Category: Health & Safety

We are delighted to launch the first in a series of updates to PRISM, Tetra’s property risk management software which allows organisations to track and manage all of the tasks, events and actions related to the risk management of a property portfolio.

The latest update brings users refinement and improved ease of use.

Speed enhancements
We have worked to increase speed across the entire PRISM platform. Both page speed and search speed will be noticeably faster. Some of these individual changes are in milliseconds but taken together they make the system feel even quicker.

Filtering, finding and reporting on data
PRISM has always had an excellent filtering tool for tasks and actions along with a variety of ways of filtering and reporting on data in PRISM. However, an area we felt we needed to improve was the visibility and user experience of these features and this latest update does this. The comprehensive change in layout is noticeable in the day to day use of the system. The powerful search and filter features enable users to drill down to the finest detail and to easily manage compliance across their property, portfolio and people.

Search and Filter feature within tasks and actions tab
Within PRISM, searching for any task / action is simple. Search results can then be refined by filtering on a range of attributes. As an example, it’s possible to filter by task name, due date, frequency, landlord, status, task group and so on. It is a rapid and easy way of drilling down to the base data.

Integration with other software systems and improved data exchange
We have made further enhancements to our Open API interface making it even easier for clients to exchange data with PRISM from other software systems. At the same time, where some clients use manual export of data to PRISM, we have improved this process to ensure better data consistency such as exporting / importing actions into PRISM.

A sneak preview of what’s coming next month
As well as these updates, which are now live, we are excited to announce that mid next month we will be launching a brand-new mobile application which will enable users to effectively manage property risk on the go, natively from any mobile device, wherever they are, even whilst offline.

Contact Us
If you would like to learn more about PRISM or arrange a demonstration to see how our property risk management software could benefit your organisation, drop us a quick email at info@tetraconsulting.co.uk or call us on +44(0)20 8875 0700.

Are you planning a summer boiler replacement? With the colder weather coming to an end over the next few weeks, we are now starting to think about turning our heating systems off, so now is the time to start organising these kinds of works.

Have you considered the potential need to manage the removal of any asbestos around the boiler replacement? From residential blocks to NHS hospitals, we have extensive experience in co-ordinating boiler replacements where asbestos may be present.

Tetra are often appointed to project manage the end to end process of boiler replacements from planning through to completion and can support you around all of the following steps:

  • Identifying asbestos
  • Producing all relevant documentation and specifications
  • Liaising with M&E consultants
  • Assisting with temporary boiler installation
  • Co-ordinating contract tenders
  • Managing asbestos removal contractors

We ensure that your boiler area is fully prepared so your heating consultant can safely and efficiently install all of the required plant and equipment without interruption or delays. Don’t just take our word for it, here is a testimonial from a client that uses our services regularly:

‘Tetra Consulting have facilitated asbestos removal works at a number of our properties, the most recent being the boiler plant within a large residential block in Westminster, London SW1. These extensive works required precise coordination and speed which Tetra were able to deliver. As with other projects involving Tetra’s asbestos removal works, this project proceeded smoothly, and we were very pleased with the service we received.’ 

‘Tetra Consulting are swift to investigate on any potential asbestos projects, comprehensive and thorough in their report and conclusions, competent throughout the tender stages and are professional throughout the project and consultation processes.’

Christian Cole, Tuckerman Management Limited

If you would like to learn more about how we could help your organisation, drop us a quick email at info@tetraconsulting.co.uk or call us on +44(0)20 8875 0700.

Controlling the spread of COVID-19 from person to person comes down to observing the government guidelines around the recently enforced lockdown and adhering to the social distancing advice that we have been given. As we go about our daily working lives, we are constantly facing challenges around maintaining hygiene from ensuring work surfaces and tools are clean to ensuring that we, as individuals, are regularly washing our hands or have access to antibacterial agents to clean our hands with.

In line with many of our clients’ concerns around specific areas of compliance, we’re involved in many projects that directly relate to hygiene, particularly around food and more importantly water hygiene. As this is an area we’re experienced in, we have become a highly trusted source for hygiene advice for many of our clients.

We have been asked a number of times if we can help source a range of products including antibacterial hand gel and hand wipes. So after liaising with our International shipping contacts, we’re delighted to announce that we have located supplies of both hand sanitiser gel and hand wipes in very large bulk quantities which we are now able to offer to our clients.

If you would like to know more about these products, the costs and availability, please email us at info@tetraconsulting.co.uk or call us on on +44 (0)20 8875 0700.

Download our new guide to learn more

The latest in our series of short guides provides you with some general advice and guidance with regards to the Servicing, Testing and Maintenance of the various plant and equipment, including, lifts, BMS systems, lifting equipment, boilers, gas supplies, electrical installations, to name but a few, and the fire safety systems and provisions etc. within your buildings/properties during the difficult times that we all find ourselves in.

Click here to download the guide.

 

As of the 25th March 2020, Tetra Consulting Ltd has imposed travel restrictions as directed by the UK Government.  These will remain in place until further updates have been provided by the Government. Client related travel is possible for the Tetra Consulting team, however, requires the approval of the Tetra Consulting Senior Management.

Tetra Consulting Ltd will continue to review the Government restrictions as the situation continues and will monitor Government advice closely.  We will continue to provide the essential services that our clients are requesting and ensuring that we keep our consultants, our clients and their premises safe, as long as Government advice allows.

Risk Assessments

We are continuing to undertake site assessments where and when required, subject to Tetra Consulting Ltd.’s restrictions following the Government guidelines.  Unless our clients inform Tetra that they would rather we did not attend site, we will continue with this approach.  This is limited to day visits by consultants and cannot travel longer distances where an overnight stay would be required.  This is due to accommodation premises being either closed or prioritised for key workers.

Our consultants continue to travel by car, rather than any public transportation, assuring their safety, not being exposed to mixing in public transport areas. Our consultants have been fully briefed on the safety protocols to be taken and all carry their own hand sanitiser and use it regularly to prevent transmission.

There does remain an uncertainty with regard to underground and bus travel in London due to limited service and key workers requiring priority to this.  Additionally, it presents a higher risk to our consultants to use these and taxi services, therefore, our consultants will travel into London by car and via foot, from car park locations to site.  This will continue to be reviewed but may impact on our ability to carry out central London assessments, we will however assess this on a case by case basis.  This will ensure that not only do our consultants stay safe, but we are protecting both our clients and their sites.

The consultant will wash his/her hands with soap and water.  If the facilities are unavailable, he/she will use a sanitiser immediately before and after the inspection.  The consultant will not have any contact (i.e. shaking hands) with the clients or the representative.  They will limit what they touch with their hands and will choose to continue the social isolation by not using the lifts unless alone in the lift car.

While travelling around the building, the consultant will look to maintain a suitable distance between themselves and other people within the building, including the Building or Facilities Manager who may be escorting them round the building and providing access to certain areas.

If the consultant sneezes or coughs whilst onsite he/she will use a tissue and place it in a plastic bag (which will be provided by Tetra) and disposed of accordingly.  If either the consultant or the client is “uncomfortable” at any time, then either party can terminate the Inspection.  On completion of the site visit, the consultant will again look to either wash their hands and/or use their hand sanitiser.

By limiting the contact with other persons throughout their working day, along with regular hand washing/sanitising and being careful as to what they touch as they move around the sites, our consultants should be able to keep themselves safe and not risk infecting others.

Clients’ Obligation

As far as possible the client is to confirm on the morning of the Inspection/Audit that all employees are clear of Coronavirus symptoms. If possible, hand washing facilities to be made available.

The client or the representative will not attempt any physical contact with the consultant.  The client or representative must maintain a safe distance.  All keys given to the consultant to access cupboards and service rooms must be wiped with disinfectant.

All relevant persons should continue to follow existing Risk Assessments and Safe Systems of Work.

Re-Scheduling of Assessments

Should the situation occur that our consultants fall ill and not be able to attend site, we would be in immediate contact to request a reschedule of the assessment to an alternative suitable date.

In the event that we are prevented from completing the assessment, e.g. due to changes in Government guidelines, Tetra consulting Ltd.’s travel restrictions and the unavailability of staff due to sickness, we will notify the site contact and clients’ Senior Management Team and discuss the nearest available dates for rescheduling.

PRISM Services

We are continuing to maintain full PRISM telephone support at this current time, however in the event of sickness or any unplanned issues that could arise as result of the current situation, this could potentially cause a disruption to that service.  In the event of this, Tetra will ensure that all clients’ Senior Management teams are informed immediately and then kept fully up to date as things progress.

We are continuing to monitor the situation on a daily basis and will continue to carry out our site visits as detailed here.  Should this change, we will update our policies and procedures accordingly and update all clients of the changes.  Tetra Consulting remains committed to ensuring the safety of all our consultants, clients and their properties at all times.

Best wishes,



Robert McCall Taylor – Director Health, Safety and Fire Services

Download our new guide to learn more

At this difficult time the control of legionella is probably the last thing on our minds. However, any owner of any commercial premises still has responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to maintain water systems in a safe manner.

Our short guide will explore a few things that you need to consider throughout this period including your responsibilities and suggested actions when buildings are empty and when access is still required for essential workers.

Click here to download the guide.

 

A message from Tetra Consulting

We are all in unprecedented and turbulent times.  It is saddening to see so much upheaval across so many lives and communities. However, it is truly inspiring to notice our reactions both personally and from a business perspective. Our clients, suppliers and staff are mostly cracking on and dealing with the changing situations as best we can.

I want to assure you that as a business we are doing all we can to keep calm, carry on and be pragmatic.  Health and Safety compliance plays its own important part in helping companies to manage their property situations.  We believe, as an essential service, we have much to offer ensuring Health and Safety continues to be a priority for our clients and the properties they own, manage and or occupy are safe.

Our consultants and staff are taking all the precautions as advised by the Government and we continue to follow the latest advice. As a business our IT and administrative systems have been in place to allow home working for over 2 years and I am pleased to say we successfully moved all office staff to home working on Monday this week.  All emails and telephones numbers continue to work as previously.

As this dynamic situation evolves, we are committed to doing our bit, being agile and responsive to clients’ needs, pulling together through tough times and working hard towards a brighter outcome.

Best wishes,

Sign Off


Peter Moore
Founder & Chairman, Tetra Consulting

The government has proposed a new building safety regime for multi-occupied residential buildings that are over 18 metres in height. Underpinning the regime would be a requirement for a safety case that the Building Safety Regulator must approve before issuing a building safety certificate.

Duty holders will have to consider the effectiveness of how they manage fire and structural risks throughout a building’s lifecycle (planning, construction, completion, occupation, maintenance, refurbishment, and demolition). The duty, which will pass from the client during construction to an accountable person throughout occupation, is part of “the golden thread of building information” that the government hopes will enable “the person inheriting the risk to understand how the building operates, what layers of protection exist and what needs to be done”. (The accountable person will be the subject of our next briefing but, in short, will be the individual or body that has control of the building – in most cases, the freeholder or head lessee, or a management company.)

Although there are risk assessment duties under the current Fire Safety Order 2005, the government accepts that the existing system lacks “a regulatory driver and mechanism”. Under the proposed regime, the regulator must be satisfied that the safety case has identified the fire and structural hazards and assessed the risks, and that an appropriate safety management system and mitigation is in place. The regulator will be able to require changes to and, if necessary reject, the safety case.

The safety case for a new building will need to include:
– a comprehensive description of the building and the preventive measures and protective systems;
– an understanding of the life-critical risks (for fire and structural safety) and evidence as to how they will be proactively and proportionally managed for safe occupation;
– mandatory occurrence reporting;
– evidence of emergency preparedness, continuous improvement and compliance with legislation, standards and policies;
and
– reference to documents such as a resident engagement strategy, a fire and emergency file, and structural or fire safety inspections.

The accountable person must review the safety case every five years (more frequently should there be reasons to do so). The review must demonstrate how fire and structural risks are managed on an ongoing basis given that safety critical measures will “naturally degrade over time”. The building safety regulator will consider the review as part of its renewal of the building safety registration certificate.

Although a safety case for new buildings will contain much of the information needed to manage a building once it is occupied, the government accepts that the production of a full safety case could be “more complex” for many existing building because the information might be limited, absent or difficult or expensive to obtain. The regulator will therefore be allowed to demand less information for an existing building, subject to a sufficient explanation from the accountable person and evidence of the mitigation that has been put in place.

The government accepts that the evidence in a safety case is “potentially vast”, but believes that the principles of existing management systems may form a reasonable basis for compiling a safety case. Such systems include the Health and Safety Executive’s Managing for health and safety (HSG65). An accountable person may also “think it proportionate to undertake an intrusive survey as a first step to build an accurate record to support the safety case”. This might involve destructive inspection and testing, such as a Type 4 fire risk assessment.
Next: the accountable person.

A new post-Grenfell Tower fire and building safety regime is beginning to take shape. It will represent a marked departure from the existing regime and introduce significant duties for those involved in the management of occupied residential buildings that are at least 18 metres high.

In a series of briefings, Tetra Consulting will explore each of the main elements of the proposed new regime, which is unlikely to change, regardless of which government is returned in the forthcoming General Election. Here, we provide a brief background and overview. In part 2, we will look at the proposed safety case requirement that the government describes as “a fundamental change in approach” and that underpins the “whole building” approach of the new regime.

We will then look at the new position of an “accountable person”, who will be responsible for complying with the safety case and other conditions set in a building safety certificate issued by a new “building safety regulator”. We will also discuss the role of the new “building safety manager”, who will support the accountable person. Thereafter, we will review plans to give the occupants of the buildings a far stronger voice with those responsible for the management of the buildings, and proposals to strengthen the enforcement of the new regime alongside tougher sanctions.

Following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, in which 72 people lost their lives, the government set up a public inquiry. Chaired by a retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry published the report on phase 1 of its work on 30 October 2019. This looked at what occurred on the night of the fire. Phase two, which will commence hearings in 2020, will focus on the “circumstances and causes” of the fire.

Alongside the public inquiry, the government commissioned an independent review of the Building Regulations and fire safety. This was led by Dame Judith Hackitt, a former chair of the Health and Safety Executive. The review’s final report was published in May 2018 and concluded that the regulatory system for higher-risk residential buildings was “not fit for purpose” and that overlaps between different pieces of legislation made it difficult to ensure sufficient oversight and responsibility for fire safety in the building as a whole.
The government accepted all 53 of Hackitt’s recommendations in December 2018, consulting on their implementation over summer 2019 in a document, Building a safer future: proposal for the reform of the building safety regulatory system, which proposed the new regime for residential buildings of 18 metres or more that this Tetra Consulting series is examining (BaSF, http://bit.ly/2M1CDW7).

The government is currently analysing the responses, alongside those to a parallel call for evidence on whether the principal legislation governing fire safety – the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 – remains fit for purpose given the changes proposed in BaSF.
Next: The new safety case regime.

The manager of a building site has been imprisoned for 30 months after a jury convicted him of the manslaughter of a window fitter, who was killed in a three-metre fall.

The incident occurred on a former warehouse site in St Saviour’s Hill, Leicester. Faruk Patel had bought the site with the intention of building a family home but, following demolition, financial difficulties led to him selling the site, with the proviso that he be retained as site manager. Mr Patel asked Tasadaq Ur-Rehman, who worked for a double-glazing firm, to fit windows on the first floor of the new building. On 24 January 2015, Mr Ur-Rehman fell through a skylight aperture in the first floor roof and died four days later from head injuries. He was aged 40.

The joint investigation by Leicestershire Police and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that there was no scaffolding in the area where the windows were to be fitted. Nor was there a safe method of transferring the windows to the first floor, with a broken and untethered ladder providing the sole means of access. The scaffolding outside the building was constructed haphazardly and, instead of appropriate walkways, was fitted with a few unsecured planks of wood. Nor was anyone on site wearing personal protective equipment, and there were no warning signs and no qualified first aiders.

Detective Constable Beverley Toon, who led the investigation, described the failures as “a serious dereliction of Patel’s duty”, and that his “negligence and total disregard of health and safety directly contributed to the unnecessary death of a worker”. Sarah Hill, an HSE inspector, said that Mr Patel had fallen “far short of what the law required” and “continued to put workers lives at risk even after” the fatal incident.

Following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, Mr Patel was convicted on 15 July 2016 of manslaughter by gross negligence. Sentencing, Mr Justice Saunders said that Mr Patel “had paid no regard to health and safety whatsoever”. Judge Saunders also imposed a three-month prison sentence for three health and safety offences related to the incident that Mr Patel had admitted in December 2015. The two sentences will run concurrently rather than consecutively.

A builder has been imprisoned for working with asbestos without a licence. His negligence exposed himself and three men who were working for him to the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres. The client for the project was fined earlier this year.

The exposure occurred in September 2012 at a commercial unit in Mochdre Business Park in Colwyn Bay. Peter Rees, who traded as Light in Design, was selling the unit. The company purchasing the unit had commissioned an asbestos survey that showed the presence of a large amount of asbestos insulating board (AIB). Instead of employing a qualified and licensed asbestos contractor for the removal, Mr Rees used a general builder, Brian Roberts, who did not hold a licence and whose removal of the AIB spread asbestos dust inside the building.

After a tip off from a licensed contractor, HSE inspectors visited the unit and served prohibition notices on Mr Rees and on Carol Anne Rees on 9 October 2012 because the contamination of the building had exposed persons to risks to their health from asbestos fibres. The unit subsequently required a significant clean up by an authorised contractor.

On 12 June 2015 at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court, Mr Roberts was sentenced to 26 weeks in prison after he admitted undertaking licensable asbestos work without a licence. The magistrates had previously fined Mr Rees £8,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £7,400 on 21 January 2015 after he admitted that his failure to employ a licensed contractor had meant that his undertaking had exposed persons to risks to their health.

Following the conclusion of the cases, the HSE’s investigating inspector, Chris Wilcox said: “Anyone who owns or has control of non-domestic premises has a legal duty to manage the risk of asbestos in their buildings. When asbestos is removed, it must be done by someone who is trained and competent to do the work.” Safe removal, emphasised Mr Wilcox, “requires a high level of skill and technical knowledge and must be done by a contractor licensed by the HSE”.

Two members of the 777 group of companies have been ordered to pay fines and prosecution costs totalling £382,857 after falling concrete joists killed a worker during a demolition project in south London in 2007. Dominic Elliss, a principal inspector with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said he hoped that the case would “spark renewed focus by all in the construction industry on the importance of effective planning, constant review and robust supervision throughout demolition works”.

The incident took place at the Elephant and Castle, where an office block was being demolished in preparation for what would eventually become the landmark 43-storey Strata SE1, which was one of the first mixed-use buildings to incorporate wind turbines into its structure. The principal contractor for the demolition project was 777 Demolition and Haulage Co Ltd; a second group company, 777 Environmental Ltd, undertook the actual demolition of the building. The 777 group specialises in demolition, recycling and asbestos removal.

On 2 August 2007, John Walker, who was an electrician, was working for 777 Environmental Ltd near to two remote controlled demolition machines. As the machines broke through a structural beam, several concrete joists were dislodged, striking Mr Walker.
The HSE’s investigation found that both 777 companies failed properly to plan, manage and monitor the demolition of the structure. They had neither prepared nor implemented an effective and safe system of work for the demolition, which “ultimately” allowed for the uncontrolled collapse. 777 Environmental Ltd failed to investigate properly the nature of the structure as the demolition proceeded, which led to the collapse, while its failure to implement “robust” exclusion zones “allowed a wholly foreseeable risk to have fatal consequences”.

Both companies were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 2 November 2015. The judge fined 777 Demolition and Haulage Co Ltd £125,000 after a jury convicted it of exposing persons other than its employees to risks to their safety. 777 Environmental Ltd, which had previously pleaded guilty to failing to ensure its employees’ safety, was fined £90,000. The companies were also ordered to pay the HSE’s prosecution costs of £167,857.