January 24, 2012
Filed under: Business Advice,Legal — admin @ 4:24 pm
Accidents occur in the workplace every day in the UK. Every year, in excess of 150,000 work-related injuries are reported across the country. Over two million individuals are believed to suffer ill health resulting from their employment, and 250 people die in the workplace each year.
The majority of workplace incidents can be prevented through Health & Safety law compliance. Through sending employees on health and safety training courses, a small business can protect itself and its employees, potentially saving thousands of pounds each year through a reduction in insurance claims and premiums and losing fewer working hours. It could also boost staff morale and productivity.
Accidents at work can happen at anytime and anywhere, and so all small businesses should be fully prepared.
Current Legislation
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 forms the basis of Health & Safety legislation. Under this legislation, employers must “so far as is reasonably practicable” safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees in the workplace.
Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, small business owners are required to assess risks to employees in the workplace. The regulations require small business owners to identify the measures required to adhere to Health & Safety laws and to appoint capable individuals to aid them in taking the appropriate measures. Directors and managers of all small business can be held responsible for their failure to abide by Health & Safety legislation.
Employers with a minimum of five staff members must have a written health and safety policy, and all employers must provide Health & Safety training to their staff.
Types of Workplace Injuries
Workplace injuries can be caused by a single, traumatic incident or may build up over a period of time. Common non-traumatic injuries sustained in the workplace include: lower back pain, caused by poor lifting techniques or sustained bad postures; repetitive strain injury (RSI), caused by repetitive movements, such as the prolonged use of computer keyboards; headaches and neck aches, caused by poor posture and incorrect VDU positioning; and carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by repeated activities that put pressure on the nerve in the wrist, including work on production lines and prolonged computer use.
Ways to Train Staff
Health & Safety does not have to be expensive or time-consuming. Small business owners must ensure that their employees are adequately trained in Health & Safety procedures and are capable of spotting hazards and understanding the ways in which to prevent or minimise risks to themselves and to others. Posters prove an effective yet affordable way in which to communicate risks, with some safety notices being required by law. Employers can send their staff on health and safety training courses or take advantage of in-company training. Training courses can be adapted to the needs of small businesses, and staff can take extensive courses to minimise the impact their training has on their other workplace responsibilities.
The Cost of Workplace Accidents
It is essential for small business owners to note that their accident insurance will typically only cover a proportion of accident costs. Costs that fail to be covered may include: sickness pay, temporary labour, damages to materials, equipment repairs, temporary staff wages, fines for breaching legislation and investigation time.
September 13, 2011
Filed under: Legal — Alan @ 5:56 am
The HMRC, HM Revenues and Customs, are reminding both businesses and individuals about the new self-assessment penalties being brought in this autumn for late payments and returns. These changes will affect the self-assessment returns for the tax year 2010/11, and all future years.
The new penalties for returning your self-assessments late will be an initial fixed penalty of £100, and this will now also apply even if you owe no tax, or if you pay your tax on time. If you still have not sent in your return within a further 3 month period you will pay a daily penalty of £10, up to maximum of £900.
After 6 months, you will be liable to pay a further 5% of any tax due or £300, whichever is the greatest. After 12 months there will be another 5% or £300 payable, whichever is greater. In serious cases, they can actually penalise you by charging you 100% of your tax which is due.
The penalties for paying late differ from those for late returns. There are penalties after 30 days, 6 months and 12 months. These are all 5% of the tax that is going unpaid, and interest will also be charged. The deadline to get your tax return on by stays at 31st October for paper returns and 31st Jan for those who do it online.
If there is anything else you want to know about the new penalties, log on to twww.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/deadlines-penalties.htm. If you need and help or advice on completing your self-assessment tax return, you will find everything that you need to know by visiting www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/
August 20, 2011
Filed under: Legal — Alan @ 3:14 am
A serious warning has been issued to all workers in the legal and financial sector to watch out for unregulated ‘one man bands’ who are trying to enter the data destruction sector. They are urging businesses to only used companies that have the BSIA, British Security Industry Association, accreditation.
ID fraud and security breaches are forever in the news, and a whole new group of companies are entering the market of confidential data destruction to try and capitilise on what is a major worry for all businesses. Add to this the fact that all sizes of business are trying to make cut backs where they can, and many businesses are going to consider employing cheap off site companies to effectively destroy confidential information.
Some of the most recent security breaches of data security includes the disturbing loss if information that the Ministry of Defence have admitted to. The MoD, admits that over the past 4 years they have had 658 laptops stolen, lost 89, and have had 112 USB memory sticks either taken or lost. 26 losses have happened this year alone, including 3 that contained classified information and 19 that were classed as restricted.
“These non regulated one man bands may offer a cheaper service at the outset but do you know how secure your data is? Ask your data destruction company to provide you with an on site service so you can see your waste being destroyed. Also demand a Certificate of Destruction which confirms the time and date of destruction. When you’re dealing with highly sensitive information like financial records, addresses and bank details, it’s imperative they are securely destroyed.
“I’m calling for greater recognition of accreditation in the security sector. Look out for companies who have BSIA / UKSSA / NAID certification. This ensures a high quality and reliable data destruction service that’s delivered by fully qualified businesses guaranteeing peace of mind.”
Russell Harris, head of communications and chairman of BSIA ID section, said:
“We would advise any financial and legal firms dealing with confidential data to choose a trusted information destruction supplier who will dispose of it correctly and in accordance with current laws. The BSIA is a great place to start when sourcing a reputable supplier, as all of our members meet strict criteria and adhere to high standards of quality.”
Key questions to ask a data destruction company before employing them:
- How does the company recycle the data?
- Can you see the data being destroyed in front of you?
- What proven quality and Security
- Who is handling your data?
- What checks have been carried on the operatives?
- Can the company provide client references?
www.shredding.info
May 12, 2011
Filed under: Legal — Alan @ 1:57 am
Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) figures show that over 70% of pubs feel the new code of practice started to give them a better deal will not improve their overall relationships with their owners. Tenanted pubs have for a long time paid higher beer prices and higher rents to the pubcos. Parliamentary Committees have expresses concerns on a regular basis about these industry practices since 2004.
A revised Code of Practice was recommended to have been put in place last year by the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee in order to help get a fairer deal for the tenants because they were being strangled by the high beer prices and rents.
Now statistics have shown that there is absolutely nothing that has changed and the code is not working. A survey of FSB members that operates pubs shows that 69% do not have confidence that the code will improve on their business arrangement with their pubco. What the code has created is an additional financial burden for the tenant. Over 50% of those that signed the Code thought it was legally binding for both parties.
But the reality is that the code is only meant as an agreement between the two parties and tries to improve the relationship between them. The FSB is lobbying to make it a law and thereby offering the small businesses protection.
If the situation does not improve by June the Government has promised to take some sort of legislative action. This will help the tenants in their relationship with their pubcos but the FSB wants even more in order to protect the smaller firms.
April 27, 2010
Filed under: Business Tools,Legal — admin @ 8:31 am
IT Governance, the information security and governance experts, are launching a new toolkit that provides everything an organisation needs to comply with the UK’s Data Protection Act (DPA) by using the BS10012 standard.
BS10012 is the British standard that specifies the requirements for a personal information management system (PIMS). By defining a best practice approach for managing personal information, the standard makes it possible for management and external auditors to assess an organisation’s compliance with, among other things, the requirements of the DPA. BS10012 is intended for use by organisations of all sizes in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
IT Governance’s DPA Compliance with BS10012 Documentation Toolkit includes step-by-step guidance on establishing a BS10012 PIMS and provides a complete set of the necessary documentation, from a Fair Processing Notice through to a procedure for handling Subject Access Requests. The toolkit also shows how to integrate a BS10012 PIMS with an ISO27001 information security management system.
Alan Calder, Chief Executive of IT Governance, says: “The Data Protection Act sets out eight principles for securely managing personal information, but offers no guidance on how these principles should be adhered to. It can therefore be very difficult for management to know if it is doing the right thing, which is worrying when non-compliant organisations can suffer heavy fines and reputational damage.”
“BS10012 therefore comes as a welcome relief, as it sets out an approach to DPA compliance that is clear and can be independently tested,” Calder continues. “With the Information Commissioner increasingly keen to punish DPA compliance offenders, there is no time to waste. That is why the DPA Compliance with BS10012 Toolkit contains everything an organisation needs to implement this standard without delay.”
The DPA Compliance with BS10012 Documentation Toolkit is priced at £249.95/US$373.02/€274.90 and may be ordered for immediate download at: http://www.itgovernance.co.uk/products/2975.
December 18, 2009
Filed under: IT,Legal — Alan @ 8:52 am
SMEs are facing large penalties for failing to follow new procedures that were set in place to protect the credit card details of their customers.
The rules state that all businesses must be able to prove that debit and credit details are kept in a central location that is safe from fraud, such as in an approved electronic database.
However, most small business owners say that they would be happy to follow the rules, if there was more information about how to regulate or implement an appropriate system.
SMEs that are in violation of the rule must pay fines that are around a few pence for every transaction that comes through their store. This of course adds up to a much larger amount by the close of the year.
The main complaint is that the fines are not properly being assessed, with some banks failing to flag the fines, and other businesses facing fines even though they are in compliance with the new regulations.
National chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses John Wright stated that the new measures were put in place to help improve data security but that small businesses were not considered when they were first introduced.
Even more disturbing perhaps is the fact that the banks that provide processing services to UK businesses have full discretion over how much they want to charge SMEs for breaking the rules. Among the banks in the UK that asses fines are Lloyds, RBS, and HBOS.
December 1, 2009
Filed under: Legal — Alan @ 8:07 am
Over 75% of businesses in Britain do not have a written policy about how employees with disabilities should be handled.
Research from Remploy and ComRes found that only eight percent of all SMEs that do not currently employ disabled people have any interest about learning if disabled people could work at their companies.
Since SMEs make up about 99% of all the UK businesses the research is disappointing for those who may have learning disabilities or mental health issues since it shows that SMEs are not likely to employ them.
Today only an estimated one out of every five SMEs will hire a disabled person, but out of those about two thirds reported they would not hire someone with mental health issues or a learning disability.
Two thirds of the employers in the survey reported that they do not need support on the legal ramifications of the disabled laws, and also do not need any information about hiring people with disabilities. Out of these only half even knew the provisions outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act.
Chief executive of Remploy, Tim Matthews, stated that in general businesses are usually worried about the reliability of people with disabilities versus “normal” workers but that in his experience with Remploy those with disabilities are often more likely to take fewer days off work and stay at their jobs longer.
He continued to say that the amount of people with disabilities who currently hold a job is scandalous when compared to how many people would like to have a job.
September 18, 2009
Filed under: Legal — Alan @ 6:30 am
ITV shares took a fall yesterday when the Competition Commission found that the set of advertisers’ rules that were first placed on the company in 2003 should remain in place.
The commission found that while advertisers may be able to build campaigns with other broadcasters, the channel has too much dominance to be considered part of a level competitive playing field.
The main issue at stake was the Act rights renewal system which ranks the prices of advertising on ITV by the amount of viewers. The system was formed for use by ITV when the broadcaster was originally formed to keep it from abusing its power as a dominant player in the market.
The good news for ITV is that the commission did state that ‘some variations’ of the current system may be open for change such as a proposal to widen what is classified as ITV1 and the inclusion of ITV1 high definition channels.
Additionally, the commission is also looking at the best way to determine competition matters by splitting air time into normal viewing audiences and special viewing audiences such as when a sports programme is being broadcast or a major entertainment show such as X Factor. Its final decision will be released by the end of 2009.
In the mean time, ITV has also been engaged in its own battle to keep consumers as they are leaving to choose digital channel broadcasting and the internet as an advertising competitor.
Since 2007 ITV has watched its shares decrease from 100p down to 50p last night when word of the decision started to float around.
Media analyst stockbroker Paul Richards of Numis Securities said that it was expected that the commission would not remove the CRR system but that the wording of the statement of the commission was much harsher than most people expected to hear at this stage in the decision making process.
