Teesside Window cleaning - inquest into the death of one of his employees.

[Yogi1872]

Andrew unfortunately caused his own demise by driving erratically. His careless driving could have caused the deaths of those in the Citroën he collided with. Thankfully they survived. While their injuries weren't life-threatening or life changing, we don't know how this accident has impacted on their mental health.

The point is that the crash investigators stated that the cause of death was the tank moving forward (tipping), breaking through the bulkhead, deforming the driver's seat and crushing him against the steering wheel. They referred to the way the tank was secured with those ratchet straps that they used as inappropriate. It's this that we should be taking note of.

We don't know what the outcome would have been if the tank was the right tank and secured properly. You are right @PC , these crash tested systems are only tested to 30mph. I would have hoped that with better securing of the tank, Andrew's injuries wouldn't have been fatal.

I don't think much is stopping a ibc tote tank in a crash if its full. It's a thing I've never seen used up here tbh. Driving about with an ibc tank in the back of a small van is madness.

 

[mattybondi]

suprising how many take on workers cash with little thought to van insurance,national ins id hope old harun is up in court for that . Pleading unemployment is no get out he needs to be held accountable.As regards the ratchet straps prob not illegal per se . Locally to me a builders lad got killed was down to negligence on the bosses part altho the lad was a subbie-0r was he..] its still big offence and you cannot claim poverty as a get out the case is about to come to court 3 yrs after the accident

 

[spruce]

suprising how many take on workers cash with little thought to van insurance,national ins id hope old harun is up in court for that . Pleading unemployment is no get out he needs to be held accountable.As regards the ratchet straps prob not illegal per se . Locally to me a builders lad got killed was down to negligence on the bosses part altho the lad was a subbie-0r was he..] its still big offence and you cannot claim poverty as a get out the case is about to come to court 3 yrs after the accident

It was the inquest into Andrew's death last week. Inquests cannot deal with issues of blame or criminal/civil liability. These can be addressed in other courts if necessary.

It doesn't matter what Harun said in court when pleading ignorance to the unsafe way his van's tank was secured. The only thing he has in his favour, sad to say, was the way Andrew was driving that triggered the accident. But whatever the case, Huran is very vulnerable to future court action.

What I would like to know is what happened with all Harun's other vans. Health and Safety took them all off the road, but it wasn't long after that they were back on the road. What did he do to get them back on the road that quickly that appeased H&S? What would H&S do if he removed all the tanks and said his employees would be working off ladders in future. Once approved, then he could put the tanks back in and carry on as before. Just my thoughts.

I was told by one of his ex employees a few weeks ago that he is working for Kentucky Fried Chicken in Middlesbrough. Doing what? I don't know.

Anyway, I just hope that if anyone who is reading this and who has an IBC tank in their van with inadequate ratchet straps and lashing points re-evaluates the situation and rectifies it asap.

 

[johnny bravo]

sub contractor. most payments went through Teesside Window cleaning account online. Harun must of paid him a %
Most of his work was sold. Vans must have been sold . I wonder if hes gave any Money to the Family as a gesture to help them on
Would he not have Insurance on his vans to cover his drivers

 

[mattybondi]

Surely if the van was insured correctly thered be a payout for the family and if it wasnt properly insured thered be a court case in the offing for Harun . Somebody somewhere has muddied the waters by saying the driver was weaving all over the road,likely a cohoot of harun!!

 

[spruce]

Surely if the van was insured correctly thered be a payout for the family and if it wasnt properly insured thered be a court case in the offing for Harun . Somebody somewhere has muddied the waters by saying the driver was weaving all over the road,likely a cohoot of harun!!

This is just the inquest. Harun had to give evidence, but the main purpose of the inquest is to find out how that person died. It just the facts of the incident. Basically, two reasons were given for the accident by the accident investigators.

1. His was on the wrong side of the road when the accident happened.
2. The ratchet straps securing the IBC tank were inappropriate in this accident. They didn't prevent the tank from tilting forward, breaking through the bulkhead, deforming the driver's seat and crushing Andrew against the steering wheel.

What ever the case was, it was identified from his dashcam that he was on the wrong side of the road, which resulted in his van hitting the other car in the accident.

It's now up to the law to look at this and decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute Harun for negligence.

There was an incident a number of years ago where an employed window cleaner fell and died from his injuries. The employer wasn't on site when this happened, but was still found guilty of gross negligence as he didn't provide the correct safety equipment in that case.

https://www.europeancleaningjournal...th-while-cleaning-glass-panel-without-harness

I appreciate every case is different, but did Harun provide the correct equipment for Andrew to work safely? IMO, Harun has to accept part responsibility for Andrew's death.

On the 8th May, a few months after Andrew's death, Harun was in caught driving a Ford Transit van on Normanby Road without insurance.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24179896.five-county-durham-teesside-drivers-appear-court/
Harun Hussain, 33 - Normanby Road, Middlesbrough

• On May 8 last year, Hussain used a vehicle in Middlesbrough, namely a Ford Transit, on a road, or another public place, namely Normanby Road, Middlesbrough, when there was not in force about that use of such a policy of insurance. On March 7, Teesside Magistrates' Court found him guilty of the offence. He was fined £660, ordered to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £264.

 

[Mattymarske]

This is just the inquest. Harun had to give evidence, but the main purpose of the inquest is to find out how that person died. It just the facts of the incident. Basically, two reasons were given for the accident by the accident investigators.

1. His was on the wrong side of the road when the accident happened.
2. The ratchet straps securing the IBC tank were inappropriate in this accident. They didn't prevent the tank from tilting forward, breaking through the bulkhead, deforming the driver's seat and crushing Andrew against the steering wheel.

What ever the case was, it was identified from his dashcam that he was on the wrong side of the road, which resulted in his van hitting the other car in the accident.

It's now up to the law to look at this and decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute Harun for negligence.

There was an incident a number of years ago where an employed window cleaner fell and died from his injuries. The employer wasn't on site when this happened, but was still found guilty of gross negligence as he didn't provide the correct safety equipment in that case.

https://www.europeancleaningjournal...th-while-cleaning-glass-panel-without-harness

I appreciate every case is different, but did Harun provide the correct equipment for Andrew to work safely? IMO, Harun has to accept part responsibility for Andrew's death.

On the 8th May, a few months after Andrew's death, Harun was in caught driving a Ford Transit van on Normanby Road without insurance.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24179896.five-county-durham-teesside-drivers-appear-court/
Harun Hussain, 33 - Normanby Road, Middlesbrough

• On May 8 last year, Hussain used a vehicle in Middlesbrough, namely a Ford Transit, on a road, or another public place, namely Normanby Road, Middlesbrough, when there was not in force about that use of such a policy of insurance. On March 7, Teesside Magistrates' Court found him guilty of the offence. He was fined £660, ordered to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £264.

I'm surprised he could set up a limited company with a criminal record for fraud I thought you were banned in certain circumstances.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/...n=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target