Coulson: Someone has a screw loose

In contrast to my recent article about ambulance-chasing lawyers and trumped-up claims, this week sees the other side of the legal coin.

A major pub chain has recently been prosecuted and fined for allowing a dangerous situation to continue when it already knew about it. The case concerned a woman who was injured by a protruding screw and, among other actions, complained to the council, which sent an inspector round. He found the cover, which was meant to be on this item, was missing so it could cause injury — and he urged the pub to put it right.

And was it? No, for some unaccountable reason when the inspector came back to check (as he was bound to do) the screw had still not been fixed. Hence the visit to the magistrates, who heard the story and slapped a hefty financial penalty on the group.

Let's face it, the magistrates are not going to take kindly to someone who ignores a council official in this way.

There may be any number of 'logistical' reasons why the repair was not carried out — because company procedures mean that the deputy manager cannot go round to B&Q and get a screw cover (this would of course be the cheapest and quickest way). For reasons to do with the other side of health and safety, employees are not permitted to deal with such issues themselves and the repair man has to come.

What really surprises me about this story is the sheer inevitability of the outcome — if there is a situation where after an accident you have had an inspection visit from a health and safety officer who tells you to put it right, where is the logic in ignoring that? It might be different if the accident has just occurred and you were unaware of it. But when someone with rather extensive enforcement powers gives you notice that as a priority you should cure a hazard, not doing anything at all is just not an option.

I see a number of cases of this kind where there is first of all a warning, then an official notice and only then a prosecution or, in very bad cases, an order to close the premises. Clearly, there is an infringement here, not one that the officer has 'made up' on the spot, but a situation in which a customer has been injured. I would assume there is in place in this company a reporting procedure, so they can take action when necessary. If the chain of reporting broke down to this extent, then someone needs to ask some very searching questions.

There is also the fact that this type of situation, reported in the press, is very bad PR for the company and could well spin off to other outlets. I have not mentioned names here, but you can be sure that the local paper will have done so, and that means hundreds of potential customers not being too impressed with the safety standards of a particular pub, and perhaps choosing to go elsewhere.

When it comes to safety I am aware that hard-pressed licensees find bureaucracy an annoyance — I can remember lively discussions with fire safety officers prior to licences being issued when they asked for expensive safety features to be included before they would withdraw their objections. It still goes on today, and there is perhaps even more red tape to contend with now. But when there is a clear breach and the remedy is as simple as it appears to be in this case, then why not comply and save all this trouble?