He went to work to lay a vinyl floor in a bathroom. He never came home.

A 38-year-old maintenance worker employed by a housing association maintenance company died on 9 December 2020 in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire. His employer had supplied him with a flooring adhesive containing dichloromethane (DCM) — a highly volatile solvent that releases colourless, near-odourless vapour even at room temperature. In a small bathroom with no adequate ventilation, a damaged hose on the pressurised canister released a catastrophic amount of the adhesive in seconds. Emergency services had to force the door to reach him.

The HSE’s own guidance had told employers for years: don’t use DCM-based products when safer alternatives are available. The company used it anyway. On 26 January 2026, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, they were fined £400,000.

What Happened to the Maintenance Worker in Hertfordshire?

As reported by the HSE, the worker was laying a vinyl bathroom floor at a domestic property when the hose to the pressurised adhesive canister became damaged. A large quantity of DCM-based glue was released directly into the confined, poorly ventilated space.

DCM is classified as a Schedule 1 carcinogen and a central nervous system depressant. It is absorbed almost instantly through inhalation. Prosecutor Jon Mack told the court that the statutory 15-minute exposure limit for DCM would have been reached in just 2 to 13 seconds. By the time emergency services forced entry, the concentration in the bathroom was 84.5 times the legal limit. The worker was found to have three times the fatal concentration of DCM in his body.

The HSE investigation found the company had failed to take appropriate precautions under COSHH. The regulator’s own guidance on DCM states plainly that its use should be avoided whenever reasonably practicable, and that safer alternative products or methods should be substituted. The guidance lists bathrooms specifically as the kind of poorly ventilated space where DCM should never be used.

HSE Inspector Rauf Ahmed said after the hearing: the worker had been just setting out on his career in construction. He should have returned home at the end of his working day. Because of the company’s failings, he did not.

“The exposure limit was reached in seconds. The company knew safer alternatives existed. That combination — known risk, known solution, decision not to act — is exactly the kind of employer failure that results in serious compensation claims.”

What Is COSHH — and Why Does It Matter for Your Compensation Claim?

COSHH stands for the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. They apply to any workplace where employees are exposed to substances that could cause harm — from industrial solvents and cleaning chemicals to biological agents and construction dust.

Under COSHH, your employer must follow a strict hierarchy of control. First, they must assess whether the substance can be eliminated entirely. If not, they must substitute it with a safer alternative wherever reasonably practicable. Only where substitution is genuinely not possible should engineering controls, ventilation, and personal protective equipment (PPE) come into play — and even then, those controls must be adequate for the risk.

In the Hertfordshire case, HSE guidance was explicit: DCM should be avoided when safer alternatives are available, and should never be used in poorly ventilated spaces such as bathrooms. The company bypassed both requirements. That failure — a failure to substitute a known dangerous substance when alternatives were available — is precisely what COSHH is designed to prevent.

When an employer breaches COSHH and you’re injured as a result, that breach is powerful evidence in a civil compensation claim. The Regulations don’t just give the HSE the power to prosecute — they establish the legal standard your employer was required to meet. A failure to meet that standard, causing your injury, is the foundation of your claim.

Could You Claim Compensation After a Workplace Chemical Injury?

Yes — and this applies to a much wider range of situations than many workers realise. You don’t need to have been exposed to an exotic industrial solvent. COSHH covers cleaning products, adhesives, agricultural chemicals, paints, construction dust, and biological agents. If it could harm you, your employer had a legal duty to manage it.

The critical questions are straightforward. Did your employer carry out a proper COSHH risk assessment? Did they consider whether the substance could be substituted with something safer? Did they ensure adequate ventilation or other controls? Did they train you on the risks and how to handle the substance safely?

If the answer to any of those questions is no — and you were injured because of that failure — you likely have a claim. The criminal fine is entirely separate from any civil compensation. The HSE prosecutes employers on behalf of the public interest. Compensation is about putting right what happened to you.

David Healey, Senior Solicitor at Carter & Carter, explains it this way: where the HSE has investigated and the employer has admitted a breach — as happened here — much of the hard work proving liability is already done. The prosecution record, the inspector’s findings, and the court outcome are all available to support a civil claim.

What If the HSE Has Already Prosecuted Your Employer?

It matters — significantly.

When an employer pleads guilty to a health and safety offence, that guilty plea is documented proof they breached their legal duty. The HSE investigation findings, the inspector’s conclusions, the prosecutor’s submissions, and the court record all become available evidence for a civil compensation claim. Liability — which is often the most contested part of a claim — is substantially established.

In the Hertfordshire case, the company pleaded guilty at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court on 26 January 2026. The prosecution evidence — placing the concentration at 84.5 times the legal limit — is on the court record. HSE Inspector Rauf Ahmed’s statement that the worker should have returned home safely is on record too. That kind of material is not just powerful morally. It is powerful legally.

One important point: criminal proceedings can take years. This case took over five years from incident to sentence. A civil compensation claim runs on a completely separate track — you should not wait for criminal proceedings to conclude before taking advice. The three-year civil limitation period runs regardless.

Three out of four of our workplace injury claims settle without ever reaching a courtroom. When the HSE has already done the groundwork, that proportion is even higher. Employers — and their insurers — know when the evidence is against them.