When the Health and Safety Executive investigates a workplace machinery incident, the first thing they look for is documentation. Specifically, they want to see evidence that the employer conducted a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. If that assessment is missing, incomplete, or fails to address the hazard that caused the incident, prosecution is almost inevitable.
In 2023/24, 138 workers lost their lives in work-related incidents across Great Britain. Contact with moving machinery remains one of the leading causes of fatal injury, alongside falls from height and being struck by moving vehicles. Behind every one of these statistics is a failure — often a failure that a proper PUWER risk assessment would have identified and prevented.
This article examines the specific machinery failures that most commonly lead to HSE prosecutions, and what your risk assessments need to address to protect both your workers and your business.
The Failures That Lead to Court
Inadequate or Missing Machine Guarding
This is, without question, the single most common cause of PUWER prosecutions. Regulation 11 of PUWER requires employers to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. The hierarchy is clear: fixed guarding first, then interlocked guards where routine access is needed, then other protective devices only where guarding is not practicable.
Yet time and again, HSE investigations reveal machines operating without guards, with guards removed, or with guards that are ineffective. Nestlé UK Ltd was fined £640,000 after an HSE investigation found that a gap large enough to allow access existed at a belt conveyor entry on their production line. A printing company in South Kirkby was fined £24,395 after an employee’s fingers were drawn into unguarded rollers while cleaning a machine.
The pattern is consistent: guards are removed for cleaning or maintenance and not replaced. Guards are designed but not fit for purpose. Or guards were never provided in the first place.
Failure to Isolate Energy Sources
Machinery must have adequate means of isolation from all energy sources before maintenance, cleaning, or adjustment work begins. This includes electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and stored energy. PUWER Regulations 14 to 18 cover controls and isolation.
A precast concrete manufacturer, CPM Group, was fined £660,000 after a maintenance fitter was fatally crushed when a conveyor started moving while he was carrying out maintenance work. The HSE discovered that the worker had used a spare safety key to access a guarded enclosure while the machinery was still powered up. The company’s systems for controlling access during maintenance were inadequate.
Defective or Bypassed Safety Interlocks
Interlocking devices are designed to prevent machinery from operating when guards are open or removed. When interlocks are defeated, overridden, or allowed to deteriorate, the consequences can be catastrophic.
In one case in Bordesley, Birmingham, two employees of Sulzer Electro Mechanical Services were standing on the chuck of a large vertical boring machine when the start button was inadvertently pressed. Despite the interlocked perimeter fencing doors being open, the chuck started to rotate. The HSE investigation revealed that the interlocks on the perimeter fencing were not working, and there were no safety checks in place.
Lack of Training and Supervision
Regulation 9 of PUWER requires that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training, including training in the methods of use, risks, and precautions. The HSE expects to see documented evidence of training — not just a claim that someone was “shown how to do it.”
Prosecutions frequently involve young or inexperienced workers who were not adequately trained. If your risk assessment does not identify specific training requirements for each piece of equipment, it is incomplete.
No Risk Assessment at All
Perhaps the most damaging finding in any HSE investigation is that no risk assessment was carried out. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and PUWER, employers must assess the risks to employees from work equipment. Without a documented risk assessment, you have no evidence that you considered the risks, let alone controlled them.
What a PUWER Risk Assessment Must Cover
A PUWER risk assessment is not a tick-box exercise. It should be a thorough, equipment-specific evaluation that identifies all hazards associated with the equipment throughout its lifecycle — including normal operation, setting, maintenance, cleaning, and foreseeable misuse.
It should address the condition and suitability of the equipment, the adequacy of guarding and protective devices, the effectiveness of controls and emergency stops, isolation procedures, the competence of operators, the maintenance regime, and the working environment. Each identified risk must be evaluated and controlled, with clear documentation of the measures in place.
The Difference Between an Assessment and an Inspection
A PUWER assessment evaluates all the risks associated with a piece of equipment comprehensively. An inspection verifies that the equipment remains in a safe condition at a point in time. Both are required, but they serve different purposes. A thorough PUWER assessment should be your starting point, with regular inspections confirming ongoing compliance.
How Safety Management Ltd Can Help
At Safety Management Ltd, we conduct detailed, practical PUWER risk assessments that stand up to HSE scrutiny. Our assessments are not generic templates filled in with your equipment names. They are bespoke evaluations carried out by experienced consultants who understand machinery hazards, current enforcement trends, and what the HSE actually looks for.
We identify the gaps in your current arrangements and provide clear, prioritised recommendations that you can act on immediately. Where equipment needs modification, we advise on proportionate solutions that maintain productivity while meeting your legal obligations.
