Posted By Al Beevers
Two queries to sharpen our minds on a Friday afternoon. If anyone has concrete answers I'll be impressed.

1) I have a vague memory of barber's chairs, which do lift/raise a person, being somehow exempted from LOLER. Does anyone know where this is written/decided?

2) In gyms, the weight machines clearly lift a load - should fall squarely under LOLER. Is there any exemption for these?

Enjoy,
Al.

Posted By Heather Collins
With respect to gym equipment Al how about this from an HSE Local Authority circular on the LOLER regs

"LOLER should not be applied to equipment provided as part of a work activity but primarily for use by, and under the control of, members of the public, eg a lift in a shopping mall (see L113 para 40) or as part of a leisure activity."

Heather
Not just your average troll.....

Posted By Mark Talbot
Game, set and match.

Posted By Peter MacDonald
Apologies.

Posted By Adrian Watson
This post intrigued me so I got out a copy of the regulations. Regulation 1 states:

"lifting equipment" means work equipment for lifting or lowering loads and includes its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it;” and

"work equipment" means any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not).”

Regulation 3(2) States “The requirements imposed by these Regulations on an employer in respect of lifting equipment shall apply in relation to lifting equipment provided for use or used by an employee of his at work.” As neither barber’s chairs nor gym weight lifting machines are exempted, if they are used to lift or lower loads by a person at work the regulations apply.

As a consequence I suggest that HSE/HELA’s statement that "LOLER should not be applied to equipment provided as part of a work activity but primarily for use by, and under the control of, members of the public, eg a lift in a shopping mall (see L113 para 40) or as part of a leisure activity" is wrong.

Furthermore, these regulations are not risk based I suggest that HSE/HELA’s statement
"The Regulations should not be applied where risks are low, for example raising someone in a barber's chair, (which, in any case, may be considered as a 'height adjustment' rather than a 'lifting operation')" is also wrong!

However if you look at the regulations there is nothing unduly onerous about them, regarding either of these items.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Heather Collins
I think you will find that the HSE/LA circulars were produced in response to queries/problems raised by local authorities on how those aspects of the Regs should be applied. There is much more in the circulars than I cut and pasted - particularly the one that relates to the relevance of LOLER which was obviously designed to give pratical guidance on a rather widely defined part of LOLER. The circular itself says that the definition of lifting equipment is very wide but that it is intended that employers should take the more traditional definition of lifting equipment - hence the exmption for barbers' chairs.

It does go on to say that both of these types of equipment would be required to be maintained anyway under PUWER and that this is a more suitable legislative framework than statutory testing under LOLER. I would agree with this.

Still not hding under any bridges.... :)

Posted By Descarte
I liked the Working at Heights Regs related ones which had to be clarified:

If I am standing at the top of some stairs am I working at heights
If I am sat on my chair at a computer am I working at heights

Apparently riding a bicycle is not working at heights but a horse is. Made some ripples when I was working as H+S Advisor for a local police authority.

Posted By Heather Collins
At the risk of becoming a spotter...

This from the HSE Guidance on the WAH Regs:

"6 ‘Work’ includes moving around at a place of work (except by a staircase in a permanent workplace)
but not travel to or from a place of work. For instance, a sales assistant on a stepladder would be working at height, but we would not be inclined to apply the Regulations to a mounted police officer on patrol."

So no, standing at the top of a flight of stairs or riding a horse isn't covered. I suspect sitting on your chair isn't either.... but you knew that didn't you. :)

Posted By Adrian Watson
Hi Descartes,
Interesting point, but what is the judicial precedent, for your comments regarding the Working at Height Regulations?

Silly me, it seems that I was under some general misapprehensions about English law. I thought that the separation of powers meant that parliament made the laws, the judiciary interpreted the law and the police, and other authorities, enforced the law. So whatever HSE/HELA or what you or I think, the only authoritative interpretation of what the statute means is the interpretation given to it by the courts.

However, without there being a judicial precedent we still have to interpret the wording of statute law. I understood that judicial precedent required that we have to interpret the law literally, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so, in context of the body of law in which it sits.

Regarding the Work at Height Regulations 2005;

"work at height" means –

(a) work in any place, including a place at or below ground level;

(b) obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except by a staircase in a permanent workplace,

where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury;

So regarding riding a horse or a bike the relevant question is, ‘if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, would a person fall a distance liable to cause personal injury?’ If the answer is yes the regulations apply!

As the measures include a requirement that measures be taken to minimise the consequences of a fall, I suggest that the regulations will apply in most cases where there is a risk of falling that will cause personal injury. However, going through the hierarchy of controls in Regulation 6, I would suggest you would only have to provide training and equipment (suitable riding hats) to minimise the consequences of a fall to comply with the regulations.

Regards

Adrian Watson

Posted By Tony Gladman
Working at Height (wrong thread really)
Could the old fall from bicycle vs fall from horse have had something to do with the now defunked 2 metre rule?
TG

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Heather,
No you won't get prosecuted because that is the enforcers point of view. However, HSE's interpretation will not provide a defence when a person makes a claim for damages resulting from breach of statutory duty when they have back injuries because the lifting device on the barber's chair in which they were sitting failed, resulting in them injuring their back; or when they a have head injury because they fell off a bike at work, hit their head on the road and fractured their skull.

Furthermore, as professional advisors it is our duty to advise our employers, clients, etc on what the law means, and what they have to do to comply with it so as to safeguard them and their employees at work. Not to do so, would make us negligent.

Regards Adrian

Posted By Heather Collins
Adrian

Clearly we are not going to agree.

I'd just like to assure you that despite your inference, I don't consider "will I get prosecuted" before I decide how my employer complies with legislation.....

I have to interpret legislation so that we can practically comply with it - not tie us up in knots with legal semantics and impossible scenarios.

If we had any barbers' chairs (not common in my industry!) they would be subject to PUWER assessment and the normal PMI programme. I would not consider them as Lifting equipment and would not have them in my written scheme of examination. If one of them failed despite this, I would expect (all other things being equal) to defend any resulting civil claim....

Happy Christmas!

Posted By Al Beevers
Having crawled out from under my bridge, thanks to everyone who's contributed to this. Nice to hear some of the views.

I originally wanted the document Heather provided to start introducing a bit more of a reasonable approach to inspections - namely with pallet trucks. As the lifting component is so small, I felt they needed a PUWER approach, rather than insisiting of a LOLER thorough examination. As we have over 200 of them, this was eating resources that can be better used elsewhere.

And as I cycle around the site, I've just advised by bos to provide me with guardrails welded onto my bike.......

Al.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I think both PUWER and LOLER would indicate a need for SWL and testing so what is the difference. Try putting your toe underneath when it collapses.

Bob

Posted By Al Beevers
Part of the safe system of work is compulsory wearing of steel toe capped boots. The loads weight around 60kg. Unlikely to do too much damage. I do agree for other tasks ,especially where the lifting ie. to waist height truck are used, a LOLER approach is needed, but the foreseeable injury from a collapse is, in my opinion, not significant.

Horses for courses, rather than sthe rigid application of regulations to the point of overkill......

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear John,

Just because something is one class of thing, does not mean it is not also something else. Gym equipment may be gym equipment and also lifting equipment. Beds are clearly beds, but they may also be lifting equipmnet if they lift or lower things. We do not live in a dichotomous universe.

Regards & Merry Christmas, Adrian

Posted By Heather Collins
John - the circular you quote is the one on relevance of risk that I quoted from above. It does mention Al's pallet lifters lifting short distances. However I'm sorry to say your cuckoo clock is excluded in Heather's interpretation of the Regs due to this para in the circular:
"Machinery which lifts itself, eg roller shutter doors, is also not considered to be lifting equipment."

(anyway have you really got a cuckoo clock for use at work!?)

Posted By gham
Great!!

All of our office chairs are height adjustable........ I have 4 offices across the UK that's about 1000 chairs and they can be "Lowered" when there is a load on them

Merry Christmas, and Happy new Beer

G'

Posted By gham
OK

If "Machinery which lifts itself, eg roller shutter doors, is also not considered to be lifting equipment." and the wieght on the gym equipment is an integral component of the machine i.e. the weights are required to perform its function, and they are build into the machine then it is lifting component parts of itself rather like the roller shutter door lifting the shutter part of itself, then this "interpretation" would mean that it is equipment which lifts itself and not lifting equipment as it cannot be used to lift any other item.

But then on the other hand you do get gym equipment which is counter balanced to reduce the weight of an individual using the machine, for example for lateral extentions and peck dips, these are then lifting people as a loads as well as the integral weights, would this then be subject to 6 monthly testing.

Where do we draw the line!

Ho! ho! ho!

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

Where does it say in the regulations that all lifting equipment must be inspected regularly?

Regards Adrian