Posted By Jeepster
I recently bought a big second hand industrial mower at auction, which was being sold by the local authority (council). I am not daft enough to expect this machine to be new as it is 6 years old, but it does only have 750 hours on it, very low. So I had thought it would at least be safe, being owned and maintained by the local authority. This is also a DVLA registered vehicle for use on the road so it would have easily come into proximity of the general public.

Once home, I have found that one of the guards from the engine bay has been discarded to ease engine maintenance and the safety switch on the operator seat is bypassed, so the operator can get on and off without stopping the engine and in fact could leave the machine unattended with all the cutters etc running, as is the limit switch which turns of the cutters when you raise them vertically for transport. This means that it is no longer ALARP and required the operator to stop several of the functions instead of automatic control.

I see this is a clear breach of reg. 8, HASAWA 1974. As well as PUWER, Machinery regs., etc. I have approached the local authority because of my concern, likelihood of injury and due to the fact they were releasing equipment that in my humble opinion was now dangerous to an unsuspecting public and had obviously been in current use by the local authority in that condition. I had offered them opportunity to view the machine and sent them pictures to confirm. But they appear not to be interested with no reply since.

I also suspect that this was probably a cultural thing and not a one off event and that probably the rest of their fleet was in a similar condition.

I have since made repairs to make the machine safe.

As this is a discussion forum, and I do not want anyone to be injured, what would you do next and why?

Posted By Jeepster
Sorry, I must of come across wrong, I am not at all unhappy with my purchase. I got a good deal and I was able to make safe.

I was interested in debating the legal aspects of finding a local authority breaking H&S legislation and putting their employees and public at risk.

I also noted in SHP the same local authority had been previously prosecuted following an accident where an employees arm was ripped off in an unguarded machine.

Coincidence? I find a maintenance dept that “intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions”

And we are buyer beware …… There must be thousands of cases where we unintentionally import risk everyday. Food for thought.

Posted By Sam Roberts
I think you really need to chill out,!!!!
as the other responses have told you it was probably robbed for spares, or the reason it was auctioned off was because it needed work to bring it in line with all safety legistation, however as you bought it and intend to use it, the liability for this has now transferred to you.
The LA were committing no offence whatever in flogging this machine off at Auction whatever its condition.
If however the LA employees are using plant in this condition, then thats another issue.

You bought this machine as seen, and as the saying goes...'BUYER BEWARE'

Happy mowing

Sam

Posted By Kevin Drew
Sorry, but I have to agree with jeepster.

There are duties placed on the suppliers of second hand machinery and work equipment by section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974. Basically the LA had a duty, as far as reasonably practicable, to ensure that any second hand machinery that it sells (and for that matter any articles intended for use at work) will be safe when being set, operated, cleaned and maintained.

The LAs liabilities cannot be discharged with simple statements such as “sold as seen”, etc. The only alternative to this is to obtain a written undertaking from the purchaser that they will take specific steps to ensure that the machinery will be safe when being set, operated, cleaned and maintained.

These legal duties have been in existence for many years and on many occasions the HSE have successfully prosecuted both the supplier and purchaser of second hand machinery.

It the machinery was unsafe to use, as it clearly was, then the LA should have scrapped it. The fact that it was sold at auction is acedemic.

Regards

Kevin Drew

Posted By Sam Roberts
Here is a Generic disclaimer most auctiopn houses use:

The Auctioneers have described the Lots in the Catalogue to the best of their ability and belief from information furnished by the Vendors who shall be responsible for any error or mis-statement, which there may be. The Auctioneer accepts no liability whatever in respect of any faults, deficiencies and errors of any description, oral or printed, nor do they accept responsibility for the authenticity, genuineness, origin, age, condition or quality of any Lots and all statements of opinion only and not to be taken as being or implying a statement or representation of fact. Any intending purchaser must satisfy themselves by prior inspection or otherwise as to the correctness of each such statement. The Vendor does not make or give and neither the Auctioneers, nor any other person in their employment have any authority to make or give any representation or warranty in relation to any of the Lots without the express instructions of the Vendors.

9 Each and every Lot is sold as seen. The Auctioneers provide no guarantees or warranties either expressed or implied in respect of the Equipments contained in the Lot. All representations made by the Auctioneer, their Employee's or Agents are considered to be lay opinions only and the Auctioneers accepts no liability for any purchase made by a Buyer in reliance upon them.

10 The buyer of a Lot is deemed to have inspected the Equipments contained in the Lot prior to purchase.

Posted By Fred Pratley
Is the LA a supplier of second hand machinery in this instance?

I accept there is the moral argument and possibly a duty of care here, but I would have thought that unless they were trading machinery then surely "buyer beware" applies.

That said, assuming you contacted the LA's safety departmentand and had no reply, I would raise the matter with your local HSE as it sounds like the things you found are serious and it has been my understanding that LA's and HSE are legally obliged to respond to individual public complaints?

Fred

Posted By Jeepster
I think it is an interesting debate, certainly the moral aspects are much heavier than the legal. But what I have learned is that you cannot expect things to work as designed and the purchase of used equipment can expose you to high levels of risk. I have to say I expected to find things neglected, broken and not working, but I was shocked to find limits deliberately disconnected and switches bypassed.

It has also tells me that still some people freely interfere with safety equipment and that all pre-use and inspection checks should cover all safety and control features.

It does make you wonder what the condition is of an awful lot of plant equipment out there.

Posted By Jeffrey Watt
Jim

I would imagine most LA CEO's would like to get shot of job and finish.
Then after the 3 years of industrial action that would ensue maybe we could get a bin emptied. Unfortuneately by that time the rats would rule the world....with little rat governments...cats would be their slaves etc.

Kind regards

Jeff