Work on domestic properties by, observably, too many roofing companies is being conducted without proper protection from falls and with disregard for legal basic requirements.
This was the case when the proprietor of Rogers Roofing of Widnes carried out extensive roof work on a semi -detached property at Woodrock Rd in Woolton, Liverpool, without provision or use of adequate edge protection, a matter brought to the attention (by a complainant) of an HSE inspector who attended the site on 17th November 2005.
Proprietor, _____ ____, was fined £3,750, with £2,000 costs, after pleading guilty at Liverpool Magistrates' Court to 3 charges of breaching:

S.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974;
S.1(1) of the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; and
R.3(1) of Health and Safety (First Aid) at Work Regulations 1981
Comment:
"The construction work involved renewing the building's roof with felt wooden battens and tiles. During investigation of a neighbour's complaint, 2 persons were observed working on the roof without the provision or use of adequate edge protection. The complaint was regarding persons bombing materials from the roof of the building into a skip.
During a subsequent interview Mr _____ admitted he had worked in construction for over 15 years, mainly as a roofing contractor, and had erected scaffolding over the previous 10 years but had not been trained.
His men had been using a whizzer to cut tiles without eye protection and the machine was not fitted with water suppressant. The ladder that the men had been using was not tied. The height of the roof was in excess of 2 metres.
During the last 15 years I have investigated many accidents involving falls from height. In the majority of cases the accident victim has sustained a major injury of some kind, including broken limbs, paralysis and brain damage. Some have died from their injuries.
All of the accidents were not only preventable, but foreseeable. In the majority of cases poor planning, foresight, and inappropriate use of equipment were found to be the major causal factors. What has become an almost guaranteed factor in nearly every case I have investigated was the misconception that the risk was directly proportional to the height - but height is not the critical factor. Given fall from height is still by far the most significant cause of death or major injury in the construction industry, this prosecution can send an important message to all those involved in work at heights that they must take the necessary precautionary measures.
Failure to provide insurance cover could also have serious consequences in that any civil claim brought by an injured employee for loss of earnings or physical injury or ill health would have to be met by the employer, who may not have the funds available to meet the claimant's award. This could result in severe financial hardship to the injured employee and any dependents they may have. It also goes without saying that employees in the construction industry have a higher chance than any other industry group of becoming injured whilst at work.
Accidents involving falls account for almost half the total number of lost time injuries, so Mr _____ should have obtained the necessary insurance cover to the value of at least £5m." - HSE inspector.