Rank: Super forum user 
|
Having just held a site H&S Committee meeting an issue was raised about carrying out Risk Assessments at our customers stores where drivers have issues when making deliveries. Someone mentioned that if we carry out a risk assessment, highlight a hazard (say a pot hole) inform the store who then does nothing about it and someone has an accident (trips over due to said pot hole) we would be held liable and not the store.
Everything is telling me that the store would be the ones liable as they have sole control over their property regardless of who highlighted the Hazard am I correct in that thought? or is the above comment correct?
SI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My view is that it's down to the site owners to maintain the site so they would be responsible if one of your employees where injured and not your company. As they have a duty of care to all visitors on the site even those unauthorized the company owning the site owes them a duty of care
However if there was a serious safety issue that had been reported to your company that would be considered life threatening as opposed to a minor accident (potential) then i think you would need to take steps to ensure your employees safety but i would see this as being with high risk operations on site (working at heights for example) and not from simple being a visitor on site as in the case of the pothole example.
Again ask the person for there source anyone can make up anything they like to suit there argument but if they can't back this up with facts then i would say ignore it.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You need to be very careful onthis problem. Firstly you will need to identify exactly what the problem is and where it is. Then you will need to draw this problem to the property owners attention and seek repairs. You will need to comunicate this to your employees so they understand that you have done what can be described as reasonable, i.e. sought action from the property owner. If the property owner decides not to take any action you will need to consider if you will continue to deliver to those premises (not easy in the current economic climate). But, at the very least you will need to warn your employees about the ground conditions (and the other risks) so your employees can take whatever additional precuations needed to limit the likelhood of an accident happening. The post office face similar problems and correspond with the proprty owner but if nothing is done can refuse to deliver post (after following a process set down) until the promlem is righted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Mr F, I think you are correct. I suggest that any liability, both crminal and civil (of which I assume you're more concerned with) will almost certainly rest with the occupier of the premises. If the reverse were true then you would had to be getting out there and start filling up everybody else's potholes! If the pot hole were on the public highway, then the appropriate LA would be responsible and MAY be held liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Mr. F,
I previously worked for a company delivering to a wide variety of stores and where the onus was put on the store to provide the POD risk assessment.
Turn it about, if goods are being delivered to your site, would you provide a copy of the site risk assessment to the delivery firm or would you request a copy of their risk assessment for your site??
If you are delivering to a large number of POD then the task you are setting yourselves as a business is extremely onerous. As a common sense approach I contacted stores asking for a copy of their risk assessment and discussed this with the driver, if there were areas of concern then a site visit was made. If stores were unwilling to provide a copy of their risk assessment then a site visit was made.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Everything is telling me that the store would be the ones liable as they have sole control over their property regardless of who highlighted the Hazard am I correct in that thought? or is the above comment correct?
To answer yopur specific question, yes it is right that the owner has the legal duty to provide your staff with a safe working environment. How you achieve that is what is important. When you identify a serious issue take it up with the person in charge and seek remedialaction. Inform your staff that this has been done and warn them about the risk. If the risk is serious or no action is taken you must then consider your options by refusing to deliver. Just like the post offic (Royal Mail) do with problem addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From my understanding of the thread by Mr Fibble, it was originally about RAs. Whether the delivery company should be making RAs at customers stores and the 'pot hole' was an example. Possibly different and conflicting areas?
Identifying some fault or hazard regarding the customer's premises should be highlighted by your drivers or a representative of the company. Agreed, the occupiers are responsible for the state of the premises. However, the delivery company may still have RAs, normally generic, for delivering or collecting goods, whilst the occupier may also have RAs for accepting delivery vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Having just held a site H&S Committee meeting an issue was raised about carrying out Risk Assessments at our customers stores where drivers have issues when making deliveries. Someone mentioned that if we carry out a risk assessment, highlight a hazard (say a pot hole) inform the store who then does nothing about it and someone has an accident (trips over due to said pot hole) we would be held liable and not the store.
Everything is telling me that the store would be the ones liable as they have sole control over their property regardless of who highlighted the Hazard am I correct in that thought? or is the above comment correct?
The short answer is the responsibility stays with the property owner. If you raise the issue with the store owner and nothing is done you face a choise, do you continue to deliver if the risk is high enough. Provided you follow this avenue you are doing all that is reasonably practicable so will face no legal duty. The property owner will face the problem because they CONTROL the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.