It is now thirteen months since an espresso machine exploded in a public café. There is still no formal word to the beverage trade from the authorities investigating the incident, and yet the trade continues to experience a number of new puzzles allied to the situation.

By Ian Boughton

There have been some very interesting developments in the espresso-safety situation. Readers will recall that following the explosion of an espresso machine in a supermarket café, the Health and Safety Executive launched an investigation into the whole question of coffee machine safety; they were gently guided to some knowledgeable people in the trade, and we await their findings.

On this site, we reported some months ago that: ‘the HSE now appears to accept that it must set up a central source of definitive information and make all official bodies, along with the entire trade, aware of the situation and the rules, in extremely plain language’.

We also reported the trade’s exasperation with the authority – and, as the matter drags on, more unhelpful issues are beginning to crop up which confuse the situation further.

In late September, another council laid down the law to café owners. The Plymouth authority has written to catering companies in the city reminding them of their obligations under the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations, and saying that inspectors will be calling to see their ‘written scheme of inspection’. The first local authority to issue a similar warning to local caterers was the New Forest council, in the summer of 2011.

Meanwhile, a coffee business in Brighton has highlighted the curious case of the insurance company which has said it will not pay out on claims caused by coffee machine accidents, unless the machines are maintained by their nominated engineers – for which they would charge up to £75 a month for a service contract.

Elsewhere, other suppliers highlighted new problems – typically, the situation involving machines on loan from the coffee supplier. In theory, the law says that the user is responsible for meeting the safety regulations, but suppliers have said that this is quite unworkable in practice, and in terms of customer service.

All these new situations have led to a certain amount of head-scratching among machine suppliers and engineers alike, and still there is no further word from the HSE.  When asked about their progress, the reply said that they are waiting to see the result of an espresso machine tested to destruction.  (One of the many cynics in the trade retorted: ‘tell them to go to Sainsburys…!’ – it was a supermarket café which was the site of the explosion, now thirteen months ago).

Of the new developments, probably the most worrying is the allegation that an insurance company is attempting to force beverage operators into using ‘approved’ engineers and inspectors. The insurance company in question has failed to respond to questions on the subject, and one espresso-machine supplier has said that the situation smacks of sharp practice.

“I do wonder if it is legal for the insurance company to demand that an operator use their engineers to maintain a machine is legal – can an insurance company tie in with a service company? It sounds like profiteering.”

The matter of local authorities sending circulars around catering businesses was expected, but the beverage trade wonders how it can possibly be enforced.  The number of espresso machines working in catering situations is far more than the number of council inspectors could manage in a lifetime. However, it is generally acknowledged that the notices are not a bad thing, so long as the recipients actually take note of them.

The matter of responsibility for loan machines has proved a headache. In theory – or in law – the ‘user’ of a machine is responsible for its maintenance, its safety, and for keeping the inspection routine up to date.  In practice, say those who supply machines on loan, trying to enforce this is pretty much asking to lose a customer.

“The reaction to his from our customers has not been good,” said Marco Olmi of the Drury coffee company. “They say – ‘it’s your machine, you sort it out!’.  Professional advisors can’t make head or tail of the rules, so we’re simply doing our damndest to achieve the right due diligence.”

Another, Steve Penk of La Spaziale, highlighted the same problem. “You certainly cannot tell your customer that you’re not doing it, even if the rules say it’s their responsibility!  So we’ve built it into our agreement. We’ve taken it on ourselves not just to tell customers of the annual test, but to routinely carry out something like a pre-MOT, and I can sleep at night knowing my machines are OK.”

Specialist service engineers say the general situation has changed the outlook of beverage operators. Louie Salvoni of Espresso Service has said: “After the explosion, our phones were hot for days. The directors of major companies clearly had issued instructions to get their inspections carried out as soon as possible… perhaps the possibility of heavy litigation spurred them into action.

“Manufacturers have shown a greater interest in additional safety features aligned to the boiler. One renowned manufacturer has five new safety features. I have also noticed a much greater commitment to good maintenance, but this is probably just as much about extending the life of the equipment in difficult trading conditions.

“But there are still basic areas that operators are missing. Beverage operators must still look at water filtration. If filters are not changed regularly, this can negate all the other good work that has been done. Maintenance companies should insist that no coffee machine maintenance schedule is complete without a strict water filter exchange program.”

At GVS Coffeetech Assist, Duncan Gaffney agrees that attitudes towards maintenance have improved, and that preventative maintenance has increased, but still believes that many espresso machine users are not fully compliant with the rules.

“As far as maintenance goes there is a definite trend towards better practices. In a difficult economy, both independents and groups are far more conscious of the ‘whole of life costs’ and realize that routine maintenance extends longevity and prevents costly breakdowns. We now have a department exclusively for booking planned maintenance and inspection visits.

“As far as saving money is concerned, complying with the regulations does actually provide a tangible benefit for operators. Maintain your equipment as you are obliged to do under the regulations, and you extend its useful life and reduce break-downs, which saves money. Historically, planned maintenance was an alien concept to the foodservice industry.  Not any more!”

Stuart Menges of Universal Espresso Care, for the Association of Independent Espresso Engineers, highlights: “There has been an increase in the idea of planned maintenance. There are many independents who close down every so often for a holiday, and they now arrange for the planned maintenance to suit that. Awareness is increasing, but because finance is still a problem, there are still some who choose just to fix the problems they can afford.  It’s certainly becoming more important that there are people like us around to give greater advice.”

The suggestion has now been made that the HSE might call a meeting of espresso machine suppliers and professional engineers to discuss their progress. When this was put to the HSE, it did not go down entirely well: the response was a rather formal reply saying that ‘when the investigations have been concluded we will communicate the findings’.

We will keep you informed as soon as we receive a further update!

[!] Report this post

Processing your request, Please wait....

Report as:	Invalid Contents Other
Write in Words: (Optional)