Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jurgen Fenney
I feel that in this day and age companies should get a good service from so called consultants for thier Method Statements and Risk Assessments. Within my role i have to vet these papers for my company but i am very frustrated that the lack of attention is paid to them. For example they refer to the wrong regulations or put the wrong updated regs COSHH 2002. Surely companies get a revision of these regulations and should in my opinion do the professional job that they get paid for and stop using generic MS/RA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Ah ha on to my favourite subject, Consultans who pretend to be experts at H&S, no law that says anyone can set themselves up as one and so many employers needing a consultant, awarded job normally based on price.
Godd industry based H&S consultants come at a price, however it is the so called H&S consultant with Nebosh Cert and done a risk assesment course for a day - balderdah methinks.
I have been reading a Pre tender stage H&S Plan today which I have to develop into the Construction phase H&S Plan. The drawings are 7 years old and refer to a different phase which was completed 1 year ago, I have up to date ones from the client, the Contents refer to a different phase.
The PS has literally took the old one and changed the front page.
Nuff said U get what U pay for!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Jurgen,
we call ourselves consultants because if anyone has a question then they can consult us and get the right answer. Which means that, in our specialities, we have to keep at the front of the field - more up-to-date than anyone.
If someone can't do that, then why consult them ?
I don't "consult" on uk legislation, I'm not competent. But I do "consult" on OHSAS 18001 and on Behavioural Based Safety. Because I am betting that I know more about these two subjects than you do. Please don't take offence but those are my two main specialities.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
I thought the principal legislation which applies was the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2677). Has this been updated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steviezenga
Works both ways Dave, I get Contractors Construction Phase Plans for alterations to schools with title pages for demolishing tower blocks for example!
It not only depends on you getting what you pay for, but also on who you get!
cheers Steve, PS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Anthony
There were some amendment Regs published last year.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Wasnt a dig at PS mate just an example of what people can get away with in this profession because lets face it you can say what you blinking well like to an employer who has no savvy on H&S and he will take that at face value, got any H&S qualification yeh mate done my nebosh (cert!) done a risk assessment course so know all about that. OK mate you got the job.
Had a phone call from a friend today whose mate owns a building company and a 16 year old YTS or whatever they are called today has injured him self using a Kangol! Now this chap has over 50 bods on his books!
No H&S Policy, whats a Risk Ass, whats this RIDDOR thing am I in trouble he says? My response is 'Big time' buddy only if the HSE investigate. DO you think he needs competent H&S Advice or a good brief!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
It all comes down to you pays for what you get. As a consultant I try not to work in the contract/construction area as there is a general perception that H&S consultants should cost less per hour than some of the tradesmen employed there. I've even come across people working for £50/Day which as far as I can see might not even cover their petrol expenses and it certainly gives a wage far less than the minimum statutory level! There's not a lot left for competence when most of your money goes on just running around........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steviezenga
Morning Dave,
Didn't take it as a personal dig, just playfully trying to point out that it's not just down to cost.
You can pay top whack and still get a poor service, a great deal depends on WHO is providing the service!
You can pay top dollar to multi-national companies with great PR etc and get wildly different services in different areas depending who you're dealing with. The people factor is higher up my list than the money factor, I would prefer to use someone I know can do a good job than pay a few quid less for an unknown quantity.
There are people out there charging silly money for very little, but there are also good professionals charging reasonable rates for a first-class service.
Knowing the "WHO" only comes from experience, and in building up the experience you inevitably have to take a few bad hits.
Now, your Kangol guy.......I know someone who's very reasonable......!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Jones
Paul,
Are you refering to amendments to EH40 or CHIP, or do you really mean COSHH? !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Lavin
I have been away and have just been reviewing this topic ! I would like to throw in a couple of curved balls to everybody.
Q1. Why do some so called "consultants" offer a complete service to Clients, including the provision of RA's/M.S's and when challenged by someone of qualified and competent status either back down or try to waffle their way out of it .
Q2. Is there anybody else out there who is as sceptical and suspicious as me about the name change by the Association of Planning Supervisors to the Association of Project Safety (Ha! Ha! Ha!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Jones
Paul,
Thanks for clarifying the question on COSHH and providing the link to the amending regulations - I had forgotton about these had they did not directly affect us.
Although I think I'm correct in that COSHH is:
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended)
and not:
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2003
Am I correct? or have I just gone mad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
David
You are right; while what the amendment Regs say is important, they don't say very much. So COSHH 2002 (as amended) it is.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
As do other consultants, I follow this chat show with a lot of attention. I seriously doubt that anyone one of us claims to be 100% competent in ALL areas of HSE. It ain't possible.
Being competent also means knowing and admitting when you are NOT competent. I don't do confined space training. I've been down a few holes but only when I have been supervised by the competent person. I don't do risk assessments or action plans, but I have someone in the office who is competent. (can't be bothered myself - it looks too easy)
We don't advertise or cold call. We wait for the call from people who have heard that we do a good job. In that way we don't have to spend a large budget on advertising and we can get the price we ask. Not necessarily "top of the market", but way better than £50 a day. Heck (due respect for chat line guidelines) if I do a one-day conference coffee for the participants will cost me more than fifty quid !
Actually, previewing my posting, I'm not sure that I have said anything worth saying. I've just come from a presentation to the board of a white-van maker, telling them how good they are and how they could become so much better if ....... Sorry folks but my brain hurts. Need a drink. Open the cage, here I come.
Merv Newman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian mcnally
Hi,
Jurgen’s comments did provoke a few responses I couldn’t resist either. Generic M/A & R/A can be fine if relevant to what the task involves, a common problem I find is they are not so often read and understood by the people they were written for.
Other times I see such long winded documents trying to cover for everything under the sun they end up being over complicated, sometimes just a page or two might be more useful/appropriate.
I know its an old way to check useful content but I still try to see if the Who-When-Where-What & How has been included.
Does anyone else find that some (even trained and experienced) managers claim not to have the ability to check such paper work and say it must be done by a safety consultant/advisor? I do have some sympathy here as checking this information takes a great deal of time and the site managers job can be pretty demanding.
Most in house advisors would never get out the office if they vetted all the paper work.
I know this may shock, but I have known some planning supervisors that, having requested to see initial demolition MS & RA have seemed to focus a fair amount on whether coshh was listed as 2002 or 4 or in capital letters or that no residual risk had been provided after the control measures applied ( not a jot on the actual sequence or controls suggested ). I’m sure this is the exception to the rule but I wish they would deal with the more important issues instead of picking on punctuation.
I didn’t think clients would worry about cost since they would only appoint the best PS by establishing competency surely?
Maybe I have just been lucky but on the few occasions when I have employed an external H & S consultant, I have been quite happy with the level of professional service, but then I have insisted on checking their construction experience and usually demand they hold a NEBOSH Construction Certificate too. Love to know where you find a competent consultant for £50 a day, some I know charge ten times that.
Great forum,
Have a safe weekend!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.