The following cases are illustrative examples based on patterns from published HSE enforcement records. They represent the most common categories of LOLER prosecution — not rare edge cases. Every failure described here happens regularly across the UK.
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. HSE investigation found the last thorough examination had been carried out 14 months previously — 2 months beyond the 12-month statutory interval. The competent person who carried 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
Cat B defect deadlines are legally enforceable. A missed Cat B repair deadline — combined with an overdue re-examination — resulted in a 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 — 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. Forklift certificate ≠ fork arm certificate. Accessories require separate 6-monthly examination.
Facilities Management
Facilities management company fined after passenger lift Cat 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 — and the competent person did not notify the local authority enforcement team as required by 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
Cat A notification is the competent person's obligation AND the dutyholder'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 carrying out 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's site without attending the 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. HSE investigation (triggered by an incident at the client site) revealed the fraud. Both the company and the director were prosecuted.
Key lesson
The most serious category of LOLER offence — systematic falsification of safety records. Director disqualification means personal liability extends beyond the company.
None of these companies needed to be prosecuted
Every failure in these cases — missed intervals, untracked accessories, uninvestigated defects — is prevented automatically by Lolerflow. 30-day free trial.
Start free trial →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 Cat 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 Cat A defect are all prosecutable regardless of whether an injury occurred. HSE regularly prosecutes on documentation grounds without a physical incident triggering the investigation.