Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John Holland1
If a company has a portable appliance testing regime in place. However, due to work pressure some items of equipment fall behind the scheduled testing date. Who is liable if an item that has not been retested happens to cause injury (say by electric shock). Could the portable appliance tester be subject to a civil action or would the company be liable due to insufficient supervision?
Your thoughts would be much appreciated
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
The user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
The user?
It's the employer responsibility to ensure all equipment is safe to use. In this case the employer is providing faulty equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
Pre use Checks
Management regs Emplyees duties reg 12 2,b
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
The user because it should be part of a RA that the user checks equipment before use. If it's not safe then give it back to the employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff
let the games begin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Both are liable. The primary liability lies with the employer. The tester must carry out their duties exercising the standard expected of a person exercising reasonable care.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Without doubt the 'Employer' as they are 'Vicariously liable for the torts of their employees'.
If an outside company did not turn up or could not keep to the schedule then it is still the employer as they are the ones who are responsible under statute law for ensuring it is done.
If the contractor can't fulfill his obligations then this is contract law and not H&S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
I agree with Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
In my opinion, the Company is liable. The PAT testers provide a service on request, (although most will badger you when re test is due).
RA's should identify the need for pre use checks by the operator, but these will be limited to damage to cable, plug etc. You cant expect Dolly from the mail dept to check the earth continuity etc, (assuming Dolly isnt trained!)so its down to the Company to provide safe equipment.
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Eyup folks,
All this happened before I joined the Charity, but I think the following is correct.
We were selling 2nd hand electricals from a Charity shop. We weren't by any means recklessly derelict in our duty, we did have a system for testing them for safety, using a trained tester with proper kit. However, the tester turned out to be less than thorough in his approach, and we put up for sale some lamps with twisted cotton insulated flex and no earth. We were prosecuted by Trading Standards (not under HASAWA of course) and ended up with a conditional discharge. We should have conducted a final visual check by another person once the tester had finished with the goods. So in this case, even though the tester was at fault, and we had tried to get it right, it was till the charity which was done, and not the tester.
Not HASAWA I know, but a good analogy I would think,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Just to add if you employ contractors you need to make sure they are competent to undertake the work you are asking them to do.
You must make 'reasonable' checks to ensure they can, and will do what it says on the tin!
At the end of the day you can delegate your authority to do something but you cannot delegate your responsibility.
Any enforcement person will always start at the employers management and then work they way down the chain from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Hogarth
Slighty off the subject I know, but see HSE website and 'Myrths of the Month
Myth of the month - July 2007:
The myth: All office equipment must be tested by a qualified electrician every year
No. The law requires employers to assess risks and take appropriate action.
HSE’s advice is that for most office electrical equipment, visual checks for obvious signs of damage and perhaps simple tests by a competent member of staff are quite sufficient.
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.