Most LOLER prosecutions do not happen because someone deliberately cut corners. A missed date. An unactioned defect. A report that could not be produced quickly enough. That is all it takes. The case studies below are illustrative examples based on patterns from published HSE enforcement records. Every failure described here happens regularly across the UK.
HSE can prosecute under LOLER 1998 even where no injury occurred. The breach alone is enough. A missed thorough examination. An unactioned defect report. Understanding why prosecutions happen is the first step to making sure yours is not next.
Four cases that show how prosecution actually unfolds
Construction
Construction company fined after crane collapse, examination record 14 months overdue
£180,000
A tower crane on a residential development site collapsed during a lift, injuring two workers. The HSE investigation found the last thorough examination had been carried out 14 months previously, two months beyond the 12-month statutory interval. The competent person who carried out the previous examination had noted wear on the slewing ring, classified as Category B with a 6-month repair deadline. No repair had been carried out and no further examination had been scheduled.
Key lesson
Category B defect deadlines are legally enforceable. A missed repair deadline, combined with an overdue re-examination, resulted in prosecution alongside the personal injury claim.
Manufacturing
Manufacturing plant prosecuted after forklift fork arm failure, accessories not on examination schedule
£85,000
A fork arm on a counterbalance forklift fractured during a lift in a warehouse, causing the load to drop and injure a worker. The forklift had a current 12-month examination certificate. However, the fork arms, which are lifting accessories requiring 6-monthly examination under LOLER 1998, had never been separately examined. The company had been unaware that accessories required separate examination and were not included in the annual forklift service.
Key lesson
The most common gap in manufacturing and warehouse LOLER compliance. A forklift certificate does not cover the fork arms. Lifting accessories require a separate 6-monthly examination by a competent person.
Facilities Management
Facilities management company fined after passenger lift Category A defect not notified to HSE
£60,000
A competent person carrying out a thorough examination of a passenger lift in a managed office building found a crack in the compensation chain, classified as Category A. The FM company was notified but did not take the lift out of service immediately. The competent person did not notify the local authority enforcement team as required under LOLER. The lift was used for a further 11 days before the repair was arranged. An HSE investigation followed a complaint from a building occupant.
Key lesson
Category A notification is both the competent person's obligation and the duty holder's obligation. Both parties were prosecuted. The 11-day delay between finding and acting was the determining factor in the fine level.
Inspection Services
Independent inspection company prosecuted, reports produced without physical examination
£120,000 + director disqualification
An independent LOLER inspection company was found to have produced thorough examination reports for lifting equipment at a client site without attending site to carry out the physical examinations. The director had created a system of issuing certificates based on previous reports and photographs submitted by clients. The HSE investigation, triggered by an incident at the client site, revealed the systematic falsification. Both the company and the director were prosecuted.
Key lesson
The most serious category of LOLER offence is systematic falsification of safety records. Director disqualification means personal liability extends beyond the company, regardless of corporate structure.
What the pattern of prosecutions actually shows
£100,000+
Average fine in post-fatality LOLER prosecutions, increasingly accompanied by custodial sentences for directors under HSWA 1974 s.37
HSE prosecutes dozens of LOLER-related cases per year. The most common breach is Regulation 9, failure to thoroughly examine lifting equipment at the required intervals. The second most common is Regulation 10, no report produced, or one issued outside the 28-day window. Many prosecutions follow fatalities where the equipment had not been examined within the required period, or a Category A or B defect had been identified but not acted on. Fines in post-fatality cases commonly exceed £100,000. Custodial sentences for directors under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are increasingly common.
How HSE finds out about LOLER breaches
Most LOLER enforcement starts with one of two things. An incident: an injury or near-miss that triggers an HSE investigation. Or a site inspection where LOLER failures are discovered while HSE is on site for a different reason. Proactive self-reporting by duty holders is rare. Where it does happen and genuine corrective action has followed, it rarely leads to prosecution.
Most businesses only face enforcement after something has already gone wrong. That means your response documentation matters as much as your day-to-day compliance. A business that can show it acted promptly when issues arose is in a much stronger position than one that cannot, even where the underlying failure was similar.
Directors can be prosecuted personally. The company structure is no protection.
⚠️
Director Personal Liability
Under HSWA 1974 s.37, directors can be personally prosecuted, fined without limit, and imprisoned for up to two years, regardless of whether the company is also prosecuted.
LOLER prosecutions are not limited to companies. Under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, where an offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or neglect of a director, that individual can be prosecuted personally. Directors convicted of LOLER-related offences have received unlimited fines, director disqualification for up to 15 years, and custodial sentences of up to two years. HSE actively pursues personal liability cases, especially where documentary evidence shows a director knew about compliance failures and did not act.
What every inspection company and duty holder should take away
✓
Maintain complete, accurate, and promptly produced LOLER records. Documentation is the first line of defence against prosecution.
✓
Act immediately on every Category A defect. Notify HSE, remove equipment from service, and document both actions with timestamps.
✓
Never let Category B deadlines lapse. If a deadline passes without repair, treat the equipment as Category A.
✓
Keep defect records separate from the Schedule 1 report. Show what was found AND what was done about it.
✓
Ensure examination records are retrievable within minutes. Disorganised records during an HSE investigation compound the original breach.
✓
Directors must actively oversee compliance. Documentary evidence that a director knew of failures and did not act is a direct route to personal prosecution.
One pattern appears in published HSE cases above all others. Documentation is the first line of defence. Companies with complete, accurate, and promptly produced LOLER records can show due diligence even when a mechanical failure occurs. Companies with no records, or records that are incomplete, inconsistent, or clearly back-filled, face the worst sentencing outcomes. For guidance on what good examination reporting looks like, the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA) sets out the competence standards expected of examination bodies.
Lolerflow creates the audit trail automatically. Every examination is recorded at the point of completion. Every defect is logged with its category. Every certificate is timestamped and linked to the asset record. When HSE asks what happened and when, the answer is already there.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does HSE publish LOLER prosecution cases?+
HSE publishes prosecution outcomes at hse.gov.uk/enforce/prosecutionhistory. You can filter by legislation (LOLER 1998) and date. The database covers prosecutions in England, Scotland, and Wales from 2010 onwards, including the offence, fine, and sentence details.
What is the most common cause of LOLER prosecutions?+
Failed or absent thorough examinations are the most common trigger. The pattern is consistent: an incident occurs involving lifting equipment; HSE investigates; examination records either do not exist, are out of date, or contain a Category A defect that was not acted on. The prosecution follows from the documentation failure as much as from the mechanical failure.
Can a company be prosecuted for a LOLER failure even if nobody was injured?+
Yes. LOLER offences are strict liability. The prosecution does not require proof of harm. Failing to have examination records, using equipment with a lapsed certificate, or not notifying HSE of a Category A defect are all prosecutable regardless of whether an injury occurred. HSE regularly prosecutes on documentation grounds without a physical incident triggering the investigation.
Manage your LOLER inspections digitally with Lolerflow.
30-day free trial, no credit card required.
Start your free trial →