Tarmac Fined £633k After Worker Sustains Life-Changing Injuries in Essex Plant

Tarmac Building Products Limited has been ordered to pay over £630,000 in fines and costs following a horrific industrial accident that left a father of three with permanent injuries. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed that the company failed to act on previous "near miss" warnings and ignored its own risk assessments.

Legal Outcome and Penalties

Tarmac Building Products Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. On 29 January 2026, Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court imposed the following:

• Fine: £633,300;

• Costs: £5,583; and

• Victim Surcharge: £2,000.

"This was a serious and entirely avoidable incident... Had the previous near misses been fully investigated and sufficient action taken, this life-changing injury would never have occurred." — Connor Stowers, HSE Inspector

HSE guidance on the "Safe Use of Work Equipment"

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides specific guidance under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). These regulations place a legal duty on companies to ensure that equipment is suitable for its intended use and maintained in a safe condition.

In the Tarmac case, the failure to isolate the power on preceding track sections highlights a critical breach of Regulation 11 (Prevention of access to dangerous parts).

Core Principles of PUWER for Industrial Machinery

To prevent "crush" incidents like the one at the Linford plant, employers are expected to follow a hierarchy of protective measures:

• Fixed Guards: The primary line of defense. These should prevent any part of a person from reaching a "danger zone" while the machine is in motion;

• Interlocking Devices: As seen in this case, gates must be linked to the machine's power. If a gate is opened, the machine—and all associated moving parts that could enter that zone—must stop immediately;

• Information and Training: Workers must be trained not only on how to use the machine but also on the specific risks associated with "clearing jams" or manual cleaning; and

• Regular Maintenance and Inspection: Safety features like emergency stops and interlocks must be tested frequently to ensure they haven't been bypassed or suffered electrical failure.

The Importance of "Near Miss" Reporting

A key takeaway from the HSE investigation was Tarmac's failure to act on near misses. Under PUWER and general health and safety management (HSG65), a near miss is viewed as a "free lesson."

The Safety Triangle Theory

The HSE uses the concept that for every major injury, there are usually hundreds of minor incidents and near misses. By investigating and "fixing" the bottom of the triangle (the near misses), a company mathematically reduces the likelihood of a major, life-changing injury at the top.

The Incident: A "Life-Changing" Crush

On 22 July 2022, Richard Ogunleye was working at Tarmac’s manufacturing plant in Linford, Essex. His role involved entering a fenced off-track area to manually clean and inspect one-tonne metal frames used to transport large building blocks.

Despite entering through an interlocked safety gate—designed to cut power to the machinery—the safety system failed to account for the preceding section of the track. While Mr. Ogunleye was focused on a stationary frame, a second one-tonne frame moved into the zone, pinning and crushing his legs.

He remained trapped as the machinery continued to push him toward further equipment. A colleague's quick thinking in pressing the emergency stop button likely saved Mr. Ogunleye's life, though he still suffered:

• A broken right leg requiring a metal rod and screws;

• Severe crushing and bruising to his left leg; and

• Over a year of rehabilitation and extensive physiotherapy.

HSE Investigation Findings

The HSE’s probe into the Linford site uncovered a systemic failure to manage workplace risks:

• Faulty Safety Logic: The interlocked gate did not isolate power to the sections of the track leading into the cleaning area, allowing dangerous machinery to enter "safe" zones;

• Ignored Warnings: The company had recorded several near misses in the exact same area prior to the accident but failed to investigate or implement changes; and

• Delayed Action: A risk assessment conducted years before the incident had already identified the need for additional controls to reduce risk to an "acceptable level," yet these were only installed after the injury occurred.