Rank: Forum user 
|
I am interested in anyone's views on the following.
I work for a construction company including a scaffolding division. An insurance incident advisor stated that after the initial erection of the scaffold and handing over to the customer / user via a completed handover certificate that we should not be involved in the mandatory seven inspection regime. However in the current climate many customers are insisting that we do carry out this service so therefore I have a decision to make. Any advice would be welcome.
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a company we employ external services to erect the required scaffolding, as our site managers are not deemed competent to inspect the scaffold, (Insurance company), we employ the services of the company who erected and maintain the scaffolding to carry out the seven day inspections. It may pay to question the insurance company as to why they do not wish you to inspect the scaffold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Our scaffolding contractor also does our weekly inspections - it makes much more sense for us to organise it this way. Your insurer seems to be creating unusual difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There is no legislation that says you cannot inspect the scaffold every week so long as you fulfill the criteria for competence. I would tell that to the insurance co., who clearly are not safety practitioners !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is not solely competence, it is also about being able to demonstate independance and objectivity in much the same way as lift maintenance and inspection are usually two different and separate activities. It can be done by the same organisation provided there are sufficient safeguards built in to prevent commercial or production pressures being allowed to affect the outcome of the inspection.
However, if the insurers are being asked to underwrite the risk they do have a vested interest in how it's being managed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you all for your feedback.
I believe the insurance guy is directing his comments from a libility point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
As stated above, in the event of an incident, if you had been inspecting your own work you would have to prove there had been a degree of independence on the part of the examiner, If you can, perhaps via previous reports demonstrating fault reporting, then I can see no legal reason why you can't erect and inspect the scaffold (although insurance co's. are often a law unto themselves.....)
As a scaffold contractor, this is one of my pet hates. It usually comes down to the contractor claiming lack of competence on the part of their site managers (rather than the real reason of not wanting to take on the time and responsibility). If they're not competent to do the recorded 7 day inspections, who's doing the unrecorded daily pre-use inspections ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
We have a policy that the individual scaffolder who erected it should not check it - on the basis that if he erected it wrongly, although he thought correctly, if the scaffold remained unchanged, he would continue to sign it off on a weekly basis, that it was satisfactory.
Perhaps you should put to your insurers that the named erector (or anyone in the initial erection gang) should not be part of the weekly inspection regime process, although the erecting company would carry out the inspections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Their is a specific course to which anyone who inspects scaffolds should attend, and that includes scaffolders,
This is a 2 day course which is aimed at scaffold supervisors, site managers, safety practitioners for the inspection of a basic scaffolding.
There is also a course for advanced inspection which the basic inspector should undertake if inspecting shores, beams, truss out scaffold etc.
Once you have completed the course you are deemed competent to inspect the scaffold
Although personally I feel this is not the case as a scaffolder
Hope this helps
JMC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Once again thanks guys for your feedback.
Yes we have independent trained inspectors within the company.
Ignoring the insurance point of view and focusing on the the comment regarding 'site managers not being competent'. I couldn't agree more. I believe this is the client/hirer trying to relieve themselves of any responsibility with regards to the scaffold access provided. Daily visual inspections, third party user inspections seem to go out of the window.
Back to insurance. I believe that the inspector is suggesting that if the scaffold is erected by a scaffold company and is then inspected every seven days by the same scaffold company then should an incident occur with the scaffold being stated as the reason for example 'an operative tripping on a scaffold board' then all liability will fall to the scaffold contractor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The problem with the claim against anyone when it comes to scaffolds is when the scaffold is inspected you write on your scafftag & report i.e. Monday 9am - in good order but tuesday at 9am someone trips over a board and braks/sprains their ankle, who gets claimed?
Operative walks along scaffolding at 9am tue trips on board and falls 8m to ground (fatal) as a externall gaurdrail was removed who is claimed?
Investigation shows scaffold erected & handover in place, inspected every 7 days by copetent person
Who was working on the scaffold ? brickwork firm, window firm, metsec firm, labourer cleaning up etc..
All could have removed the gurdrail..
Who will be claimed?????
Mr H&S
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.