Two divisions of a Kent construction conglomerate have been fined £20,000 after a worker was seriously injured falling through a fragile garage roof.

Cablesheer (Asbestos) Ltd and Cablesheer Construction Limited were prosecuted after a 35 year-old Brazillian builder fell two metres when the roof he and a colleague were helping to remove collapsed.

His co-worker escaped with minor cuts and bruising but the South American, who does not want to be named, sustained serious head injuries in the fall in Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire in February 2013.

He suffered a traumatic brain injury, which required a number of reconstructive surgeries, and is still suffering with seizures which forced him to have on going medical treatments.

He has struggled to return a normal life.

The two companies, both part of Swanley-based Cablesheer Group, were deemed to have failed to ensure workers knew the danger of working around fragile buildings, following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive.

Had workers been trained to understand the dangers of fragile roofs then a new method of work could have been planned.

The work was not planned with a reasonable amount of forethought as it was deemed low risk.

Cablesheer Construction Ltd, of London Road, Swanley, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay a further £756.50 in costs at High Wycombe Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height regulations 2005.

Cablesheer (Asbestos) Limited, of the same address, was also fined £10,000 with £756.50 costs for a separate breach of the same legislation.

Inspector Sarah Hill from the Health & Safety Executive said: “The risks from working on fragile roofs are well documented and the hierarchy of controls well established.

“On this occasion the risks were not properly managed or controlled by either of the respective Cablesheer companies and the fall through the fragile roof was therefore totally preventable.

“There were clear failings with training and a lack of safety measures and equipment, and a worker was seriously injured as a result.

“Thankfully his colleague escaped relatively unharmed, but he too was put in unnecessary danger.

“A striking feature of this case is the fact the work could have been planned and managed without the need to physically access the roof in the first place.

“While both the defendant companies did not seek to gain financially by not providing adequate training and work equipment, they accept that not all reasonable practicable steps had been taken to prevent the accident.”