I'm being asked to consider drafting a proforma which can be used by our property maintenance team when carrying out general works in occupied properties. This would be over and above the standard method statement and the manager of that team wants something that gives clear instructions for the tenant whilst the work is being carried out. He wants the tenant to sign that which may be a step too far (possibly). Has anyone used anything similar or is able to point me in the right direction. Most appreciated.

Bob, thanks for your response; no there are no bonuses involved here only a letter of complaint from a tenant that they feel they were put at risk during some recent works. The team in question are fairly loose when it comes to writing a specific risk assessment or method statement for anything which wouldn't be called day-to-day repairs. My gut instinct would be to ammend the current method statement template to include some instructions/guidance for the tenant or at least write down how the work is going to be carried out and what the hazards are. I suppose I'm just looking for confirmation that I'm on the right track or for someone to tell me I'm being an idiot. Cheers

Instructions for the tenant covering works being done by [the usual] rush-and-hustle cowboys ? 1. Don't complain when they try to smoke on the premises. 2. Don't complain when they cut and sand wood in the premises. 3. Don't complain when they park the van on your [immaculately-kept] front lawn. 4. Don't complain when they remove the [asbestos] roof lining in the outdoor (but attached) shed and then put it in your dustbin. 5. Don't complain when they complain [to you] about you 'phoning their company to complain about them taking 10 minute fag-breaks every half hour and sitting in the van to smoke [on your front lawn], said van having prominent NO SMOKING badges inside. Given that said teams are usually comprised of self-employed subbies (also know locally as cut-and-run-to-the-pub tax fiddlers (many also claiming benefits and working for cash) I am not surprised that some tenants complain. Many of said tenants are retired after a life spent working in the same trades !

One off the few occasions when I have felt the need to use the quote button! I am not sure whether this is simply a sweeping generalisation or simply a cynical/jaded view, or both. In my experience this is not representative of the way that the majority of RSL’s, Councils etc operate their repair service. Again, in my experience the repairs teams are professional, courteous and generally care about the quality of their work and the way that they treat and deal with the tenants, and the majority of tenants are generally satisfied with the service provided. The majority are not by any means ‘cowboys’ and the majority would justifiably take umbrage at such a suggestion. I can’t help but think that such a post is unhelpful, unnecessary and adds little (NO) value to the debate. I hope that the Mods take the appropriate action and/or that people will read and see the post for what it is!

Obvious pitfalls of literacy, disabilities, special needs, and non-English speakers aside, I would not consider a signature by the Tenant to have any meaningful purpose in this regard. The onus to ensure safety rests with the landlord and the contractor. These days, some significant problems are arising with wholesale improvement works being undertaken with tenants still in residence. There have been serious injuries and (I seem to recall) one fatality associated with falls in areas where floorboards were lifted. Not so long ago, decanting was the preferred option, and I cannot help but conclude that this apporach was ditched at least in part as a cost-saving exercise (reduced availability of social housing due to "right to buy" and a moratorium on LA new-build notwithstanding). Professionalism, courtesy and people skills can only do so much where the 'controlling mind" decides to undertake significant works in this fashion. Risk Assessment cannot be left for the man on the ground to cope with alone. Was the complaint you refer to a justified one?

Then start a separate topic on what you have witnessed John rather than tarring everyone with the same brush. i know some companies that have very poor attitude towards H&S but i don't tar all companies with the same brush. if you have evidence of these companies failing on H&S grounds then report them to LA or HSE rather than sitting by and waiting for an accident to happen so you can say you where right. You know what they are doing is wrong so act on it otherwise why did you consider working in the world of H&S. Phil

You really ought to be asking: "why is H&S regarded as a joke throughout the industries" My "experience" is of 39 years in engineering/construction-engineering and most (maybe not all...but not too far from it) have a "get the job done" attitude. As for reporting the problems. No. The GUYS need the work...and the majority of construction is a massive amount of small contractors "run" by a single large one....usually badly, when they are not running employee blacklists (illegally) Caring Constructors. It says so on the sign ! It does not say about what though ? Ok on the mods decision. I expected nothing less. Hopefully Lord Young will go by my unions attitude: Too many people involved in H&S and too little actual H&S. All paper, no substance.