Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Peter Richardson

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0162, written 10 May 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report10 May 2017
Reference2017-0162
DeceasedPeter Richardson
CoronerSimon Wickens
Coroner areaSurrey
CategoryOther related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published2

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

IN THE SURREY CORONER’S COURT 

__________________________________________________________ 

The Inquests Touching the Death of Peter William RICHARDSON 
A Regulation 28 Report – Action to Prevent Future Deaths 
__________________________________________________________ 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

•  Penny Mordaunt, MP, Minister of State for Disabled People, 

Health and Work, (1) 

•  Safety Assessment Federation - SAFed (2) 
•  The Garage Equipment Association - GEA (3) 
•  Health and Safety Executive - HSE (4) 
•  HSB Engineering Insurance Services Limited - HSB (5) 
• 
•  West End Garage -WEG (7) 
•  Liftmaster Ltd (8) 

 (6) 

1  CORONER 

Simon Wickens HM Area Coroner for Surrey 

2  CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5 to The Coroners 
and Justice Act 2009. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 
The inquest into the death of Peter William Richardson was opened on 
the 4th December 2015 and was resumed on the 24th April 2017 before a 
jury. It was concluded on 2nd May 2017. 

The cause of death was: 
     1a.  Head Injuries 

The conclusion of the jury was; Accidental Death 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

On the 27th September 2015 Mr Richardson was using a Bendpak Two-

RT4563 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 Post vehicle lift on behalf of his employer, West End Garage in order to 
work underneath a car.  Whilst under the car, Mr Richardson was seen on 
CCTV to be fitting an under-shield. He was towards the rear of the 
vehicle when the car became dislodged from the lift and fell.  The Car fell 
onto Mr Richardson causing head injuries that were fatal.   

The Court heard evidence that the Lift Arm locking mechanisms were 
either not working at all or were not working as intended so as to allow 
movement or ‘play’ at the time of the incident.  The responsibility for 
maintaining the lift rested with the operator who received instruction on 
the lift in 2012 at the point it was fitted, but not subsequently.  Instruction 
manuals relating to this specific lift do not assist with tolerance levels or 
torque settings for safety critical elements. 

The Court heard that under-shields on the Mercedes CLK and other cars 
present a clearance problem when lifted on two-post lifts as the size of 
the pad means it can extend onto the under-shield hampering its 
removal.  The Court was told other items such as pieces of wood are 
often placed on top of the lifting pads in order to gain the clearance that 
is needed.  It was said in evidence that anything placed upon the pad 
may be held securely by the weight of the vehicle, but could create 
further instability.  Mr Richardson had used rubber blocks from another 
model of lift on top of the lifting pads at the time of the incident.      

5  CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise 
to concern and in my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur 
unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to 
report to you. 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that: 

a)  No formal guidance exists as to safe tolerances of safety critical 
elements of two-post lifts.  The Court heard from two HSE 
witnesses and a ‘Thorough examiner’ who examined the lift for the 
purposes of complying with LOLER 1988, who gave differing 
views on what was a safe tolerance or ‘play’ for an extended lift 
arm. Further, it was accepted this was an issue of concern to the 
HSE, but as yet remained to be dealt with. 

b)  The supplier of the Bendpak Lift in the UK, Liftmaster, do not 
supply guidance as to the required torque for safety critical 

RT4563 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 elements of their two-post lifts and neither do they provide 
guidance on safe tolerance levels.   

c)  Safe tolerance should be considered at a LOLER ‘Thorough 

Examination’ however there is no guidance to be followed and 
there is no requirement for such tolerance levels to be recorded 
and as such the levels are not available to any subsequent 
examiner. 

d)  Mr Richardson who operated the lift only received training on the 
specific lift at the point it was installed in 2012.  All other users 
were subsequently trained by him in its use, which was not 
recorded and all users of the lift were expected to maintain the lift 
properly. 

e)  It is a known practice for a variety of different objects (for example 
a piece of wood) to be placed on top of the lift pads between the 
pad and the vehicle when it is lifted in order to provide clearance 
and to assist with difficult jobs such as removing a car under-
shield. 

MATTERS OF CONCERN ARE: 

That consideration be given by (1), (2), (3) and (4) [please see paragraph 1 above] to: 

1)  Issuing guidance as to safe tolerance levels of safety critical elements on 

two-post lifts. 

2)  Implementing a system of recording tolerance and torque levels of all 

safety critical elements during a ‘Thorough Examination’ of a vehicle lift. 

3)  Implementing a system for recording such levels for comparison at 

subsequent examinations. 

4)  Either advising the industry that the practice of placing foreign objects 
between the two-post lift pads and the vehicle to provide the necessary 
clearance should not continue, or advising the industry how to provide 
such clearance safely when, for example, removing a car under-shield on 
a Two-post lift.  

5)  Implementing a system to ensure and to record that those operating a lift 
have been appropriately trained in its use and its maintenance and that 
they are periodically retrained. 

That consideration be given by (8) to -  

1)  Providing appropriate and safe torque levels and tolerance levels of safety 

critical elements on Bendpak two-post lifts and others supplied. 

That consideration be given by (5) and (6) to -  

1)  Implementing a system of recording tolerance and torque levels of all 

safety critical elements during a ‘Thorough Examination’ of a vehicle lift. 

RT4563 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2)  Implementing a system for recording such levels for comparison at 

subsequent examinations. 

That consideration be given by (7) to -  

1)

2)

3)

4)

Ensuring any member of staff operating a vehicle lift has received 
sufficient and appropriate training in the use thereof. 
Ensuring each vehicle lift is checked on a daily basis by an 
appropriately experienced/trained member of staff and that all such 
checks are adequately recorded in writing. 
Ensuring all vehicle lift manuals are available to lift operators at all 
times whilst at work. 
Ensuring all vehicle lift operators use the pads made specifically for 
the lift being used and are instructed not to use any other object 
between the lift’s pads and the vehicle.) 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I 
believe that the people listed in paragraph one above have the power to 
take such action.  

7  YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of its date; I 
may extend that period on request. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be 
taken, setting out the timetable for such action. Otherwise you must 
explain why no action is proposed. 

8  COPIES 

I have sent a copy of this report to the following: 

1.  Penny Mordaunt, MP.  Minister for Disabled People, Health and 

Work 

2.  Health and Safety Executive - HSE 
3.  Safety Assessment Federation - SAFed 
4.  The Garage Equipment Association - GEA 
5.  West End Garage - WEG 
6.  HSB Engineering Insurance Service Ltd - HSB 
7. 
8.  Liftmaster Ltd 
9. 
10. The Chief Coroner 

RT4563 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your 
response.  

The Chief Coroner may publish this report and / or the responses in a 
complete or redacted or summary form. Further, he may send a copy of 
this report to any person who, he believes, may find it useful or of 
interest. You may make representations to me, the Coroner, at the time of 
your response, about the release or the publication of your response by 
the Chief Coroner. 

Signed: 

Simon Wickens 

DATED this 10th May 2016 

RT4563 

5

Responses

2 responses published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Hse (PDF)
Engagement and Policy Division

James Atexander Farnhill

Mr S Wickens .
H.M. Coroner for Surrey Health and Safety Executive
. Redgrave Court

Station Approach Merton Road

Woking Boole

Surrey Liverpool L20 7HS

GU22 7AP Tel: 020 3028 3129
alex.farnhill@hse.gov.uk
30 August 2017

Dear Mr Wickens,

Ref: Mr Peter William RICHARDSON (Deceased): Regulation 28 Report

In response to our letter dated 17 July 2017, you asked if we could consider further the
evidence given HSE inspectors at the
Inquest and the issues they raised with current guidance.

We have discussed the concerns further in relation to the thorough examination of two post
ramps of this type and note the following.

The HSE intends to issue additional guidance concerning the inspection of two post ramps by
thorough examiners to highlight the risks in relation to this type of lifting equipment. This will
be covered in HSE Operational Guidance, which will be brought to the attention of the various
stakeholder groups, namely the inspection industry and will also be publically available on the
HSE website.

The focus of this guidance will be to ensure that during thorough examinations, the examiner
checks the main arm does not move inadvertently when the locking mechanism is engaged
and checks that the lateral movement, of the fully extended arm’s sliding elements, does not
exceed the limit set by the version of BS EN 1493 in force at the time of the lift’s manufacture.
This is in addition to the measures already set out in the letter of the 17" July.

| hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely

HM Inspector of Health and Safety
Response from Respondent Not Named (PDF)
HM Coroner for Surrey
HM Coroners Court
Station Approach
Woking

Surrey

GU22 7AP

Dear Ms Church

Re- Mr Peter William RICHARDSON (Deceased)
Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths

Further to your correspondence dated 15'" May 2017 containing the Report
to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD), please find the response below for both
HSB Engineering Insurance Services Ltd (HSB) an

with respect to the points raised in the report.

Following the recommendations made during the inquest, HSB issued a
technical document on the 3 May 2017 to its engineering surveyors which
instructed them to record the pad wear (tolerance) on the report of thorough
examination for two post vehicle lifting tables, as suggested in the PFD
report.

With respect to checking the torque settings, this procedure would normally
be considered a maintenance activity and therefore not within the scope of a
thorough examination. We have however considered as to whether :
assessing the torque settings should now be included in the scope of a
thorough examination and we feel this should be a consideration for all
inspection bodies. As such we are working with SAFed, to establish a
common approach who in turn are liaising with the HSE to ensure
consistency throughout the industry. Therefore the method used by HSB for
assessing the pad wear still aligns with that detailed in the HSE SIM
03/2010/02.

We would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that Mr Hayward
has now left HSB’s employment and has a new position which does not
involve the thorough examination of motor vehicle lifting tables.

ania

Munich RE =

05 July 2017

Gareth Bendelow

Chief Engineer/Technical Director
HSB Engineering Insurance

Tel.: +44 (0)845 345 5510

Fax: +44 (0)845 345 5610

Our Ref: GB/AL

HSB Engineering insurance
Services Limited

Chancery Place

50 Brown Street

Manchester

M2 2JT

www. hsbeil.com

Registered in England and Wales:
03010292

Registered office:

New London House

6 London Street

London

EC3R 7LP

HSB Engineering Insurance

Page 2 05 July 2017

Gareth Bendelow
Chief Engineer/Technical Director
HSB Engineering Insurance

We trust this now concludes both HSB and Mr Hayward’s individual actions Tel.: +44 (0)845 345 5510

with the exception of those now aligned with SAFed. i

Yours sincerely

fF ttiCS Technical Director
ae

For and on behalf of
HSB Engineering Insurance Services Limited

Related reports

Other reports by Simon Wickens

See all →

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Simon Wickens

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Simon Wickens, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.