On 3 July 2026, the Health and Safety Executive issued its first-ever Prohibition Notice against an occupational health service provider. This is a landmark piece of enforcement — and it carries a direct warning for any employer who relies on an outside provider to carry out health surveillance.
What happened
HSE inspectors found that an OH provider was delivering health surveillance through personnel who were unqualified, inadequately trained, and working without supervision. Workers exposed to wood dust and high noise levels were going through the surveillance process, but early signs of serious occupational diseases — including occupational asthma, dermatitis, and noise-induced hearing loss — were at risk of being missed entirely.
A Prohibition Notice was issued immediately, stopping the activity on the grounds that it created a risk of serious personal injury. An Improvement Notice followed, citing the absence of competent occupational health oversight, no clinical governance framework, no quality assurance processes, and no clear procedure for escalating adverse findings back to the employer.
Why this matters for employers
Health surveillance is a legal requirement for many businesses in the UK. If your workers are exposed to substances covered by COSHH, or to noise levels covered by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, you have a duty to put health surveillance in place — and to make sure it is carried out effectively.
The problem this case highlights is one I see regularly: employers assume that appointing an OH provider means the duty has been discharged. It hasn't. If the provider is not competent, the employer still carries the legal exposure — and the workers carry the health consequences.
In this case, the employer was receiving regular reports and had no obvious reason to question the process. But the surveillance was not fit for purpose, and workers were left unknowingly at risk of conditions that, once established, cannot be reversed.
The questions every employer should be asking
If health surveillance is a legal requirement for your business, it is worth putting these questions directly to your OH provider:
- Who carries out the health surveillance assessments, and what are their qualifications?
- What clinical governance arrangements are in place?
- How are adverse or borderline findings escalated, and to whom?
- What quality assurance process sits behind the service?
If you cannot get clear answers to those questions, that is itself a red flag.
What HSE said
HSE Occupational Health Inspector Julie Wood stated: "Health surveillance exists to protect workers from work-related health conditions that can cause permanent, life-changing harm. When it is carried out poorly, employers are given false assurance and workers are left unknowingly at risk."
That phrase — false assurance — is worth sitting with. The employers using this provider thought the requirement was covered. It was not. And the workers who went through a surveillance process that should have protected them were left exposed.
What this means in practice
This enforcement action sends a clear signal that HSE will now look beyond the employer to the quality of occupational health provision itself. It also confirms that employers have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that the providers they appoint are competent — not just that a service is being provided.
If you are unsure whether your current health surveillance arrangements meet the standard, or if you need help reviewing your COSHH or noise at work obligations, visit www.safecompli.co.uk.
You can also try RiskCompli FREE — no card needed: riskcompli.safecompli.co.uk