Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
The Table on pages 5 & 6 of the ACoP, which would have been a very useful short-form summary of the duties of respective duty holders, unfortunately contains an error. The duty placed on the Principal Contractor to ensure the Client is aware of his CDM duties is placed on the (subsidiary) Contractor.
Anyone else spotted errors?
Is anyone else slightly uncomfortable with the statement at Appendix 5 "If your judgement is reasonable....you will not be criticised if the company you appoint subsequently proves not to be competent...." Surely this is ultimately a matter for the Courts to decide based on the causal factors of any individual accident? At best, I find this statement misleading, and beyond "guidance".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ron
In accordance with the regulation 13 the statement in the table is absolutely correct - the duty is on all contractors to be aware of this question. The PC's additional duties under regulation 24 do not include reference to the client awareness. If you consider the F10 section 13 declaration this does make some sense, although it is rather disconcerting if you forget the notorious cross overs from one regulation to another in relation to the various duties.
I agree that the appendix 5 statement is clumsy but HSE were desparately trying, in my view, to soften some of the strictures of the regulations themselves.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
As we've discussed before Robert, no-one's going to read the Regulations - the ACoP will be the primary source of guidance. My point is that the info in the Table (pages 5&6) doesn't align with ACoP at pages 33 & 43.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ron
I know the illogical reasoning of the position only too well. Unfortunately drafters are not what they were - rather like chocolate and ice cream they were always better when we wuz lads:-) Having said that however we have to recognise that the PC is merely a special case of the word "contractor" and therefore any duty on a contractor must also apply to a PC.
The acop has suffered so much with internal contradictions during its gestation and was initially sent back by the Minister in December for correction. This caused the January publication delay so I think this was the best stab to avoid any blood on the carpet at Rose Court for failure to hit the April date.
Good news though the SWMP consultation which I noted in another thread, will almost redefine the PC in terms of these new waste regulations and incorporate a "person in charge of the work" without any definition of the term. this in spite of its intention to follow CDM94!!!
Happy days:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.