What is WAHR?

WAHR stands for the Work at Height Regulations 2005. These UK regulations were introduced to prevent deaths and injuries caused by falls from height — one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities.

• Purpose:
  • To ensure that all work at height is properly planned, supervised, and carried out safely.
  • Applies to any activity where a person could fall and be injured, not just high‑rise work.
• Scope:
  • Covers all industries and workplaces in the UK.
  • Applies to tasks such as:
    • Using ladders and scaffolding
    • Roof work
    • Working on platforms, MEWPs (mobile elevating work platforms), or cherry pickers
    • Any situation where there is a risk of falling 

 Employer Duties Under WAHR

Employers must:

• Avoid work at height where possible (e.g., use extendable tools instead of      ladders).
• Use the right equipment (scaffolds, guardrails, harnesses, MEWPs).
• Ensure equipment is inspected and maintained.
• Plan and supervise work properly.
• Train workers so they are competent to work at height safely.

• Falls from height are the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the UK.
• Breaching WAHR can lead to HSE enforcement, fines, and prosecution.
• Proper compliance saves lives and prevents serious injuries.

In short: WAHR is the UK law that governs safe working at height, requiring employers to plan, supervise, and provide safe equipment to prevent falls.

Under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR), equipment used for working at height must be inspected at appropriate intervals to ensure it remains safe

WAHR Inspection Requirements

• Before Use:
  • All work‑at‑height equipment (ladders, scaffolds, MEWPs, harnesses, guardrails, platforms) must be checked before use to confirm it is safe.
• Formal Inspections:
  • Ladders: Require regular checks for damage, wear, or defects.
  • Scaffolding: Must be inspected by a competent person:
    • Before first use.
    • After any event that could affect safety (e.g., alteration, adverse weather). 
  • At least every 7 days while in use.
• MEWPs (Mobile Elevating Work Platforms): Require pre‑use checks and periodic      thorough examinations.
• Fall Protection Equipment (harnesses, lanyards): Must be inspected before us and formally examined at intervals set by manufacturer guidance and risk assessment (often every 6–12 months).

Competent Person:

• Inspections must be carried out by someone with the necessary knowledge and experience to identify defects.

Record Keeping:

• Written inspection reports are required for scaffolds and other complex equipment.
• Records must be kept until the next inspection and available to the HSE if requested

Legal Duty

• Employers must ensure equipment is suitable, maintained, and inspected.

Failure to inspect can lead to HSE enforcement, fines, or prosecution if unsafe equipment causes harm. 

Example

• A scaffold erected on a construction site must be inspected before use, after alteration, and every 7 days.
• A harness used for roof work must be checked before each use and formally      examined every 6–12 months.

If you don’t get your Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) equipment inspected, the consequences can be severe both legally and in terms of safety.

Legal Consequences

· Breach of Law: WAHR requires employers to ensure all work‑at‑height equipment is inspected at suitable intervals. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.

· HSE Enforcement: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) can issue Improvement Notices or Prohibition Notices, stopping work immediately.

· Fines & Prosecution: Courts can impose unlimited fines and even custodial sentences if unsafe equipment causes harm.

· Insurance Issues: Insurers may refuse claims if inspection records are missing.

Safety Consequences

· Falls from Height: The leading cause of workplace fatalities in the UK.

· Equipment Failure: Uninspected scaffolds, ladders, harnesses, or MEWPs may fail unexpectedly.

· Serious Injuries: Broken bones, spinal injuries, or fatalities can result from defective equipment.

Practical Impact

· Workplace Shutdowns: Unsafe scaffolding or platforms can halt construction or maintenance projects.

· Reputation Damage: Non‑compliance undermines trust with employees, clients, and regulators.

· Personal Liability: Managers and directors can be held personally accountable for negligence.

Example

· A scaffold not inspected every 7 days could collapse, leading to multiple injuries.

A harness not formally examined could fail during roof work, causing a fatal fall 

Failing to inspect Work at Height (WAHR) equipment has led to multiple real UK prosecutions, with serious injuries and fatalities. These cases show how lack of inspection and planning results in heavy fines and criminal liability.

Under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) you can inspect your own equipment, but only if you are considered a competent person for that type of equipment 

What WAHR Requires

· Competence:

o Inspections must be carried out by someone with the right knowledge, training, and experience to identify defects and judge whether equipment is safe.

o For simple equipment (like ladders), a trained employee can often carry out inspections.

o For complex equipment (like scaffolding or MEWPs), inspections usually require a formally trained or certified inspector.

Types of Inspection You Can Do Internally:

· Pre‑use checks: Daily or before each use (e.g., ladders, harnesses, MEWPs).

· Routine inspections: If you or your team are trained, you can carry out weekly/monthly checks.

· Formal inspections: For scaffolds, WAHR requires a competent person to inspect before use, after alteration, and every 7 days. If you have the training and competence, you can do this yourself — otherwise, you must use an external inspector.

Record Keeping:

· Written records are legally required for scaffolds and other complex equipment.

· Records must be kept until the next inspection and be available to the HSE if requested.

Example

· You could inspect ladders and harnesses yourself if trained in spotting damage, wear, or defects.

· You could inspect scaffolding yourself only if you are formally competent (e.g., CISRS Scaffold Inspection training).

· For MEWPs, you can do daily pre‑use checks, but the thorough examinations may need a specialist.

 Fatal Fall Through Skylight

Falls through fragile roofs and skylights remain one of the most common causes of workplace fatalities in the UK, particularly in construction, maintenance, and building services. This case study illustrates how failure to comply with Work at Height Regulations (WAHR 2005) led to a tragic death and prosecution.

• Incident: A worker fell through a fragile skylight while carrying out roof maintenance.
• Location: Industrial building in the UK (multiple HSE prosecutions highlight similar incidents).
• Cause:
  
• No protective measures (e.g., crawling boards, guard rails, or safety nets).
• Inadequate risk assessment of fragile roof materials.
• Lack of supervision and safe system of work.

Outcome:

• Worker sustained fatal injuries from the fall.
• Employer prosecuted under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• Fines in similar cases range from £100,000 to £600,000, depending on company size and severity.

 Regulatory Context 

• Fragile roofs are high-risk: Skylights and asbestos cement sheets cannot safely bear weight.
• Risk assessments must be site-specific: Generic assessments miss hazards like hidden skylights.
• Fall protection is essential: Safety nets, harnesses, or covers must be used.
• Training & supervision: Workers must be trained to recognise fragile surfaces and follow safe systems of work.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers  

• Audit all sites for fragile roof materials and skylights before work begins.
• Implement control measures: covers, guard rails, safety nets, or MEWPs (mobile elevating work platforms).
• Train staff under WAHR to identify fragile surfaces and apply safe access methods.
• Include skylight fall scenarios in risk assessments and toolbox talks.
• Integrate WAHR compliance into your safety calendar alongside LOLER, PUWER, COSHH, and PSSR.

 In short: Fatal falls through skylights are preventable. This case shows how ignoring WAHR duties leads to tragic consequences and heavy fines. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed fragile roof risk assessments and fall protection systems into your compliance frameworks. 

 Gutter Replacement Fall

Falls from height during routine maintenance tasks like gutter replacement remain a major cause of workplace fatalities and serious injuries. This case study illustrates how failing to comply with the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR 2005) led to a tragic accident and prosecution.

• Incident: A worker fell while replacing gutters on a domestic property.
• Location: UK housing site (HSE has prosecuted multiple similar cases).
• Cause:
  
• No scaffolding or edge protection in place.
• Worker used a ladder without stabilisation or fall protection.
• Inadequate risk assessment for fragile roof edges and working at height.
• Injuries: Fatal fall from several metres, resulting in head and internal injuries.
• Legal Outcome:
  
• Employer prosecuted under WAHR 2005 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
•  Fines in similar cases range from £100,000 to £600,000, depending on company size and severity. 

 Regulatory Context 

• WAHR 2005: Requires all work at height to be properly planned, supervised, and carried out safely.
• Hierarchy of Controls: Employers must avoid work at height where possible, use collective protection (scaffolds, guard rails) before personal protection (harnesses), and ensure ladders are only used for short-duration, low-risk tasks.
• HSE Guidance: Gutter replacement is considered high-risk and should normally require scaffolding or mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs).

• Ladders are not enough: For gutter replacement, scaffolding or MEWPs should be standard practice.
• Risk assessments must be site-specific: Fragile edges, uneven ground, and weather conditions must be considered.
• Supervision is critical: Workers must be monitored to ensure safe practices are followed.
• Training: Staff must be trained in WAHR requirements and safe use of access equipment.

• Audit all roof and gutter work against WAHR requirements.
• Require scaffolding or MEWPs for gutter replacement tasks.
• Train staff in ladder safety and fall prevention.
• Include gutter replacement scenarios in risk assessments and toolbox talks.
• Integrate WAHR compliance into your safety calendar alongside LOLER, PUWER, COSHH, and PSSR.

 In May 2021, scaffolding erected at a block of flats in Merseyside collapsed due to unsafe assembly. A worker, Robert Duffy, fell and later died from his injuries. The scaffolding company, A.I.M Access Solutions Ltd, was fined £30,800 plus £5,040 in costs after the HSE found serious breaches of safety law, including failure to follow assembly instructions and provide safe access ladders 

• Date of Incident: May 2021
• Location: Rice Hey Road, Merseyside, UK
• Company: A.I.M Access Solutions Ltd (Liverpool-based scaffolding provider)
• Incident: Scaffold tower erected at a block of flats was unsafe. Workers accessed the platform by climbing the scaffold rungs instead of using a ladder.
• Casualties:
  
  • Robert Duffy (45) fell from the scaffold, sustaining fatal head injuries.
  • Other workers exposed to serious risk of falls.

   

Legal Outcome:

• Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• Fined £30,800 and ordered to pay £5,040.75 in costs.
• HSE highlighted “serious issues” with scaffold construction and lack of safe access.

• Work at Height Regulations (WAHR 2005): Employers must ensure scaffolds are erected safely, with proper access and fall protection.
• HSE Guidance: Tower scaffolds must be assembled according to manufacturer instructions and include internal ladders for safe access.
• Key Failings:
  
  • No ladder provided.
  • Workers climbing scaffold rungs.
  • Assembly instructions ignored.
  • Lack of supervision and risk assessment.

• Assembly instructions must be followed: Improvised scaffolding is unsafe and unlawful.
• Safe access is essential: Workers must use ladders or stair towers, not scaffold frames.
• Supervision & training: Competent persons must oversee scaffold erection and use.
• Risk assessments: Fragile surfaces, weather, and site conditions must be considered.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers 

• Audit scaffolding contractors for competence and training.
• Require scaffold inspection certificates before use.
• Ensure safe access systems (ladders, guardrails, toe boards) are in place.
• Integrate scaffold safety into your WAHR compliance calendar.
• Use toolbox talks to reinforce safe working at height practices.

 In short: This case shows how ignoring scaffold assembly instructions and safe access requirements led to a worker’s death and a £30,800 fine. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed strict WAHR compliance, contractor oversight, and scaffold inspections into your safety management systems. 

Paper Sacks Manufacturer Fatality

This tragic case highlights how failures in machine safety and guarding under PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) can lead to fatal consequences in manufacturing environments.

• Company: A UK paper sacks manufacturer (HSE prosecution, 2018).
• Incident: A worker was fatally injured after becoming entangled in a paper sack manufacturing machine.
• Cause:
  
• Inadequate guarding on moving parts of the machine.
• No effective isolation or lock-off procedure during cleaning/maintenance.
• Risk assessments failed to identify entrapment hazards.
• Injuries: Worker sustained fatal crush injuries.

• Legal Outcome:
  
  • Company prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
  • Fined £200,000 plus costs for breaches of PUWER and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
  • Court highlighted that the accident was entirely preventable with proper guarding and safe systems of work.

 Regulatory Context 

• PUWER 1998: Requires machinery to be safe, with effective guarding and isolation procedures.
• Risk Assessment: Employers must identify hazards from moving parts and implement controls.
• HSE Findings: The company failed to ensure machinery was safe to use, exposing workers to foreseeable risks.

 Lessons Learned 

• Guarding is essential: All moving parts must be physically guarded to prevent entrapment.
• Safe systems of work: Cleaning and maintenance must only occur when machinery is isolated and locked off.
• Training & supervision: Workers must be trained to follow safe stop/lock-off procedures.
• Maintenance oversight: Safety features must be checked regularly to ensure they remain effective.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers 

• Audit all machinery under PUWER for guarding, isolation, and emergency stop functions.
• Implement a machine safety checklist for daily operator use.
• Train staff in lock-off/tag-out procedures before maintenance or cleaning.
• Record and investigate near-misses to identify systemic failings.
• Integrate machine safety into your compliance calendar alongside LOLER, COSHH, WAHR, and PSSR.

In short: The paper sacks manufacturer fatality shows how ignoring PUWER requirements and failing to guard machinery can lead to catastrophic injuries and heavy fines. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed robust machine safety audits and operator training into your compliance frameworks.

 British Airways Fined £3.2 Million

This case highlights how failures in duty of care and workplace safety can lead to tragic consequences and significant penalties, even for major companies.

• Company: British Airways Plc
• Incident: A baggage handler was killed at Heathrow Airport when he was knocked over by a tug vehicle in 2018.
• Cause:

• Inadequate risk assessment of vehicle and pedestrian interactions on the airfield.
• Lack of effective traffic management systems.
• Failure to ensure safe systems of work for ground staff.

• Casualties:
• One worker fatally injured.

Legal Outcome:

• British Airways prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
• Fined £3.2 million at Isleworth Crown Court in 2023.
• Court found BA guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

 Regulatory Context 

• Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: Employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of employees.
• Key Failings Identified:
  
• No adequate segregation of vehicles and pedestrians.
• Insufficient monitoring of ground operations.
• Failure to act on previous near-misses and risks highlighted by staff.
  

 Lessons Learned 

• Traffic management is critical: Airfields, factories, and warehouses must have clear segregation between vehicles and pedestrians.
• Risk assessments must be dynamic: Regular reviews are needed to capture changing operational risks.
• Near-misses are warnings: Ignoring them can lead to fatalities.
• Safety culture: Even large, well-resourced companies must embed safety into daily operations.

 Practical Takeaways for Safety Managers   

• Audit sites for vehicle-pedestrian interaction risks.
• Implement segregation measures (barriers, marked walkways, speed limits).
• Train staff in safe vehicle operation and awareness.
• Record and act on near-misses as precursors to accidents.
• Integrate traffic management into your compliance calendar alongside LOLER, PUWER, COSHH, WAHR, and PSSR.

 In short: The £3.2 million fine against British Airways shows how neglecting workplace transport safety can lead to fatal consequences and major penalties. For you, Lee, the lesson is to embed robust traffic management and dynamic risk assessments into your compliance frameworks.