Fee for intervention FFI
In 2012, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) introduced a fee for intervention (FFI) scheme which allows them to charge companies where safety breaches are found. If the HSE undertakes inspections and no material breaches are found, or the company is compliant, no charges are made.
An independent review of the fee for intervention scheme was undertaken in 2013 which found that its application had been successful and there was no ‘viable alternative’ which could meet the aim of shifting the cost of regulating work place health and safety away from the taxpayer to those who break the law.
It is only necessary for a charge to be levied on a company when a material breach is found. This is considered to be where there has been a contravention of health and safety law that requires a notice in writing to be issued.
- Self-employed individuals who may put others at risk.
- Individuals acting in a capacity other than as an employee, such as partners.
- Public and limited companies.
- Crown and public bodies.
- General, limited and limited liability parternships.
A material breach of the law is charged at £124 per hour and the total number of hours charged is based on the time it takes to identify the breach and remedy it.
Detailed guidance is provided in the HSE booklet ‘Guidance on the application of Fee for Intervention’.
In October 2015 it was reported that invoices issued to construction companies under the scheme for costs recovery had increased by 40% in the three years since it was introduced. See 40% increase in HSE cost recovery invoices for more information.
In January 2017 it was revealed that fees had reached £15m in 2016, up 23% on the year before.
Also in January 2017, it was reported that the nature of the scheme would be questioned at a judicial review brought by facilities management firm OCS. This is seen as an attempt to have the fees bill overturned and the system for deciding appeals quashed.
In February 2017, proposals were put forward for an impartial body to rule on disputes over fees. An HSE spokesperson said; “HSE has always kept the dispute process under review and following a recent application for a judicial review we believe the time is right to move to a dispute process which is completely independent of HSE.”
In March 2017, it was reported that changes would include; a right for dutyholders to obtain evidence used by HSE; an independent appeals panel and a right to make submissions to the appeals panel. The changes must be in place by 1 September 2017 to avoid further court action.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki.
- CDM Regulations.
- Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences definitive guideline.
- Deleterious materials.
- HSE land use planning pre-application advice service.
- Health and safety.
- Health and safety inspector.
- Notify HSE.
- Reporting accidents and injuries on construction sites.
- Statutory consultee.
 External references
Featured articles and news
Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: international frameworks, national and local guidance.
What will the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) mean for you when they come into force in May?
Business Secretary chairs a new taskforce to monitor and advise on mitigating the impacts of Carillion’s liquidation.
Sir John Armitt is appointed the new chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
High quality and high density homes - is it what we need or is it storing up trouble?
Government announces its intention to strengthen planning rules to protect music venues and neighbours.
National Audit Office reports that there is little evidence that PFI offers better value than other forms of contracting.
What is liquidation and how does it apply to contractors in the construction industry?
Scrutiny is placed on Carillion's controversial 2013 decision to extend subcontractor payment terms to 120 days.
RSHP unveil their involvement in a boundary crossing which will provide a new entry point into Hong Kong.
With PFI currently under the spotlight due to Carillion, this introductory article explains what they are.
Estimates suggest that up to 30,000 small firms could be at risk of non-payment as a result of Carillion's collapse.