Tarmac building products fined over £600,000 after worker suffers life-changing injuries at manufacturing plant

 A national building materials manufacturer has been fined £633,300 following a serious workplace injury in July 2022 at its production facility in Linford, Essex. The case highlights critical weaknesses in machinery safety controls and the importance of acting on near-miss incidents.  

What happened? 

On 22 July 2022, a Tarmac Building Products employee, Richard Ogunleye, suffered life-changing injuries when his legs were crushed between two one-tonne metal frames on a production line. Mr Ogunleye was inside a fenced section of a manufacturing line cleaning and inspecting a stationary frame when another frame moved into that section and pinned him between the two.  

Although the area had an interlocked gate intended to stop machinery movement when opened, it did not cut power to the rest of the track system. This meant that frames could still enter the work area even while someone was inside it. As a result, the moving equipment struck him, causing a broken right leg and severe bruising to his other leg.  

Investigation findings 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and found several failings: 

• Inadequate safeguarding: Dangerous moving machinery parts weren’t effectively isolated when workers accessed the cleaning area.  

• Failure to act on past incidents: The firm had recorded near-miss incidents in the same area prior to this event but had not taken appropriate action.  

• Delayed improvements: A risk assessment completed years earlier identified additional control measures needed to make the activity safe — but these measures weren’t put in place until after Mr Ogunleye was severely injured.  

On 29 January 2026, Tarmac Building Products Limited pleaded guilty to breaching its duties under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court. In addition to the fine, the company was ordered to pay prosecution costs and a victim surcharge.  

Key lessons for employers 

This incident offers clear, practical lessons for all organisations, particularly those with heavy machinery or production lines: 

• Effective machinery safeguarding: Employers must make sure that all dangerous parts of machinery have appropriate guarding or isolation systems that fully prevent movement when workers are inside a hazard zone. Simple interlocks that don’t stop feed from other parts of the system aren’t enough.  

• Act on near misses: Near-miss reports are critical warnings. Employers should thoroughly investigate these incidents, determine why controls failed, and implement improvements without delay. Ignoring them can lead to major accidents.  

• Review risk assessments and implement identified control measures: A risk assessment is only valuable if its findings are acted upon. Any identified control measures should be set up and reviewed regularly to make sure they stay effective. 

• Training and awareness: Workers and supervisors should understand hazard zones, safety systems, and emergency procedures — including the correct use of isolation controls.  

 

PUWER Links: What this case reminds employers to get right 

This incident directly connects to several core PUWER (the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) requirements that apply to any workplace equipment and machinery. 

Safe Equipment and Safeguarding (PUWER Regs 11 & 12) 

• PUWER requires that dangerous parts of machinery are effectively guarded or otherwise protected. Safeguards must prevent access to danger zones and — where interlocks are used — they must fully stop hazardous movement, not just part of the system. 

• Partial isolation is not enough. If any connected system can still move and create risk, the safeguard is not effective. 

Training and Competence (PUWER Reg 9) 

PUWER requires that anyone who uses, supervises, or manages equipment receives adequate training. This includes: 

• Understanding hazard zones 

• Knowing how safety interlocks and guards function 

• Recognising when systems aren’t fully isolated 

• Safe cleaning, maintenance, and inspection procedures 

• Lock-off and isolation practices 

Refresher training is especially important where tasks involve entering machinery areas for cleaning and fault finding.  

Maintenance and Inspection (PUWER Regs 5 & 6) 

Equipment must be: 

• Maintained in an efficient state 

• Kept in good repair 

• Regularly inspected where safety depends on condition 

Safety interlocks, guarding systems, and stop controls should be part of planned preventive maintenance and functional testing – not just visual checks.  

If safety systems are modified or found to be inadequate, corrective action should be immediate and documented properly. 

Safe systems of Work and Operation 

PUWER also requires that equipment is only used under safe operating conditions. In practice, this means: 

• Clear isolation and lock-off procedures before entry 

• Permit-to-work systems for machinery access where appropriate 

• Documented safe cleaning and maintenance methods 

• Supervisory controls for higher-risk tasks  

• Acting promptly on near-miss reports and operator concerns