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

 

[spruce]

A limited company is responsible for the debts the director incurs. The director isn't personally responsible for them is my understanding of financial law.

So liquidating the business and draining it financially means he isn't held responsible for settling any payments due or debts outstanding. His business is responsible, which now doesn't exist.

If a later court case finds him complicit in an employee's death, then the only thing left is a jail sentence.

 

[Part Timer]

A limited company is responsible for the debts the director incurs. The director isn't personally responsible for them is my understanding of financial law.

So liquidating the business and draining it financially means he isn't held responsible for settling any payments due or debts outstanding. His business is responsible, which now doesn't exist.

If a later court case finds him complicit in an employee's death, then the only thing left is a jail sentence.

As far as I know, a Company Director found guilty of acting outside the law isn't covered by the Limited Liability of a Limited Company and can be found personally responsible. He's probably shipped his money abroad so will end up getting a longer jail sentence, hopefully, as he won't pay the fine he will receive and they don't take too kindly to that

 

[Pjj]

As far as I know, a Company Director found guilty of acting outside the law isn't covered by the Limited Liability of a Limited Company and can be found personally responsible. He's probably shipped his money abroad so will end up getting a longer jail sentence, hopefully, as he won't pay the fine he will receive and they don't take too kindly to that

Could still be conciderd a as corporate manslaughter , I think this is just the coroners report which just establishes facts not blame a separate court case would be needed to establish blame and potential fines or imprisonment, a separate case could be brought by the HSE , police , or the family , facts in the previous hearing are considered as proven fact and don’t have to be re proved

 

[Iron Giant]

Could still be conciderd a as corporate manslaughter , I think this is just the coroners report which just establishes facts not blame a separate court case would be needed to establish blame and potential fines or imprisonment, a separate case could be brought by the HSE , police , or the family , facts in the previous hearing are considered as proven fact and don’t have to be re proved

As it happens, something popped up on Facebook yesterday relating to this inquiry, a wife or partner of a former employee commented that they hoped he went to prison his employees could be quite willing to testify in a legal case.

 

[Pjj]

As it happens, something popped up on Facebook yesterday relating to this inquiry, a wife or partner of a former employee commented that they hoped he went to prison his employees could be quite willing to testify in a legal case.

That’s good

 

[mattybondi]

hope hmrc health n safety follow up All this sort of case,prosecute every one, surely theres many . A lot of things in this country that used to be done and done well, such as the British Standard for manufactured good if you didnt meet the standard you were stopped in your tracks ,now are no longer leading to shoddy goods of all descripts that are dangerous.Reminds me of that ex windy making and selling laddermat and rubber feet for ladders,in the old days BS testing would have caught him,now hes free to sell dangerous items long as he pays for a test by jack o tests . I know the courts /gov catches bigger fry/folk who have something to lose such as a big firm but what about Harun who probably hasnt a pot to pee in

 

[RickyG]

I heard about this a while back, just to be sure I’ve got it right did the guy have an IBC in the back ratchet strapped to the lashing eyes on the floor??

 

[spruce]

I heard about this a while back, just to be sure I’ve got it right did the guy have an IBC in the back ratchet strapped to the lashing eyes on the floor??

The inquest never stated what the actual tank was. Huran bragged in the forums that a 1000 litre IBC tank was the cheapest way of kitting a van out. I haven't seen the inside of this van, but I'm sure that it had the same 'system' as the others. A used IBC tank cost £50. Why spend any more on a Wydale tank he stated? He also quoted daily usage of water on all his vans once on the forums. Each van used about 1000 litres of water a day.

H&S took all his other vans off the road due to safety concerns. Why? The document never stated the reason or what needed to be done to rectify the situation.

The inquest said nothing about where the tank's straps were secured to. The van's internal securing eye hooks would have been the easiest to secure to. But that's my opinion. All that was stated was that the straps were 'inappropriate,' and how the tank moved on impact.

He isn't the only one using IBC tanks in their vans. I saw an old Citroen Dispatch belonging to another local cleaning company held in place with some rope. The driver just told me the tank wasn't going anywhere.

When I worked in the motor trade, I did ask the technical dept at Citroen what the lashing hooks in the cargo bay of a Citroen Relay were rated at. No one could find the exact answer, but the answer ended up that they were good to be used with a cargo net to hold small packages together, but if our customer required the van to transport heavy pallets, then we better get a quote from a local body builder for something more substantial. A Euro-pallet is 1meter cubed - a similar size to an IBC tank.

I removed one of the lashing hooks on my Peugeot Boxer van. It has a spreader plate (if we can call it that) about the same diamt as a 50p coin with an 8mm nut welded in the centre. This plate is secured to the van's floor with 3 spot welds. The actual hook is held in place with a high tensile 8mm bolt. I wouldn't secure any load to those.

My son's Berlingo van has 2 lashing hooks welded to the rear wheel arches. They are just 2 pieces of wire. I had no problem bending them straight with a pair of pliers.

If just one person takes this seriously and replaces his IBC tank with a crash tested system fitted correctly, then Andrew's death wouldn't be in vain.

 

[THL4KEL]

Sad thing is you only have to go on Facebook Marketplace and you will come across vans being sold as window cleaning vans with wydale tanks in them with a ratchet strap around them. Saw one yesterday being sold for 9k... A few window cleaners on there had posted comments regarding the tank and the seller got pretty abusive towards them...