SCENARIO

The University Library, located on the main university campus, is in a large, modern, four-level
building. It contains books, journals and digital resources, computer workstations, and study areas. It
is a quiet place, ideal for study and research. The different levels of the library building are connected
by a lift and stairways. The lift has a maximum load of six people. Routine maintenance is scheduled
by the university facilities manager (FM). Any work required on the lift is carried out by Liftex, a
specialist contractor approved by the university. Most of Liftex’s engineers have received site
induction training from the university. Before they are allowed to use the library facilities, all
students and university workers must attend an induction session that includes information on the
library health and safety rules. Following this induction, they have access to the library 24 hours a
day with the use of key cards. Other people, such as visitors and contractors, must sign in at
reception, which is open 09:00 - 17:00. Outside of these hours, the entrance doors are kept locked.
Despite this, it is possible for those inside the library to let visitors in. All visitors must be supervised
and sign the visitors’ book upon arrival. However, the book is not used often, especially when a
visitor has been let into the library by those already inside it. The university has a formal health and
safety management system that includes a policy statement signed by the university Chancellor six
months ago. This applies to all university departments, including the library. All library computers
have screensavers that display the health and safety policy statement and links to other health and
safety documents. The university has a health and safety team that advises on, and helps to co-
ordinate, health and safety matters. It consists of health and safety officers in each department, led
by a health and safety director (HSD). One of the eight full-time library workers also has the role of
library health and safety officer (LHSO) as part of their job. The LHSO meets with student safety
representatives and other health and safety officers on the university health and safety committee,
on a monthly basis. The committee agenda covers all aspects of the health and safety management
system; this includes reviewing inspections, risk assessments, incident investigations, and contractor
management. The committee is a large group, and the LHSO finds the meetings long and
unproductive, as each person brings a list of complaints and little progress is made.

Startup businesses

The university encourages students to start their own businesses. A year ago, two student start-up
businesses began to rent workspaces on the third level of the library. One is a software business that
employs 10 students. The other is a tutoring business that employs 25 students. The tutoring
business offers their customers (visiting school children aged 14 - 18 years) evening lessons in the
small meeting rooms within the library. The shared health and safety responsibilities of the university
(the landlord) and the two businesses (the tenants) are outlined in a rental contract. In summary, the
tenants are responsible for the health and safety arrangements for their workers and visitors, while
using the rented workspace. The university is responsible for shared areas of the building and co-
ordinating the shared emergency response arrangements. The rental contract is a standard, long and
complex document, and neither of the tenants read it before signing it. The LHSO provided the
tenants with health, safety, and emergency training documents via email at the beginning of their
tenancy. However, these documents were never shared among all of the tenants’ student workers.
The LHSO would like to involve the tenants in risk assessments and inspections of shared areas, but
this has not happened yet. The LHSO and FM are supposed to make themselves available to answer
any of the tenants’ questions or concerns. However, when a worker from the tutoring business
recently experienced problems with the lift and had to use the stairs instead, they sent an email
about this to the LHSO but never received a response. The tenants are very focused on their
businesses and take little interest in their health and safety obligations; they think that the university
takes care of this. During a recent fire evacuation test in the library, the software business workers
ignored the alarm and stayed inside.

Weekly inspections

The LHSO carries out a weekly inspection of every library level, excluding the tenants’ areas. During a
recent inspection, they noticed several issues that they corrected immediately:

- in several areas, students’ bags had been piled up blocking emergency exits - the LHSO
moved these to a more suitable place;

- a fire extinguisher had been used to prop open a fire door - this was put back into its stand;
- posters had been added to the health and safety noticeboard in reception, covering the
health and safety policy, and several health and safety posters

- the LHSO made sure that the health and safety information was visible on the board.

In each case, the LHSO identified who had done these things, and explained to them why they were
unsafe. They also explained that failure to comply with the health and safety rules would result in the
student not being allowed to work in the library. These students agreed that health and safety is
important, and that they would take more care in future. However, the LHSO continues to find similar
issues at every inspection.

The lift incident

It is a hot, summer day during exam time and the library is very busy. Around midday, eight people,
including a wheelchair user and a worker from the tutoring business, push into the lift. The doors
close and the lift starts to move upwards. It stops 60cm below its normal stopping position at the
next floor; the doors fail to open, trapping the passengers inside. In the heat, several passengers
begin to panic. They ring the alarm bell on the control panel, which alerts the FM. The FM arrives at
the lift twenty minutes later. They do not know how to open the lift doors, so have to telephone
Liftex for help. The Liftex engineer explains to the FM how to open the doors manually, which the FM
does. The FM tells the passengers to climb out. With the help of library workers and first-aiders, they
then help the wheelchair user out of the lift. The lift passengers are not physically injured, but some
are dehydrated, and some are suffering from heat exhaustion. The library first-aiders provide health
checks for all of the lift passengers, giving them rehydration fluids and getting them to sit quietly in a
cool area. They are then confirmed as fit to either continue work in the library, or to return home.
Before leaving, all of the lift passengers put their contact details in the accident book. After the
rescue, warning tape is stretched across the closed lift doors on each level to show that the lift is out
of order. The FM then reports the incident to the university HSD. Once informed, the HSD arrives
within 15 minutes. They confirm that the scene is safe and start the incident investigation, which
they will carry out with the LHSO. The HSD arranges interviews with the lift passengers and the FM.
They review the risk assessment for the lift, which is dated 4 years ago; it shows routine maintenance
as the principal control. They review the service history documentation; a routine maintenance
check was due one month ago, but was not scheduled due to worker shortages in the facilities
department. The HSD starts to draft a report that will be reviewed by the health and safety
committee. It will identify causes, potential improvements, and learning opportunities that can be
shared with other departments.

Liftex
The following day, two Liftex engineers arrive on site to inspect and repair the lift. One is experienced
and has carried out previous work at the university, and the other is a new apprentice who has not
attended the library’s site induction training. When arriving at the lift on the second level, they find
that the warning tape has fallen on the floor. Liftex require a permit-to-work (PTW) before starting,
that is provided by the FM. At the library lift, the FM and the experienced Liftex engineer complete
the permit together. They describe how the work will be carried out, identify potential hazards, what
controls will be needed to work safely, and emergency procedures. They agree that the permit will
be valid for four hours. The FM (the issuer) and the Liftex engineer (the acceptor) both sign the
permit, and a copy is displayed on the wall next to the lift. The FM asks the engineers to provide
them with a written copy of their inspection and repair findings before leaving the site. This
information has been requested by the HSD for the incident investigation. The FM then leaves the
Liftex engineers to work. The experienced Liftex engineer electrically and mechanically isolates the
lift. They use more warning tape around the lift door area to prevent public access. The engineers
find that the lift door sensors are worn. They replace the sensors and telephone the FM to let them
know that the work is finished. The FM does not answer their phone, so the engineers leave a
message. The engineers clear away their equipment and exit the site, leaving the permit still stuck to
the wall. A week later, the HSD is reviewing the incident investigation information and notices that
they have not received a report on the Liftex engineers’ work. After confirming that the FM never
received a copy, the HSD contacts Liftex to have the report emailed to them that day. They review the
report and consider how the worn lift sensors may have caused the lift to stop early.

Task 1 : Contractor Management

Answer:

Based on the scenario, the Facilities Manager (FM) demonstrated a mixed performance in managing
Liftex that showing some strengths, but also significant shortcomings in key areas of contractor
management.

The FM did in terms in manging contractor:

 Approved use contractor - ensured that Liftex in a university-approved specialist contractor, was
used for the job. This reflects a responsible choice to engage a competent and service provider.

 PTW system implementation - issued a PTW for the lift repair and actively collaborated with the
engineer in identifying hazards and implementing control measures that indicates a basic
understanding of risk management when contractors are working on-site.

 Effective response during the incident – immediately responded to the lift alarm within 20
minutes and promptly contacted Liftex for technical guidance. While the response time wasn’t
optimal, it still shows a degree of urgency and awareness during an emergency involving
contractor-related equipment.

Despite of having good implementation still the FM was overlooking the below points that led to
incident as follows:

 Bypass the routine maintenance - A scheduled maintenance check was not carried out a month
before the incident due to insufficient manpower which represents a critical failure in planned
preventive maintenance especially for an essential system like a lift.
 Overconfidence / complacency on the contractor reporting due to after the repair was
completed, the FM failed to collect the inspection and repair report from Liftex, despite a
request from the Health and Safety Department (HSD).

 Failed to conducted work site familiarization - One of the Liftex engineers was a new apprentice
who had not undergone the university’s mandatory site induction. And FM did not verify
whether both engineers were properly inducted before allowing them to begin work.

 Lack of supervision from the contractors – because after issuing the permit, the FM left the
contractors unsupervised, which led to safety violations like work permit was place on the wall
instead surrender to the Health and Safety department once completed, work permits still open
and was not signed off by the team, failed to provide warning signed to alert the public into
hazardous area. Those safety violations indicate poor effective monitoring, supervision and
control over contractor activities.

 Poor in emergency response and preparedness because when the lift incident occurred, the FM
did not know how to manually open the lift doors and had to rely on Liftex for basic instructions
and inadequate training or a lack of preparedness for foreseeable emergencies like lift
entrapment.

Task 2: Collaboration in shared workplace

Answer:

Based on the scenario, to improve in relation with the tenant businesses on health and safety, the
university should take immediate actions. The scenario shows that current collaboration is poor,
unstructured, and largely ineffective. Tenants are uninformed, unengaged, and unclear about their
responsibilities, which creates risks for everyone in the shared workplace.

 Clear and accessible Health and Safety Information – Based on the scenario the tenants
received H&S documents via email, but these were never shared with their workers, so most
student employees remain unaware of key safety procedures. Therefore, to improve the
ensure that proper clear, accessible and simplified H&S guidance that easy understand and
readable like providing posters and leaflets. And the rental contract includes H&S
responsibilities was too long and complex and was not read / address to the tenants.
Therefore, to improve conduct induction sessions with tenant managers and student workers
to ensure information is understood and acknowledged.
 Tenants was not including in Risk Assessment and Inspection - Based on the scenario, the
Library Health and Safety Officer (LHSO) should be involving tenants in inspections and risk
assessments but this has not yet happened. Therefore, to improve tenant representatives
should be involved in inspections and address the risk assessments and schedule regular
walk throughs to be carried out with tenant managers in identify hazards and agree on
controls provided.
 Joint H&S Communication and Coordination to implemented - Based on the scenario, there
is no structured communication channel between the university and tenant businesses
regarding H&S. and A recent email from a tenant about a lift issue received no reply, showing
poor follow-up and engagement. Therefore, to improve the H&S should create a monthly
H&S meeting between the LHSO, FM, and tenant reps. And set up a dedicated H&S
 communication (like shared contact list or messaging group) to ensure concerns are raised
and tracked.
 Clearly define the Roles and Responsibilities - Based on the scenario, the Tenants assume
that “the university takes care of everything.” And there is a lack of understanding that
tenants are responsible for their own workers and visitors in their rented spaces. Therefore,
to improve ensure that clear separation of responsibilities between shared and tenant to be
address properly pertaining to their areas of responsibilities like who handles first aid, fire
wardens, visitor management.
 Tenant workers should attend orientation and familiarization - Based on the scenario,
there’s a lot of student workers particularly in the tutoring business was not aware on health
and safety procedure or emergency awareness. And specially during a recent fire evacuation
drill on software business workers they ignored the alarm and stayed inside which fall on the
major risk in event of emergency. Therefore, to improve the Health and Safety training
mandatory for tenant workers prior to commence any work activity and require proof of
training attendance included the new hires. And conduct joint emergency drills involving
tenants to improve readiness and compliance.
 Close supervision required on the visitors specially to the children – Based on the scenario,
the tutoring business invites school children aged 14–18 into the library, but: Visitors are
often not signed in, the visitors' book is rarely used and access is sometimes gained through
students inside, bypassing reception entirely. Therefore, to improve strict implementation
and compliance on the visitor’s sign-in procedures should enforce them and require tutoring
business to submit a visitor log after each session and add also the monitoring or spot checks
to ensure the requirement with supervision and access control.
 Shows leadership and commitment - Based on the scenario, tenants are allowed to operate
with little accountability; when unsafe behaviours occur like misuse of lift, fire test non-
compliance, etc. And there are no clear consequences or action plans. Therefore, to improve
its Include health and safety performance in tenant reviews or contract renewals and make
proper escalation of process for the unresolved issues and document repeated safety
violations.

Task 3

Answer:

Based on the scenario, to encourage tenant businesses to be more involved in shared risk
assessments. The university can use a range of practical, legal, and motivational arguments. These
arguments should highlight how involvement directly benefits the tenants, their staff, their visitors
(especially school children), and their business operations and all within the shared library
environment.

Legal compliance and requirement pertaining to responsibilities – Based on the scenario, the rental
contract clearly states that tenants are responsible for health and safety within their own workspaces
and for their visitors, and tenants must ensure the safety of 25 tutoring workers and teenage visitors,
which includes participating in assessments of shared spaces like fire exits, stairways, and the lift.
Therefore, the benefits of tenants are for the Involvement that helps to demonstrate legal
compliance, reducing liability if an incident occurs.
Protecting duty of care of the employees and costumer – Based on the scenario, their employees
and visitors use shared areas: lifts, staircases, entrances, and meeting rooms. And also, the lift
incident directly affected a tutoring business worker. And during fire evacuation tests, software
business staff ignored alarms, showing a lack of awareness. Therefore, ensure risk assessment to be
carried out to identify and fix issues that could cause harm or disruption to their people and avoid
damaged company reputation.

Effective Emergency Preparedness – Based on the scenario, tenants did not share safety documents
with workers. And some staff showed poor response during the fire test. And their clients (especially
minors) are more vulnerable during emergencies. Therefore, Involvement of employees helps
ensuring the effective evacuations, clear responsibilities, and a coordinated response, especially
when dealing with visitors.

Effective communication and consultation – Based on the scenario, the tenants are not consulted
during inspections or assessments, and decisions about shared spaces are made without their input,
even though they’re directly affected. Therefore, ensure participation gives tenants a voice in safety
decisions and lets them raise concerns or suggest improvements.

Effective Business Continuity and preparedness - Based on the scenario, Incidents like the lift failure
can disrupt movement, affect accessibility, and create panic. And fire code violations (e.g., blocked
exits, unsupervised visitors) could lead to eviction or enforced closures. Therefore, proactive
involvement can prevent disruptions and ensure business continuity especially during busy periods
like exams or tutoring sessions.

Increase employee’s morale and Culture – Based on then scenario, workers ignored fire alarms,
didn’t receive safety training, and weren’t familiar with emergency procedures and involving them in
assessments helps raise awareness and change attitudes. Therefore, builds a safer, more responsible
workplace, improving staff confidence and reducing unsafe behaviour.

Leadership and commitment from the University – Based on the scenario, The LHSO and FM are
available to assist though currently not very responsive. And tenants may feel unsure or
overwhelmed especially if they didn’t read the rental agreement or understand their duties.
Therefore, encourages involvement by reducing complexity and offering practical help, making the
process more approachable.

Protecting company reputation – Based on the scenario, the tutoring business works with teenagers
and school’s vulnerable groups with strict safeguarding expectations. And safety incident could lead
to parent complaints, lost clients, or even legal consequences. Therefore, shows that the business is
responsible and trustworthy, which is good for attracting clients and partnerships.

Task 4:

Answer:

(a) How could the health and safety committee meetings be improved?

Based on the scenario, states that committee meetings are large, long, and unproductive, with
participants mainly bringing lists of complaints and making little progress. The Library Health and
Safety Officer (LHSO) find them frustrating and feels they don’t lead to meaningful action.
To improve the effectiveness of the meetings, the university could consider the following points that
to be consider as follows:

Having set of and clear agenda during the Meetings - The current meetings cover everything but
achieve little. A focused agenda should be circulated in advance, prioritising critical issues like
incident investigations or outstanding risks.

Meeting should be specific and precise- The committee is described as large, which may limit
productive discussion. The university could: Create sub-committees (e.g. one for incident reviews,
another for contractor safety). Limit some meetings to key decision-makers or relevant stakeholders
for specific topics.

Track Actions and Assign Responsibilities - There’s no mention of action tracking in the current
meetings. Introduce an action log with assigned responsibilities, deadlines, and follow-up in the next
meeting.

Focused on the corrective action points - Attendees currently bring “lists of complaints”. Shift the
meeting culture to one that encourages people to bring proposed solutions, not just problems.
Prepare for meetings by reviewing documents beforehand.

Effective and proper communication during the Meetings - The LHSO struggles with tenant
communication, and concerns (like the lift issue) are sometimes not responded to. Use shared digital
tools (e.g. issue trackers, dashboards) to keep all members informed between meetings.

Increase and Effective Training for Committee Members - Some members may not understand how
to participate effectively in a safety committee. Offer short training on roles, responsibilities, and
best practices for contributing to meetings.

Review and Improve Meeting outlined - Include a brief reflection at the end of each meeting like
what went well, what didn’t, and what to improve next time.

(b) What should be considered by the health and safety committee when discussing the lift
incident?

Based on scenario, the lift incident involves multiple failings and has implications across equipment
safety, contractor management, emergency procedures, tenant involvement, and risk assessment.
The committee should thoroughly consider the following:

Identifying the Root causes– Should review the technical cause (worn lift sensors). And investigate
why routine maintenance was missed facilities team had worker shortages.

Outdated & unreviewed Risk Assessment - The lift’s risk assessment was 4 years old and focused
only on routine maintenance as a control.

Poor Maintenance - A scheduled check was not carried out one month before the incident.

Emergency Response Failures - FM did not know how to open the lift doors, leading to a 20-minute
delay. And passengers became dehydrated and panicked.

Contractor Oversight and Communication - Liftex engineers were not supervised properly. And No
inspection report was collected until the HSD followed up a week later.
Gaps on PTW execution - While the permit was completed, it was left displayed after the work, and
the FM was not available to close out the job.

Lack of Trainings and awareness - One Liftex apprentice had not completed a site induction, which is
a university requirement. Therefore, the committee should recommend a system to verify contractor
inductions before work starts.

Poor planning related to accessibility - A wheelchair user was trapped and needed help climbing out
of the lift. Ensure that they raise equality, dignity, and accessibility concerns that should be
addressed in future emergency planning.

Tenant Involvement and Awareness - A worker from the tutoring business was involved but did not
receive a response to a safety concern they raised via email. Therefore, the committee should push
for better tenant engagement and a central point for H&S queries.

Failures on communication - The FM missed key communications, and H&S reporting was delayed.
Therefore, the Committee should recommend improved systems for incident communication,
document sharing, and management accountability.

Task 5:

Answer:

Based only on the scenario, the application of the permit to work (PTW) system at the library shows
that while some key elements were followed, the system was inconsistently and incompletely
applied, leading to gaps in safety, supervision, and communication.

Work permit was issued prior to commence work - The Facilities Manager (FM) and the experienced
Liftex engineer completed the permit together before starting the lift repair. Therefore, the PTW
system was initiated properly and used to identify risks and controls.

Work permit hazards and controls was discussed - The FM and engineer discussed how the work
would be carried out, potential hazards, control measures, and emergency procedures. Therefore,
this step is a critical function of the PTW ensuring risks are assessed and managed before work
begins.

Work permit was signed and displayed- The permit was signed by both the issuer (FM) and the
acceptor (Liftex engineer). A copy was displayed on the wall next to the lift. Ensure proper
demonstrates of some compliance with documentation and visibility of the permit.

Lack of Supervision During the Work - After issuing the permit, the FM left the engineers to work
unsupervised. Therefore, the PTW system failed to ensure ongoing monitoring of a potentially
hazardous task in a public area.

Incomplete Site Control - The engineers had to put up their own extra warning tape, and when they
arrived, the existing tape had fallen down. Therefore, there was inadequate control of the worksite,
increasing the risk to others in the building.

Induction Requirements was not implemented and conducted - One engineer (an apprentice) had
not attended the required site induction, but was still allowed to work. Therefore, this is a serious
PTW failure the FM did not verify whether both workers were properly trained for the site.
Permit Was Not Closed Out - The permit remained stuck to the wall after work was completed. And
no formal closure or sign-off was carried out by the FM. Therefore, the PTW procedure was violate
and should include formal confirmation that work is finished and the area is safe.

Communication Breakdown After Completion - Liftex engineers tried to phone the FM after
completing the job but got no response, so they left the site without handing over the report.
Therefore, it shows poor end-of-job communication and no verification that the site had been safely
returned to normal.

Report Not Received Until a Week Later - The FM failed to obtain the repair report needed for the
incident investigation, and the HSD had to chase Liftex a week later. Therefore, its indicates the PTW
system lacked proper documentation follow-up and coordination with incident reporting processes.

Task 6

Answer:

Based only on the scenario, the emergency management of the lift incident was partially effective,
with some appropriate actions taken, but also several delays, gaps, and weaknesses in the response
that increased risk to those involved.

Alarm System was activated - The lift alarm bell was used by trapped passengers and alerted the
Facilities Manager (FM). Therefore, its shows that the emergency alert system functioned as
intended.

FM Responded immediately - The FM arrived at the lift within 20 minutes of the alarm being raised.
Therefore, it’s showing a response was made, although the delay may have contributed to distress.

FM Contacted Liftex for Technical Support - When the FM realised, they couldn’t open the lift doors,
they phoned Liftex, who explained how to open the doors manually. Therefore, the FM sought expert
advice rather than trying to resolve the issue without proper knowledge.

Safe Rescue of Passengers - The FM, with help from library staff and first-aiders, helped passengers
out of the lift including a wheelchair user, who needed assistance due to the lift being stuck 60cm
below the floor level. Therefore, its shows teamwork and a focus on safety during passenger
extraction.

Immediately First Aid and Aftercare provided – First aiders should give health checks, provided
rehydration fluids, ensured passengers rested in a cool area. Therefore, effective management of
minor medical conditions like heat exhaustion and panic.

Incident Was Logged - All passengers left their contact details in the accident book, which is good
practice for record-keeping and follow-up. Therefore, its required supports accountability and future
communication.

Delayed and Untrained Emergency Response - The FM took 20 minutes to arrive, and did not know
how to open the lift doors. Therefore, its shows lack of preparedness and specific training for lift-
related emergencies.

Lack of Clear Emergency Preparedness - There is no evidence that a formal lift rescue procedure
existed or was followed. The FM had to learn how to open the doors during the incident, rather than
following a known protocol. Therefore, delay likely worsened the distress of trapped individuals.
Lift Overloaded without Preventative Controls - The lift had a maximum load of six people, but eight
people, including a wheelchair user, entered it. Therefore, its Indicates a lack of monitoring or
signage enforcement, which contributed directly to the failure.

Lack of Emergency Communication to the public - The rest of the library was not mentioned as
being alerted, nor were emergency services contacted, even though passengers were showing signs
of panic, dehydration, and heat exhaustion. Therefore, raises concern about whether procedures
exist for escalating to external emergency services if needed.

No Formal Closure or Post Emergency Preparedness - After the rescue, the lift was taped off with
warning tape, but this was inadequate, as shown later when the tape was found on the floor.
Therefore, poor control of the out-of-order equipment, increasing potential risk to others.

Poor communication to the tenants- A worker from the tutoring business was among the passengers
but received no follow-up or communication from the LHSO, despite emailing afterward. Therefore,
its missed opportunity to reassure or debrief those affected, and a failure in stakeholder
engagement.

Task 7

Answer:

Based only on the scenario, the Health and Safety Director (HSD) carried out several positive actions
in response to the lift incident, demonstrating a structured and proactive approach to the incident
investigation.

Responded Promptly to the Incident - The HSD arrived at the scene within 15 minutes of being
informed. This quick response ensured early control of the situation and allowed for timely gathering
of evidence.

Securing scene of incident - Upon arrival, the HSD confirmed that the scene was safe before starting
the investigation. This shows an appropriate prioritisation of safety before beginning the
investigation process.

Coordination was made with the Library H&S Officer (LHSO) - The HSD began the investigation
together with the LHSO, combining roles and responsibilities. Involving the local H&S officer helped
ensure relevant information was considered and improved the quality of the investigation.

Conduct interview to the employees- The HSD arranged interviews with the lift passengers and the
FM. Interviewing those directly involved helps to gather first-hand accounts and clarify the sequence
of events and decision-making.

Reviewed the Relevant Risk Assessment - The HSD reviewed the existing risk assessment for the lift,
which was found to be 4 years old and focused only on routine maintenance. Reviewing the
documentation helped identify a key issue: the risk assessment was outdated and incomplete.

Reviewed the Service History - The HSD also examined the lift’s maintenance records and found that
a routine service was missed one month prior due to staff shortages. This helped uncover a root
cause of failure in planned preventive maintenance.
Identify on the Missing Contractor Information - After noticing that the Liftex engineers’ report was
not received, the HSD contacted the contractor and ensured the report was emailed that same day.
Demonstrates thoroughness and persistence in gathering all necessary evidence, even after the fact.

Considered Equipment Fault as a Cause - After reviewing the report, the HSD linked the incident to
worn door sensors, identifying this as a likely cause of the lift malfunction. Proper analysis of
technical findings contributed to understanding what went wrong.

Issued learning from the incident - The HSD began drafting a report for the health and safety
committee, which would include causes, improvements, and lessons to be shared across
departments. Shows a proactive, organisation-wide approach to learning from incidents.

Integrated the Investigation into the Formal System - The investigation is part of the university’s
formal health and safety management system, and the HSD is using the incident to inform broader
safety improvements. Ensures accountability and drives systemic change, rather than treating the
incident in isolation.

Task 8

Answer:

In Carrying out health and safety inspections at the library offers several important benefits, many of
which are clearly demonstrated in the scenario. These inspections help identify hazards, prevent
incidents, reinforce safety culture, and support legal compliance.

Identify and Correct Unsafe Conditions - In the scenario, the Library Health and Safety Officer (LHSO)
regularly find issues such as: Bags blocking emergency exits, Fire extinguishers used to prop open fire
doors, Health and safety posters covered by unrelated notices. Therefore, Regular inspections allow
these hazards to be spotted and corrected immediately, helping to prevent potential accidents or
breaches of fire safety regulations.

Ensuring Safe Behaviour and Awareness - After each inspection, the LHSO should Identifies the
individuals responsible and explains why the actions were unsafe and reminds them of the
consequences like loss of access. This reinforces a safety culture by holding individuals accountable
and educating them, encouraging long-term behavioural change.

Demonstrate the University’s Commitment to Safety - Routine inspections show that the university
is actively managing health and safety risks, supporting its formal health and safety management
system and policy. This demonstrates due diligence and supports compliance with legal and
regulatory duties.

Support Continuous Improvement - Recurrent issues like same hazards being found every week
provide insight into systemic problems such as lack of student engagement, Gaps in induction
training, Insufficient signage or enforcement. And this feedback loop can be used to adapt strategies
and improve overall risk management.

Help to protect others Users - The library is used by Students and staff, Visitors, Contractors, Tenant
businesses and their workers, School children (tutoring business). Therefore, Inspections help ensure
the building is safe for this wide variety of users, especially those unfamiliar with the space like
children, visitors.
Highlight Gaps in Communication and Training - The LHSO found that tenants had not shared health
and safety documents with their student workers. Therefore, Inspections help reveal where safety
information or training is not reaching the intended audience.

Provide Evidence for Safety Performance Monitoring - Inspections can generate records that Track
compliance over time, Support investigations like lift incident, Inform health and safety committee
meetings. This supports transparency and accountability.

Prevent Escalation to Serious Incidents - Although the LHSO found recurring minor issues, failure to
manage them could lead to Blocked exits during a fire, Injuries due to unsafe practices. Therefore,
Inspections help to catch and address issues before they result in harm.