Retailer fined for poor stock control

8 March 2006

Retailer Poundstretcher was recently fined £20,000 with full costs of £250 by Belfast Magistrates following a guilty plea regarding dangerously overstocking its storeroom at a retail park in the city.

The retail outlet was routinely inspected on 21st December 2004.  Belfast City Council found the stockroom significantly overstocked, and members of staff admitted to climbing on racking in order to retrieve stock from the uppermost shelves.  Further inspections were carried out in February and October 2005.  These subsequent visits highlighted that the company had not taken measures to rectify the situation.  An Improvement Notice (IN) was issued on 23rd December 2004, requiring the retailer to reduce the amount of stock and ensure accessibility and safe retrieval of existing stock.  The store failed to comply with this notice.  Overall, the court was informed that the sheer volume of stock, absence of stock control and apparent inability to refuse deliveries meant that the premises posed serious health and safety risks to its employees.

In its defence, the company stated that it had installed further racking to increase the storage capacity, reduced the stock volumes and had carried out staff training and risk assessments.  According to the magistrates, these measures had not been taken quickly enough.  Although there were no previous prosecutions in Northern Ireland, the court heard that Poundstretcher had been prosecuted on similar offences in England.

Poundstretcher pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the safety of its employees on two separate occasions and failing to provide training and supervision on safe storage under article 4(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978.  The £20,000 overall fine consisted of a £5000 fine for the first incident in December 2004, £7500 for the second incident in February 2005.  It also pleaded guilty for failure to comply with the IN under articles 4(1) and 23 of the same legislation. This offence incurred a £7500 fine.  A senior environmental health officer investigating the case stated “We decided to take legal action in this case against a persistent offender that had put its employees’ safety seriously at risk”

(Source SHP February 2006)