City Electrical Factors fined £4m after forklift load crushed worker

By Marcus Bennett

City Electrical Factors Limited has been fined £4m after a 231kg switchboard load fell from a forklift truck and crushed a 40-year-old worker, leaving him with brain and spine injuries that require 24/7 care.

The incident occurred on 4 October 2024 at the company's Proteus Switchgear Industrial Division in Telford. The father of one had been acting as a "spotter" while a forklift loaded heavy switchboard equipment onto a flatbed lorry. The load was not secured to the forklift. It fell on top of him.

He underwent lifesaving surgery. He can no longer do anything for himself and cannot communicate with others. He now lives in a care home.

City Electrical Factors pleaded guilty to safety breaches and was fined £4m with £6,304 in costs at Birmingham Magistrates Court.

What did the HSE investigation find?

The Health and Safety Executive identified a chain of failures that practitioners should read closely, because each one was routine and therefore easy to replicate elsewhere:

• The lifting operation was not properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised or carried out in a safe manner.
• There was no risk assessment and no lift plan for what the HSE described as a regular activity.
• Employees had received no information or instructions about the lifting operation.
• Workers were appointed as "spotters" and expected to steady loads while they were moved — a system the HSE called unsafe and unnecessary.

The investigation also found two safer alternatives that required no new equipment. The load could have been secured to the forklift using pre-existing anchor points. It also had lifting eyes welded to it, which meant the crane attached to the delivery lorry could have lifted it instead.

What does the ruling change for site teams?

HSE inspector Keeley Eves said: "This incident had truly tragic consequences."

"To make matters worse it was completely avoidable and caused by a failure to properly plan for the job taking place," Eves said.

"The company could have used safer alternative methods to lift the load, such as the lorry-mounted crane which was available, instead of using the forklift truck."

"Instead, the employee was placed at unnecessary risk and now has to live with his devastating injuries."

Eves closed with a warning that applies to every yard and loading bay: "Loading and unloading operations remain one of the most hazardous transport activities in the workplace. Employers must ensure that lifting operations are properly planned by competent persons, supervised and carried out safely."

The £4m penalty turns on absence — no lift plan, no risk assessment, no competent person — rather than equipment failure. Firms running routine loading operations without documented plans, where spotters steady loads by hand, now have a priced precedent for what that gap costs.