A criminal offence would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and “it would be very difficult for a jury to convict on the basis of the complexity of these arrangements”, Mr Djanogly said. By contrast a regulatory offence which would be enforced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and others would ensure that “the principle of what’s happening can be looked at… and a view taken”.

In other news, Mr Djangoly has been stripped of his role as regulator of claims management companies following the discovery of a conflict of interest – his two children were discovered to own shares in claims management companies run by his brother in law.

The survey, by website personalinjurylawyers.co.uk, found that 73% of workers were totally unaware of health and safety procedures, and nearly half claimed they had never seen any written documentation about safety procedures, despite working in a business with five or more employees. Only 6% of those taking part felt they were “very knowledgeable” about their organisation’s health and safety procedures.

20% of the employees questioned knew their organisation’s fire safety procedures while less than one third knew who the business’s “health and safety manager” was. Furthermore, only a quarter claimed to know where their workplace first-aid kit was located.

A positive approach to Health & Safety within a firm can make a huge difference towards reducing workplace accidents. Statistics like these show how much more still needs to be done within many organisations.

The survey, of 152 local authorities, found that some 40 per cent of councils had a backlog of pothole repairs, totalling over £5 billion. 92% of the councils also said they didn’t have the funds needed to fix the roads in their area, with three quarters of councils cutting their road maintenance budgets.

And, in some cases potholes are being reinvented – Lambeth Council, for example, has changed the measurement criteria for pothole maintenance. A pothole now refers to a hole more than 40mm deep, where previously it was 25mm.

The lap bar on the ride failed, and the girl had not been able to put on a lap belt as a secondary measure. As a result of being thrown from the moving ride she suffered a head wound which required ten stitches, as well as multiple cuts and bruises.

The HSE investigation into the incident discovered that the lap belts in the ride cars had been poorly maintained and most were in such a poor state of repair that they were unusable.

If you have been injured in an accident that was someone else’s fault, please contact Lawson-West on 0116 212 1000.

The worker began work for Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council as a mechanic in 1984. His job regularly involved use of heavy-duty vibrating equipment, including pneumatic drills and hand-held grinders.

The council, which became part of Cheshire East Council in April 2009, first identified the early stages of the worker’s condition in mid- 2005 at which stage annual assessments were recommended. However following a reassessment in 2006, he was not seen again until 2009.

The worker in question has difficulty picking up small objects, and his hands become very painful in cold weather. The Council was fined £5,300 and ordered to pay £5,860 towards the cost of the prosecution, as a result of its failure to take any significant action to stop the workers’ condition getting worse.

Nearly two million people in the UK work in conditions which put them at risk of developing hand-arm vibration syndrome.

Slipping accidents can lead to a number of injuries, some of which may require prolonged treatment to overcome. If you have been injured as a result of a slip in a shopping centre, or in any area leading to or from the centre or its car park, you may have a claim for compensation.

Owners of shops and shopping centres have a duty to ensure that shoppers are safe when on their premises, and are not at risk of foreseeable injury. They must have an inspection system to identify potential hazards, and a maintenance programme to remove obstacles and hazards such as slippery floors. Click here for more information.

As a result of the accident our client sustained a cut to her finger, soft tissue injuries to both knees, pain across her shoulder blades and back and soft tissue bruising to her body. Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. The accident was the fault of shop our client was in, under the Occupier’s Liability Act because they:

a.       Caused or permitted the hazardous debris to be present on the surface of the floor; therefore allowing the floor to become a tripping hazard;

b.      Failed to take any, or any adequate, measures to ensure that the surface of the floor did not have upon it items likely to cause tripping accidents;

c.       Failed by means of signs, notices, barriers or otherwise to warn visitors of the existence and location of the debris; and allowed visitors to use this area of the floor when it was unsafe to do so.

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £2700 for our client’s injuries sustained as a result of the accident.

Insurance firm Aviva applied to have the driver jailed for contempt at the High Court before withdrawing its application to have him sent to prison as he was seriously ill. Aviva suggested the case broke new ground and should be taken as a warning to anyone contemplating taking fraudulent action, that they could end up in jail if they lied when claiming compensation for road traffic accidents via a claims management company.

Aviva originally offered to settle Mr Seabrook’s claim by paying him £17,500, but the offer of compensation was withdrawn after surveillance footage taken by an Aviva- hired private investigator emerged. The footage showed the man continuing to work after the accident he claimed had forced him to retire.

The taxi driver admitted his claim was fraudulent after he was shown the video evidence.