Surveillance normally only gives a snapshot of a few hours of a claimant’s life and although Facebook and Instagram can give some insight into their home life, these are often limited. But, what about a case where the claimant places video surveillance on themselves?
It is a tricky - but not uncommon - scenario for a defence team to advise on in regulatory cases: dishonesty is denied but found proved against the registrant at a substantive hearing and they are going to maintain that denial at the review hearing.
Since 2012, the Health and Safety Executive has been required to charge duty holders for the work which they have undertaken in investigating and enforcing material breaches of Health and Safety law. The stated aim of the scheme is to shift costs incurred by the HSE from tax-payers on to non-compliant duty holders.
The Health and Safety Executive has been recovering its’ costs for carrying out its regulatory functions from duty holders since 2012. The Fee For Intervention Scheme has its’ critics, but in the past few years, we have seen individuals and companies who are in material breach of health and safety law broadly accepting what is akin to a punitive tax on non-compliant businesses.