Rank: New forum user 
|
We have a disabled toilet in the work place that is fitted with an alarm. Does the alarm need to be tested on a schedule i.e. Weekly/monthly and if so does the test need to be documented?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
It might be helpful to clarify for you Clairel why regular testing is important! I am not aware of any distinct legislation that applies to these alarms as there is for emergency lighting testing for example. However if equipment supplied is not functioning then a broader duty of care aspect could easily apply and possibly even regulation 5 of the workplace (HSW) Regs 1992 could apply? More importantly an employer should to be seen doing everything it could to support facilities for disabled staff if something adverse resulted then the publicity could be just as detrimental? There could certainly be a discrimination case under the DDA too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
purplebadger,
I was keeping it simple!
I'm not a believer in quoting legislation unless specifically asked or if necessary to emphasis a point. The question was, does it need to be tested reguarly, and the answer is yes of course. Does it matter what piece of legislation? If I quoted legislation to all my clients they wouldn't want me back. They just want to know what to do. If more information was required to justify what I said then they could easily have asked and would have happily given that information. However, the fact that they had already thought it might be necessary means they had already considered the risks involved of not testing. I assumed they wanted to know what was the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Clairel wrote:Yes and yes!! :-)
Straight to the point, nowt wrong in that.
KISS (keep it simple stupid :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If it is a pull cord alarm, also make sure it is close to the ground, and not tied up to ceiling height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Purplebadger
why would this be a Disability Discimination case because an employer had not thought to test an alarm.
There is no evidence of discrimination. There is evidence of an inadequate risk assessment if the alarm is not regularly tested
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I should not rise to IOSH forum 'expansion tactics', however Clairel's answer was simple but correct. Why do some poeple need war and peace!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Don't forget that the test should not just be whether the alarm functions, but whether anyone recognises it and does anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Steve sedgwick wrote:Purplebadger
why would this be a Disability Discimination case because an employer had not thought to test an alarm.
There is no evidence of discrimination. There is evidence of an inadequate risk assessment if the alarm is not regularly tested
Steve
Agreed there is no evidence of discrimination now however if such facilities are not maintained and were to the detriment of an employee...ie trapped in the loo for ages wanting help AND it was proved that facilities for able bodied were kept working, then there may be plenty of employment solicitors that would happily take such circumstances on as a case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The crux of the matter is that there had been an inadequate risk assessment that lead to the alarm not been regularly tested. This has now been identified.
It is simple task to now test this regularly
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I dont see that we can say that there had been an inadequate RA. Like any other alarm or sysytem, unless there is a specific frequency of testing prescribed by law, then the testing interval should be based on an interval shorter than the mean time to failure of the system
That being said Claire's statement was appropriate.
It is a parculiararity of this forum that people have to ignore that a question had been appropriately answered previously and regurgitate the advice proffered or attempt to gain say an other. Either that or they have nowt better to do than take offence at either information provided or the advice proferred.
This does not seem to be repeated on other forums.
There seems to be a collective of fragile and precotious individuals on this forum though.
I reckon, it has to be down to the individuals opting for H&S as a career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
By the way, forgive my spelling etc, laying on a beach drinking ice cold mojitas I blame the IPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And if you don't, well cant say am bothered really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BLEVE wrote:It is a parculiararity of this forum...
No it isn't - it happens in internet forums the world over!
[quote = Bleve]
Either that or they have nowt better to do than take offence at either information provided or the advice proferred.
This does not seem to be repeated on other forums.
I could direct you to a few!
Quote:
There seems to be a collective of fragile and precotious individuals on this forum though.
Fragile and precocious? Because they don't disagree with a point of view held by someone else? I'm not sure precocious is what you mean by the way - I think you mean "precious" which is quite ironic (again)
Quote:
I reckon, it has to be down to the individuals opting for H&S as a career.
You don't know very many of us all that well if you think we're fragile and precious (or even precocious)! I can't imagine many of my colleagues describing me as either of these...
No offence meant Bleve but why does every thread you contribute to seem to end in an attack on someone else? Not very constructive is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BLEVE wrote:
There seems to be a collective of fragile and precotious individuals on this forum though.
I reckon, it has to be down to the individuals opting for H&S as a career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BLEVE wrote:
There seems to be a collective of fragile and precotious individuals on this forum though.
I reckon, it has to be down to the individuals opting for H&S as a career.
Blast - pressed "post" too soon first time.
I think you mean "precious" Bleve. Personally I think you are wrong. No-one survives in H&S for very long if they are either fragile or precious. Disagreeing with others in an internet forum doesn't make a person either of these things.
I won't express the rest of my opinion of the disparaging statements in your post because it appears I'm not allowed to. I hope this post is seen as sufficiently "non-confrontational" to be allowed to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.