Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 February 2008 22:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Anyone know when the update is due for release? thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 21 February 2008 11:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Not for a good 6 - 8 months yet still in draft form
Admin  
#3 Posted : 21 February 2008 15:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bruce Sutherland Tim Its still at consultative stage - I believe that HSE are even more stretched than usual in terms of reviewing so unlikely to before the autumn at the earliest Bruce
Admin  
#4 Posted : 21 February 2008 17:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Thanks for the replies
Admin  
#5 Posted : 22 February 2008 10:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Josh Scogin Does anyone have an idea of what changes / alterations are to be made to the current paper?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 22 February 2008 12:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By NickW I understand they have probably wont be using the 3 sub-classes of a Type 3 survey (ie targeted T3, partially intrusive T3 and full pre-demolition T3) which if im right was suggested by Bill Saunderson who did a lot of work on the original MDHS 100.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 22 February 2008 17:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Thats interesting Nick, that was the very reason I was after the implementation date to consider the implications of the split type 3's. I understood that the three tier type 3 was to be the main change, can I ask if you heard that from someone in the know? Thanks
Admin  
#8 Posted : 22 February 2008 17:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Josh Scogin Dave Wilson - thanks for the email again much appreciated. I also heard that type 3s were to be split up into 3 sub surveys, but this seems to have been dismissed. I do believe however type 3s need to be defined in some sort of way, we see more 'defined' type 3s than full on type 3s nowadays. I suppose Bill would be happy to answer any questions, i have contacted him before at BOHS and hes quite helpful
Admin  
#9 Posted : 22 February 2008 20:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By minime I have a copy of the new draft and emphasis on surveys has now changed (for T1 and T2) to 'management surveys' and T3 is refurbishment/demolition surveys. The terms T1,2 and 3 seemed to have gone. Alot more emphasis on the 'duty holder' also. Interesting changes throughout, but that would mean me leaving an essay!!!
Admin  
#10 Posted : 24 February 2008 10:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bruce Sutherland the latest version offers a number of challenges.... how about air testing as part of type 3's..... working with licensed contractors as part of type 3's.... not sure when the 14 days goes in? It is very strong on caveats and does not like them and also on "contract" review which is UKAS speak. The net aim I can see is that every survey should be negotiated between the client and surveyor... fine in theory except few clients have a clue / even care and it will make the survey more expansive as the prelim costs will go up. Bill S's version was in my opinion much more workable - main worry is that neither of the docs that I have seen really address the issues from a commercial point of view ... eg asked to price a small T3 (£400) survey 250 miles away.... not sure how many survey companies would go to site to look at the job first despite what MDHS100 or anything else says. There are lots of construction people read the forums and I would be interested to know their opinion on a likely delay of 7/8 weeks to start a job just to allow the asb survey to be done properly and then the 14 day notification period and then the asb removal program........... the real question I guess is sfarp on a societal basis - but then to calculate that what do we use for the asb risk.....? oh deep and meaningful stuff for a Sunday. Am off to thro myself down perfectly good mts in canada and try and perfect my back loop......... Cheers Bruce
Admin  
#11 Posted : 25 February 2008 09:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Bruce An awful lot of worries start to creep in when further delays are introduced into a system that can be made to work sucessfully as it stands. The real issues are the lack of understanding by the premise duty holders and the consultation will do little to change this. MDHS 100 is in fact not at the forefront of any clients mind when managing works. Bob
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.