Posted By Stephen D. Clarke
Hi,
I've always found that the advice given in HSG33 Health & Safety in Roof Work to be very helpful for working at height. It states that for work of short duration (taking minutes rather than hours) it may not be reasonably practicable to install safeguards such as edge protection. The decision on the precautions to be taken will depend on an overall assessment of the risks involved which should consider: duration of the work, complexity of the work, pitch of the roof, condition of the roof, weather conditions, risk to those putting up edge protection, risk to others.It goes on to say that mobile access equipment can provide a safe working platform in some situations and where this is not practicable then travel restraint or fall arrest with an inertia reel device should be considered.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Just suppose though that an operative falls off what will be the HSE response in spite of the guidance? My thought is that it would be to the effect "your risk assessment was inadequate because it failed to control the foreseeable risk of falls". No matter what training you give they will they will wave reg 21 of MHSWR and say whatever you did there is no escape. This even though they argued in the court of appeal that foreseeability was no part of the duty to make safe asfrp.

If you are a principal contractor in this then you are likely to be the person that is expected to have known this was not adequate and would therefore also be prosecuted. As a client there would be a lesser duty dependant on your competencies in construction type activities.

Sorry but I have a feeling you need to take a firmer line, subject of course to more information pointing clearly to the contrary

Bob

Posted By Scott d
Hi,

I agree entirely with the previous comment and providing you have a detailed and documented safe system of work in place, then you should be doing what is reasonably practicable.

Presumably if you are inspecting a roof on a regular basis, then at some point the inspection may find a fault. You need to ensure that any corrective work taking a length of time greater than 30 minutes, has edge protection or other suitable safe guards in place.

Scott

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Nic

As is often the case there is not simple and clear cut answer. That is why we have a forum to discuss certain issues. However, there is no need to 'slag off' others for given their opinion, right or wrong.

The HSE define short duration at height as up to 30 minutes, quite generous I would have thought. Clearly, the risks need to be taken into account and the possible consequences. I think those who have contributed thus far have provided you with some good ideas.

A working at height real life case study:

Recently I inspected a scaffold and requested that the contractor move an external ladder and provide a better means of access/egress. The contractor phoned me and said 'in his opinion for a one lift scaffold the ladder is quite safe where it is'. I replied 'thanks, but in MY in opinion it is not, and that is what matters'. I continued, by asking the contractor to build the ladder into the scaffolding by removing a couple of walk boards. Job done.

Did I overeact? Maybe, but it was a simple task and one that I feel should have been done anyway as a matter of good practice. Therein lies the difference.

Regards

Ray

Posted By Martin Mulholland
FAO Nic,

With respect, your post did not include "controlling the risk" from falling from the roof.

You mentioned safe practice in the use of ladders which would go some way to controlling those risks - but what about the roof itself?

Just a thought.

Martin

Posted By Ron Hunter
Adding in my tuppence worth, I think prohibition is excessive. Staying well away from edges, fragile areas and openings is key here (and applying a max wind factor). Biggest risks are I suggest probably single man operation and lifting the ladder up. If the contractor has a problem once he's up there (having taken the ladder with him), how is he to be reached and rescued? (A part of your Contractor's Risk Assessment?).
Difficult to see what could be taken from a 30 second inspection of the roof - there is more likelihood of damage at roof edges caused by dragging a ladder up, and the operative is most likely to fall at that time! (2 man operation would be slightly safer)
Applying WAH principles:
1)Are there any taller buildings in the neighbourhood where you could negotiate access and where your roofs could be examined (e.g. using binoculars)?
2) Could this inspection be timed to coincide with some other activity such as rhone or window cleaning, making the use of a hired-in MEWP cost effective?

Posted By Gary IMD(UK)
ME and 9-ship,

You seem to live in the 'Real World' like myself!

Good advice! Take care all!

Posted By Gary IMD(UK)
No offence intended Bob and I respect your opinion.

I have just seen too many who disregard the 'reasonably practicable' issue and would have us wrapped in cotton wool or bubble wrap!

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not suggesting we should adopt a 'Gung-Ho' attitude but am all in favour of using the controlled risk policy.

We can only comment on the information given and not make assumptions, therefore, if it says 30 seconds then it would appear to be 'short-term' work... Unless this happens every day??

Have a great weekend,

Take care!

Posted By Ali
Why not try temporary guard rails of cantilever type, which could be erected near the open edges. There are many companies that advertise these in SHP etc.

Posted By ME
No. Just because someone dies as a result of fall from height it is not given that the HSE will prosecute.

You confuse severity of injury with severity of breach and the two are not interlinked.

I am sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. A death or serious injury at work does not necessarily result in prosecution. And that is an absolute fact. I know, I was an inspector. I didn't necessarily prosecute because of a fatality or serious injury and that included falls from height.

I worry that people go OTT on health and safety because ill-advised people scare them into thinking that an accident will result in a prosecution. It's scare-mongering and it doesn't help people take sensible precautions and it doesn't help to give our industry a good name.

I for one am sick of some consultants scare-mongering and taking an OTT approach. I think IOSH should take a firm stance againat such behaviour because it is damaging our profession. The HSE has taken a stance by stating that we should adopt sensible health and safety practice. IOSH should do the same.

Posted By Al..
I agree. Well said ME. Your post is a breath of fresh air (albeit slightly abrasive). But it needed saying and I am glad you said it. Risk aversion can give the profession a bad name. A mistake I feel to instruct that a practice must not to continue if you cannot suggest simple alternatives but thanks to Nic for initiating an interesting thread

Al

Posted By Christopher Kelly
Very sorry ME - but you should not be slagging people off for having a different opinion.

Just because you were an HSE Inspector does not mean that your attitude / activities determine what all the rest do.

It is quite clear to many of the rest of us HSE professionals (most of whom are absolutely committed to their job and do not go round 'scaremongering') that the HSE often walk round factories saying nothing and then returning to prosecute in the event of an accident - don't deny it because I have had personal experience of it - admittedly the firm deserved prosecuting but the point is the HSE Inspector did nothing proactive to assist me in improving matters before the accident.

I am sorry to have to say this but I have known and been involved with a number of HSE Inspectors and, without fail they have used their inspection days for relaxation, expecting to turn up when the rest of us are due for our lunch, be supplied with regular cups of tea, leave at 4, leaving us to have to work late to make up the time they have wasted on us. Then throw their weight around when there is an accident.

This forum is for professionals to confer with each other. Anyone with any experience of health and safety knows that there are occasions when a problem is encountered and you cannot see your way through it - this forum is helpful to professionals (particularly those who work by themselves and need support from their fellows).

The initial query was quite correct - there is an issue here about gaining access to the roof from the ladders, whether short duration or not. Once on the roof, short duration without edge protection can be controlled. As someone else says pulling the ladders up, however exposes the operative to a fall and also causes problems for egress from the building in the event of an emergency.

I have raised a query with the HSE recently regarding small scissor lifts - without fail the cantilever mechanism is not guarded / fenced, the larger ones invariably are. The HSE just quote the legislation (which I already know) and contribute nothing useful. But before going out and issuing my report, which will undoubtedly cause me a lot of trouble and grief it is a good idea to obtain my peers' views just to confirm my opinion. This doesn't mean that I don't know the answer and I am definitely not scaremongering.

Leave people to raise their queries and let other more helpful fellow professionals answer them without antagonising people and being confrontational.

For you to have a go at other H&S professionals is not on - you should stop watching Jeremy Clarkson and reading the cheap press and I would suggest you should apologise.

Regards

Posted By ME
Christopher,

I will absolutley not apologise.

I agree that there are some poor health and safety inspectors just as I agree there are some good consultants. When did I say different?

I did try and give helpful advice but was shot down in flames for it.

I was trying to reassure those that need advice that you will not be prosecuted for using a ladder or for carrying out short duration work from height without edge protection. I was also trying to reassure people that if there were an accident resulting from either activities that prosecution would not be inevitable.

To say there would only be an accident due to poor risk assessment and inadequate controls is against the basic principle of health and safety - to minimise risk, NOT to eliminate risk, which is not necessarily practicable or achievable.

I have investigated accidents where people have had serious injuries from a low height of a few feet and I have investigated accidents where people have got away with a few bruises falling from several metres. It's not about whether someone can get hurt it's about what measures are reasonably practicable given the circumstances. That doesn't mean that there won't be an accident just that it's less likely given the circumstances. And if there were an accident then as long as the RA shows a reasonable level of consideration to the risk involved, taking into account the circumstances, then prosecution is not inevitable. The reason for this is that it wouldn't necessarily stand up in a court of law and the HSE doesn't take cases unless it can win them.

I have tried to use my experience as an enforcer to reassure people but it has been thrown back at me that I am wrong by people have not enforced the law. Where is the sense in that? Why can't other professionals be glad to receive advice from someone who has hands on experience of enforcing the law instead of condemning that advice based on a previous bad experience with an enforcer. Who's judging who then?

There is an incredible amount that I don't know which is why I ask for help whenever I need it. There is also an incredible amount of scenarios that have multiple solutions and open debate can be very beneficial. But there are also some areas where there are straight answers.

The WAH regulations are the most flawed regulations I have seen and the only reason there is no ACOP is that the HSE know the regulations are flawed (as are the Vibration Regulations). There are only a couple of areas where the HSE has had the balls to state what stance it will take. One of those is that ladders aren't banned and one of those is that short duration work of up to 30 minutes is permissible without providing full edge protection.

Some health and safety professionals do go OTT and give the profession a bad name. I would expect that other professionals respond to such unprofessional advice in the interestes of everyone. I would expect the same from every profession. Bad doctors, surgeons, plumbers, electricians...whoever. They exist in every profession and I think it is a shame that this forum sometimes gives them a voice. It is up to responsible professionals to protect the profession from such irresponsible advice that gives people like Jeremy Clarkson the ammunition to attack the profession.

Posted By Gary IMD(UK)
Well stated ME,

Please continue to contribute to this site.

Controlled risk, yet again! We will never avoid risk completely. I knew someone who tripped over, banged their head.. and died. No height involved at all!... But are we going to ban people from walking? No, of course we're not.

Take care!

Posted By Christopher Kelly
That's right ME - go and take your bat and ball home.

In every decision making process there is always someone who, in someone else's opinion is going OTT. That is part of the debating process - which is exactly what this forum is designed for, it's the whole reason our legislation pays such a great deal of attention to consultation and communication - so that there is always a moderating influence. Some people are risk averse, others take risks. I take risks in certain environments but not in others, dependant on my experience, all of course subject to confirmation by others, which I always go out of my way to obtain.

The real problem here is that you have gone out of your way to slag people off, act as a bully and generally not to encourage a debate, that is out of order ! You should have more respect for your fellow professionals.

I take on board your arguments but I also see the other point of view, having considered all of the arguments I definitely come down on the other side from you in that you cannot be seen to have carried out an adequate risk assessment unless you control the serious risks effectively. Short duration or long duration the fact is that people climbing from the top of ladders onto a roof is risky and the guy who raised this thread was quite right to wish to confer. Are the ladders tied ?Anyone who has used an untied ladder knows that gaining access to a flat roof from an untied ladder is dodgy. The risk deserves more thought than you suggest.

You accuse two people on this thread of not knowing what they are talking about. I would proffer the alternative that YOU do not know what you are talking about. Also (and much worse) you are unwilling to accept that others can have a different opinion.

As you are unwilling to apologise I would suggest the following - in future keep your opinions to yourself unless you are willing to accept other peoples'.

Regards

Posted By Raymond Rapp
As a health and safety professional I am very disappionted at seeing a genuinely interesting debate turned into a slanging match. Shame on all of you.

Trying to take an objective view on the original question, I think it is clear that the WAH Regs are arguably the most contentious and least understood of all safety regulations. Anticipation of the law is always problematic because the degree of subjectivity involved, different inspectors, prosecutors and even the Courts will make their own individual decisions.

So, where does that leave the h&s professional? Each and every person must make their own decision based on their knowledge of the risks. Whether that be risk aversion or otherwise it does not really matter. There ar no rights and wrongs in health and safety. Provided you can justify the decisions that you have made.

Regards

Ray

Posted By Bill Fisher
This Thread has turned into an example of unprofessional behaviour and Raymond's posting sums up a suitable concluding comment to the Thread.

Well done to the other Posters who took "ME" to task for his use of 'shrouded' swearing; that will not be tolerated on these Forums.

This Thread has been locked and it must not be restarted at this time.

A new Thread on the behaviour on this Thread must not be opened.