisions taken by
HSE as to the handling of the investigation, in particular
as regards inquiries aimed at distinguishing the culpability
of individuals, had for the most part been adequately
grounded in an understanding of the relevant circumstances,
although the extent to which they had initially pursued
the question of possible neglect on the part of company
directors had been less than ideal. HSE apologized
to Mrs. E for their shortcomings; agreed to reimburse
consequent expenses; and agreed to offer an additional
payment of £300 in recognition of the distress
caused. They gave assurances that lessons had been
learned from the case about liaison with the victims
of accidents and their relatives, and that other lessons,
relating to the issue of the personal responsibility
of company directors for health and safety matters,
would contribute to a strategic review.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case No:C.515/00
Shortcomings in the investigation of a complaint about
working conditions
In February 1996 the complainant telephoned the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) about a number of problems
with the working conditions at his then employer's premises.
The Ombudsman found that HSE had not responded to that
complaint as quickly and comprehensively as they should
have done; in particular, they had delayed in arranging
for a specialist inspector to visit the premises, and
failed to investigate the absence of employers' liability
insurance. They had added to the complainant's difficulties
by poor handling of his subsequent requests for information,
in particular by undue delay in providing information
from the specialist inspector's visit. However, prompt
and correct action by HSE might not have borne fruit
in time to be of benefit to the complainant, who had
left the employment in May 1996; and the provision of
information to assist the complainant's proposed legal
action against the employer was primarily a task for
the complainant, towards which he had received legal
aid. The Director General of HSE offered her apologies
to the complainant for HSE's shortcomings.
Back
to table
Case No: A.7/99
Refusal to release information about workplace stress
which was obtained by inspectors
Mr. H asked HSE how many of the letters and enforcement
notices which they had issued mentioned workplace stress
and whether he could have copies of those documents.
He also asked HSE to provide other information about
their approach to workplace stress, including details
of any review of their policy in this area. HSE told
Mr. H that they did not store information by specific
hazard or risk and, to identify every document which
mentioned stress, they would have to conduct manual
searches of all their files. They took the view that
Exemption 9 in Part II of the Code (Voluminous and vexatious
requests) applied and, in any case, disclosure of much
of the information contained in the documents asked
for was prohibited by section 28 of the Health and Safety
at Work etc Act 1974. After Mr. H requested an internal
review of their decision, HSE assembled some documents
which mentioned stress and provided him with the front
pages of several enforcement notices and some other
information. They also summarised their current work
on stress, and told him no formal review of stress had
been carried out. The Director General of HSE told the
Ombudsman that their computer system did not allow them
to search for data on individual hazards such as stress,
hence their reliance on Exemption 9; but they were making
improvements to their computerised search facilities.
Also, in their view, they had tried to reply helpfully
to numerous requests for information from Mr. H. The
Ombudsman confirmed that HSE would have to conduct an
exhaustive search of their paper records to identify
how many mentioned stress; he was satisfied that Exemption
9 had been correctly applied. However, he found that
HSE's computer system could be used to locate a significant
number of letters which mentioned stress—and some
of the information in those documents could be presented
in such a way that it was not caught by the statutory
restrictions on disclosure. HSE subsequently agreed
to provide Mr. H with some additional information on
workplace stress. The Ombudsman was satisfied that HSE
had not reviewed their policy on workplace stress at
the time of Mr. H's information request; afterwards,
however, they started to review internal guidance used
by inspectors. They agreed to the Ombudsman's suggestion
that they should provide Mr. H with a copy of the revised
guidance when available. The Ombudsman partially upheld
the complaint.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case No:C.66/98
Poor Communication by the HSE concerning their investigation
of an injury
Mr X complained that HSE had failed adequately to investigate
an accident in which he had sustained serious injury,
and that they had been wrong not to prosecute those
he considered responsible for the accident. He further
complained that HSE had led his solicitors to believe
that HSE were investigating the accident when that was
not in fact the case.
In May 1996, while employed as a scaffolder, Mr X. was
involved in an accident in which he sustained serious
head injuries. The accident was reported to HSE who
began an investigation. In July by agreement a HSE inspector
visited Mr. X to obtain a statement; Mr Indicated that
without first consulting a solicitor, he was not prepared
to sign the statement which the inspector had drawn
up. The inspector made two further attempts to obtain
a signed statement from Mr X, once by telephone and
once by letter. In October 1996 Mr X's solicitors wrote
to HSE, in a form used when requesting documentation
to support civil proceedings, seeking disclosure of
HSE's report. HSE replied that the request had been
passed to the inspector; that was not done. The solicitors
wrote again in January, February and March 1997 asking
if HSE were taking any action against Mr X's employers;
HSE advised that the matter was still under investigation.
In June 1997 HSE told the solicitors that their earlier
advice had been incorrect and that the investigation
had been curtailed because of Mr. X's refusal to cooperate.
In the course of further correspondence HSE accepted
that the matter had not been handled well and apologised
for that; however, they considered that there had been
insufficient evidence to support a prosecution and refused
to reopen the investigation.
Findings: Due to a prolonged failure of communication
between HSE's administrative staff and the inspector,
for some six months HSE misled the solicitors into believing
that Mr X's accident was under investigation. If the
solicitors' letter of October 1996 had been passed to
the inspector as HSE had told the solicitors it had,
the matter of Mr X's statement might have been picked
up again then. Instead the case had simply been left
on file. However, the present position regarding further
action by HSE in relation to Mr X's accident would not
necessarily have been different had HSE handled matters
differently: the decision as to whether or not to pursue
a criminal prosecution was and remained for them alone.
Remedy: HSE apologised for mishandling Mr X's
case and introduced procedural improvements to prevent
a recurrence. They agreed to write to Mr X explaining
their final position on his case in the light of all
the evidence now available.
Back to table
Case No:C.958/96
Complaint made by Mr and Mrs S against the Department
for Education and Employment (DFEE) and the health and
safety executive (HSE)-
Mr and Mrs S complained that HSE delayed and then failed
to complete their initial investigation into an accident
at a grant-maintained school (the school) and delayed
instituting a second investigation; that a senior principal
inspector (inspector A) failed to supervise properly
the first investigation into the incident; about the
manner in which inspector A conducted the second investigation
with which, after his perceived failure to supervise
the first investigation, he should not have been charged;
that HSE failed to report on their promised review of
inspector A's role in the first investigation; and that
the Secretary of State for Education and Employment
refused to authorise an investigation into the conduct
of the governors of the school in relation to a complaint
made by Mr S.
On 13 July 1995 Mr S reported to HSE the facts surrounding
an accident which his son Michael had suffered at the
school. Inspector A supervised an investigation by another
inspector (inspector B) which concluded that a staircase
where the accident had occurred did not contravene HSE
regulations, but that the school's governors had failed
to report the accident to HSE as they were required
to do. Those conclusions were reported to Mrs S when
she telephoned HSE on 20 November. Mr S was not satisfied
that the investigation had been sufficiently thorough
nor that it was complete. He wrote to HSE's area manager
on 13 December, also providing details of an accident
that had occurred at the school in 1990 and complaining
specifically about inspector A's supervision of inspector
B's investigation. On 20 December the area director
told Mr S that he personally would review the complaint
against inspector A and he appointed inspector A to
conduct a second investigation into the accident. He
reported inspector A's findings from the second investigation
to Mr S on 7 February 1996, but did not comment explicitly
on his own review of inspector A's supervision of the
first investigation. On 4 March Mr S complained to the
area director about inspector A's handling of an interview
with Michael, and the lack of any response to his complaint
about inspector A's supervision of the first investigation.
On 26 March DfEE told Mr S that they had not seen sufficient
evidence to merit a direction by the then Secretary
of State that she should intervene in the governors'
handling of Mr S's complaints about the school's own
investigation into Michael's accident.
Findings: There was delay in reporting the outcome
of the first investigation compared with the timetable
promised when it began, and it was incomplete in that
it did not address the matter of the school's supervision
of the staircase area as HSE had said it would. HSE
should also have told Mr S of their findings without
being prompted to do so by Mrs S's telephone call. There
was no delay or maladministration on the part of inspector
A in the conduct of the second investigation but the
area director could better have reported its findings
and his finding on the complaint against inspector A
to Mr S. The investigation's allocation to and its execution
by inspector A were not maladministrative, nor were
DfEE maladministrative in arriving at their decision
not to make a direction.
Remedy: The Director General of HSE apologised for
the failings of her department identified in the report
and indicated that procedures were under review.
Back to table
Case No: A.34/96 Refusal to
release a report of an accident investigation
The complainant, whose son died following an accident
at a railway station, asked the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) for a copy of the accident investigation report
produced by Thames Trains. HSE refused, relying on Exemption
14 (information given in confidence). They said that
Thames Trains had given them a copy of the report voluntarily
and had refused them permission to disclose it to a
third party. HSE believed disclosure without consent
could jeopardise the flow of future information: that
would not serve the interests of health and safety.
The Ombudsman found no conclusive evidence to show whether
the report had come into HSE's possession voluntarily
or through implicit reliance on a statutory power. He
considered both possibilities. If the report had been
supplied voluntarily by Thames Trains, as HSE had asserted,
he accepted that information contained in it could be
withheld under Exemption 14; if it had been obtained
under a statutory power, he found that the information
would be protected from disclosure under section 28(7)
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and would
therefore fall within the scope of Exemption 15 (statutory
and other restrictions). In either case the information
was exempt under the Code; and the Ombudsman did not
uphold the complaint.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case
No: A.37/96 - Refusal to disclose information about
defects at a nuclear power station
The complainant is a retired nuclear safety engineer.
He describes himself now as an independent assessor
of risk from nuclear power stations. He asked for
information about defects found during inspections
of the reactor pressure vessel at Sizewell B power
station, which is owned by a subsidiary of British
Energy plc (BE). The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
refused his request. They said that, subject to specific
exceptions in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974 (HSWA 1974), section 28(2) of that Act prohibited
them from disclosing "relevant information"
(information they had obtained under relevant statutory
powers) unless the provider of the information had
consented to disclosure. The ultimate providers of
the information, BE, had not consented; and HSE were
therefore withholding it under Exemption 15(a) in
Part II of the Code (statutory restrictions on disclosure).
HSE maintained their refusal on review. The Ombudsman
considered whether the complainant's status, and his
purpose in seeking the information, brought him within
an exception to the prohibition of disclosure. The
exception, which is contained in section 28(3)(b)
of HSWA 1974, covers persons seeking information for
a health and safety purpose. The Ombudsman found that
the exception did not apply: there was no evidence
that the complainant had any formal health and safety
role; and disclosure to him would not serve a health
and safety purpose, within the meaning intended in
HSWA 1974. HSE were therefore entitled to rely on
Exemption 15(a). The Ombudsman commended them for
the comprehensiveness of their guidance to staff on
information requests. He did not uphold the complaint.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case No:C.676/95
Provision of wrong advice by the HSE
Mrs P's complaint
Mrs P complained that RSL Limited (RSL) were misled
by the Department of Transport (DOT) as to the status
of an organisation named on a DOT list of approved training
providers.
Investigation: Following a visit to RSL's premises
in November 1994 by an officer from the South East Office
of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), RSL were advised
that in order to continue their business of removing
and transporting asbestos they would need to comply
with The Road Traffic (Training of Drivers of Vehicles
Carrying Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1992 (the regulations).
The new regulations were enforceable from 1 January
1995. HSE informed RSL that their drivers would need
to acquire Vocational Training Certificates (VTCs) and
sent them a list of DOT approved training providers
issued by DOT. RSL approached a provider named on the
list, Training Centre A, who agreed to supply the necessary
training. In the meantime RSL learnt from another provider
named on the list, Training Centre B, that as their
vehicles did not exceed 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight,
the regulations did not require their drivers to have
VTCs but only to have general awareness training. RSL
queried this with HSE and HSE telephoned them to say
that their earlier advice had been wrong and that their
drivers needed only general awareness training and not
VTCs to satisfy the regulations. However, RSL decided
to acquire VTCs for their drivers from Training Centre
A anyway. The training was held and, as advised by HSE,
RSL sent the certificates issued by Training Centre
A to DOT and applied for VTCs. DOT replied that VTCs
could not be issued as the training received was insufficient
to qualify for VTCs and the appropriate City and Guilds
examination had not been passed. In addition, Training
Centre A were not approved training providers. Training
Centre A was only a location at which an approved training
provider, Trade Association X, could use to provide
training at. Training Centre A were not themselves approved
to provide training leading to VTCs.
RSL complained to DOT that they had used a training
provider named on the DOT list. DOT replied that the
general awareness training RSL had received was sufficient
for RSL to meet the regulations but not to gain VTCs.
They did not accept that the list was in any way to
blame.
RSL complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner in
May 1995 and the Commissioner sought comments from DOT
and HSE. The Deputy Director General of HSE apologised
for giving wrong advice and for not correcting that
advice in writing. The Deputy Secretary of DOT accepted
that the list of approved trainers had been open to
misinterpretation and this had been corrected. In addition,
he offered compensation subject to fuller details of
the circumstances and the losses incurred by RSL. RSL
supplied details of their losses. DOT offered an ex-gratia
payment of £500 which was refused by RSL.
Findings: In addition to the maladministration already
accepted by HSE and DOT I also found that DOT should
have acknowledged that the list was open to misinterpretation
at an earlier stage and not only when the Commissioner
became involved. I also noted that HSE, although responsible
for enforcing the regulations, did not have copies of
the leaflet DOT produced, following consultation with
HSE, which explained the regulations in full. The Deputy
Director General apologised for HSE's shortcomings.
The Deputy Secretary agreed to make an ex-gratia payment
to RSL as compensation for the training they took with
Training Centre A and for their loss of earnings for
its duration. I regard that as a satisfactory outcome
to a justified complaint.
Back
to table
Case No: A.25/95
Refusal to release an assessment report relating to
the feed pond at THORP
Mr X asked the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for
a copy of the assessment report which supported the
licensing instrument issued to British Nuclear Fuels
Limited (BNFL) in respect of the transfer to and holding
of irradiated fuel at the feed pond at THORP. BNFL,
in response to an enquiry from HSE, said that information
contained in the assessment report was commercially
confidential and refused to give their permission for
its release. HSE therefore refused Mr X's request on
the grounds that Exemption 13 (commercial confidentiality)
in Part II of the Code applied. When HSE subsequently
maintained their refusal, they also cited Exemption
15(a) (statutory restriction on disclosure), because
the information contained in the report was 'relevant
information' for the purposes of section 28 of the Health
& Safety at Work Act 1974. The Ombudsman's investigation
led him to the view that Exemption 15 (a) did apply
to the information sought. That made the use of Exemption
13, or any other exemptions, otiose. The Ombudsman then
sought to determine whether the parts of the assessment
report which did not represent information supplied
by BNFL could be released to Mr X. What was left after
all relevant information had been excised was not enough
to convey a meaningful understanding of the report.
He concluded that Exemption 11(a) (incomplete information
which could be misleading) in Part II of the Code applied
to an expurgated version of the report. The Ombudsman
did not uphold Mr X's complaint and considered that
HSE had approached his request fairly and in the spirit
of the Code.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case No: A.32/95
Refusal to disclose information about prosecutions and
enforcement notices free of charge
Mr X's complaint against the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) comprised three main elements: i) it was unreasonable
of HSE to expect him to pay the costs of compiling information
about prosecutions since they must require it for their
own management purposes; ii) the proposed charges for
providing information about non-public enforcement notices
were prohibitively high; and iii) information about
all HSE committees should be in the public domain. The
Ombudsman found that there was no obligation upon HSE
to make details of unsuccessful prosecutions available
on public registers; and he did not doubt HSE's assurance
that they had no need to store that information in a
readily accessible form. In respect of enforcement notices,
the Ombudsman concluded that HSE were entitled to make
a charge and that the charge quoted was not excessively
high. Mr X's request to have access to all HSE committee
minutes was too broad to enable HSE, and therefore the
Ombudsman, to give a definite response in terms of the
Code.
To download the full report, click
here
Back to table
Case
No: C.724/93
Failure to investigate a reported poisoning incident
In January 1992 a man working on a farm was exposed
to what he believed to be harmful chemicals. Soon
afterwards he became ill and was unable to return
to work. In August 1992 he made a formal complaint
to HSE about what had happened. An HSE Inspector considered
the matter and, having made enquiries, concluded that
there was little to be gained from visiting the farm.
He did, however, refer the matter to HSE’s Employment
Medical Advisory Service (EMAS) who sought a report
from a toxicologist at the National Poisons Unit who
had examined the man. EMAS’s attempts to obtain
a report were unsuccessful and the matter was not
referred to the HSE’s Pesticide Incident Appraisal
Panel (PIAP) until July 1993.
Findings: Although there were some minor failings
on HSE’s part I found that the man’s main
complaint was not borne out. HSE’s decisions
on how to investigate the matter were taken without
maladministration and therefore outside my jurisdiction
and the responsibility for the lengthy delay in referring
the matter to PIAP lay elsewhere.
Remedy: The Director-General expressed his
regret for the minor administrative shortcomings identified.
Back
to table
Case
No: C0132/91
Mishandling of a complaint about the use of wood treatment
chemicals on domestic premises
The handling by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
of a complaint that a woman had suffered ill health
as a result of the use of wood treatment chemicals
in her flat.
Contractors who were refurbishing a block of flats
used wood treatment chemicals during their treatment
of dry rot in the woman’s home. She subsequently
complained to HSE that she had been made ill because
of breaches of health and safety regulations. As a
result of enquiries which they had made both before
and after her complaint HSE initially concluded that
it was ill founded though they later modified their
view. After numerous exchanges of correspondence the
woman complained to me that HSE had failed to fulfil
their responsibilities and to investigate her complaint;
she felt HSE had lied in their responses and she denied
a HSE claim that one of their Inspectors had visited
her premises after the treatment but before her complaint.
Findings: I found, on the balance of probabilities,
that the Inspector’s visit had taken place. HSE
had in the main responded promptly to her letters.
Their replies, however, did not always fully cover
issues which were their responsibility or address
al her expressed concerns. HSE had been slow to reassess
their position in the light of her continuing protests.
They had also failed to make a timely report of their
investigation to an advisory panel on pesticides.
Remedy: HSE apologised for their shortcomings.
They agreed to make changes to their procedures when
visiting domestic premises and to inform complainants
whenever practicable of the outcome of their initial
investigations of a complaint.
Back
to table
|
