Complaint about the Health and Safety Executive
Jump to
Remedy for a mishandled investigation into a serious accident and inadequate preparation for legal proceedings
Background to the complaint
In August 2002 Mr F (then a boy) was knocked over by a truck reversing over a public footpath into a yard owned by Company P. He sustained life-threatening injuries, for which he continues to undergo surgery. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) began an investigation. They obtained the physical evidence from the scene of the accident, gathered by the police, interviewed Mr F and eye witnesses, and took statements from employees of Company P, including the driver of the truck.
In June 2004 Company P were interviewed under caution in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Before that interview, HSE said that they were not considering proceedings against any individual officer or servant of the company. However, the officer assigned to the case told Mr F’s family in April 2005 that Company P would be taken to court. HSE told the family that the case would be heard in court in November 2006.
Having heard no more, Miss B (Mr F’s sister) contacted HSE on 8 November 2006 but could get no further information. The next day she was told the case was not going ahead and that this had been decided at a case conference (in October 2006), on the basis of Counsel’s opinion that the evidence gathered did not pass the evidential test for prosecution. Mr F’s family complained to HSE.
The Head of Field Operations for the London area met the family and their solicitor in December 2006. He wrote to Mr F’s parents with the results of a review he had conducted. He said that HSE’s conduct of the investigation and subsequent legal proceedings had been unacceptable, as had the failure to liaise properly with the family throughout the course of the investigation and subsequent aborted legal proceedings. He apologised unreservedly, and said he would work to ensure that this could not happen again. The Head of Field Operations added that he had thoroughly explored the possibility of reopening the investigation to gather more evidence, but there was little chance of gathering evidence which might support a successful prosecution.
What we investigated
In January 2007 Miss B complained to the Ombudsman that HSE’s apology was not sufficient redress for their inadequate investigation and their preparation for subsequent legal proceedings. She sought compensation for the distress that HSE had caused her family. She wanted the compensation to reflect the effect of the maladministration on any future damages Mr F might receive, and reassurance that no other family would have to go through what they had suffered.
The focus of our investigation was whether the actions HSE had taken to remedy the injustice to Mr F and his family were adequate in the circumstances.
What our investigation found
Our investigation established that Miss B’s complaint to HSE had prompted them to take a number of steps in an attempt to remedy her complaint, and to reduce the chances of their faults and failings being repeated. Action included:
- an apology;
- developing proposals to make the best use of enforcement to deliver health and safety priorities, and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of investigation and prosecution activities;
- sharing the key learning points from Mr F’s case;
- ensuring HSE keep interested parties properly informed throughout the course of investigations and subsequent legal proceedings;
- introducing a system to ensure that investigation reviews are carried out and recorded. Existing documents were revised to give more details about what reviews should include and what should be recorded, and to allow lines of enquiry and decisions to be recorded in a way which should ensure the review meets its objectives;
- ensuring that HSE do not decide to prosecute without evidence to support a successful prosecution, and that all reasonable lines of enquiry are properly considered;
- introduction of an improvement programme focusing on investigations and enforcement to raise competence levels; and
- introducing a new computer system with modules to help track the progress of investigations and the submission of prosecution reports and their approval, and to ensure that legal proceedings are properly managed.
Mr F and his family had a reasonable expectation that HSE’s investigation into his serious accident would be thorough and competent, and determine whether or not health and safety legislation had been breached (and that HSE would pursue a prosecution effectively if it had). HSE failed them on every count.
Although HSE had taken steps to minimise the chances of a recurrence of these failings, we upheld Miss B’s complaint that the individual remedy offered by HSE to Mr F was inadequate. Our investigation was concluded in October 2007.
Outcome
We recommended that HSE pay compensation to Mr F.
The Chief Executive replied, saying that HSE regretted that they had added to the already great level of suffering in this case, and asking that his personal regret be conveyed to Mr F and his family for the mistakes made. He offered compensation of £2,000. We regarded that to be an appropriate amount.
We did not share Miss B’s view that redress should take into account any effect HSE’s maladministration would have on any future damages (that would have involved considerable speculation as to the outcome of any prosecution of, or civil claim against, Company P).
Principles for Remedy
The Principles for Remedy were not referred to in our report but this case summary serves to illustrate the following Principles:
- ‘Getting it right’ (considering all relevant factors when deciding the appropriate remedy, ensuring fairness for the complainant).
- ‘Putting things right’ (considering fully and seriously all forms of remedy, such as an apology, explanation, remedial action or financial compensation).
- ‘Seeking continuous improvement’ (using the lessons learnt to ensure the maladministration is not repeated, and using complaints to improve services)
