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 : 22 May 2009 13:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Seejem What on earth is going on here? What a disgrace! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/..._and_islands/8063251.stm
Admin  
#2 Posted : 22 May 2009 13:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Most alarming. Does this demonstrate a significant gap in the pre-qualification process for those engaging contractors? Is the information on prohibitions etc. issued by the Traffic Commission available in the public domain in the same way hse notices/cases are? Should there be a suitable standard question on all pqq where contractors manage fleets? Had the other Organisations (Clients) mentioned in the article been aware of this record, would they have engaged them?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 22 May 2009 16:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian MacAskill We are a client (not mentioned in the article) of this vendor. As a supplier there have not been any issues with the service supplied (Waste removal). We do operate a vendor rating / review process so we do "police" our suppliers. Although we had an awareness of the accident we were not aware of the "prohibition" history. We are of course reviewing our relationship with the vendor who may still be trading pending appeal. Visibility of offences would of course help with vendor selection especially within the transport sector.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 22 May 2009 20:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Collectively then should we lobby for this 'prohibition' information to be made available in the public domain? Perhaps it already is and I'm just unaware?
Admin  
#5 Posted : 22 May 2009 22:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TonyB Ron (and all) The HSE has always had a public register of all enforcement (Notices and PRs). For the last 7-8 years this has been accessible from the Internet. Please see the link below. Therefore, it is very easy to see a company's enforcement history! However, just because you don't have any Notices doesn't mean your good - you may just have not be caught out. Also, most companies improve their standards after being served a Notice, so having a Notice or two doesn't mean that their standards are poor (any more). http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/prosecutions.htm All the best, TonyB
Admin  
#6 Posted : 23 May 2009 11:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp This case identifies a shocking catalogue of non-compliance over a number of years and ultimately leading to a fatality. If there was ever a case where the individual directors should be held accountable then this is it. What is also very disturbing is why this rogue company was allowed to rack up 28 Prohibition Notices without some formal legal action. Clearly, just providing a PN did nothing to improve safety. Could no one from the Enforcing Authority see that each PN was in fact a 'near miss'?
Admin  
#7 Posted : 23 May 2009 14:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter TonyB: We're not discussing HSE enforcement here, rather prohibitions etc. placed by the Traffic Commissioner/VOSA on a Fleet Operator. The implications etc. are however broadly similar. I will be making further enquiry via the VOSA website. I would encourage others to do the same.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 23 May 2009 14:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter And the VOSA website confirms that this information is in the public domain on their website. Something for us all to consider and surely a reasonable enquiry/check as part of our pre-qual and tender processes for contractors operating LGV/Fleet Vehicles. I do agree TonyB that the issue of a notice (any type of Notice)does not a bad contractor make, however I have to be aware first of all (I am now)so that I can enquire of the contractor how he reacted to the notice. Given that a contractor had that amount of prohibitions however.................?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 25 May 2009 10:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Mac Seejem Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Very sad tragedy indeed. @Ron Totally agree, nice piece of info you have supplied. My concern is company A disappears today with husband as named director and reappears tomorrow only under a different title with the wife as named director. I have seen it happen here in NI a number of times, but I guess you can cover most of the angles most of the time but there is no way of covering all of the angles all of the time, although I do stand to be contradicted, (here's hoping). Regards Lee
Admin  
#10 Posted : 25 May 2009 12:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Homer A company that was renowned and known for its disregard to Health and Safety. Highlands and Islands is a very tight community and everyone knew what this company was like including the HSE. 100% corporate manslaughter. This young lass should not have been killed it was pure connivance and neglect.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 26 May 2009 22:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd This is extra scary because to run a haulage company you need to have someone with a certificate of professional competence in road haulage to get your operating licence (yes, I know some people pay a CPC holder who is nothing to do with the business but that is another matter). So, in theory, you should have a fair idea of how a haulage company *should* be run. Lots of other types of businesses you can just start up - with no requirement for competence at all. My husband was a long distance lorry driver and some of the stories are really bad: - "Why have you stopped?". "Lunch". "Get on up the road, you've no time for eating". - "Why are you parked up?". "I've no time on my card, I need a break". "The load has to be there for 6am, just be there". - "The lights on my trailer aren't working". "Tough, stick to the main roads and we'll get it fixed when you're back in the yard". - Drivers who drive with no tachograph as they figure it's better to have no records than dodgy records. - Units and trailers with defects that the operator doesn't want to know about. - Drivers who arrive at the docks and head to the pub before attempting to drive their lorry onto the boat. Some hairy moments, and in some instances the shunters (who are only meant to ship trailers) have to take over and drive their lorry on the boat for them. Heard a story about 1 driver who had to be carried to his lorry the next morning by 4 men, still out for the count, they drove it off the boat for him and left the keys with security and rang his company and said they wouldn't be releasing the keys for 24 hours as it'd be at least that long before the driver sobered up. - Drivers who cook with gas stoves in their cab. - "Keys are in the forklift, tip yourself". - Owner drivers driving day and night for the lure of the £££, or with huge start-up costs to pay off (overheads are HUGE). - Work that's been sub-contracted out so many times there's no profit at all hardly and definitely no money to go towards maintenance. I could go on. Read through the stuff on the VOSA website and hearings of the Traffic Commissioners: http://www.transporttribunal.gov.uk/index.htm http://www.vosa.gov.uk/v...icationsanddecisions.htm Have a look at some of the stats for defects, drivers hours, etc. That one is particularly shocking: http://www.transporttrib...entfiles/j84/68-2001.doc Lorry drivers are treated as the lowest of the low by some companies, and the drivers know that if they say boo there are plenty more unemployed lorry drivers crying out to do the work without so much as a whimper. Up to £600/week in your hand, more for international work, can be hard to say no to for some. KT
Admin  
#12 Posted : 27 May 2009 09:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Karen Thanks for pointing out those elements of HGV driving and all the more reason why the Enforcing Authorities should be more vigilant to rogue operators. Ray
Admin  
#13 Posted : 27 May 2009 11:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MW The company in question also has a license for removing asbestos...doesn't bode well, does it? MW
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.