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
multuminparvo  
#1 Posted : 26 October 2010 13:08:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

One for the pyromaniacs amongst you. Working at/from home is a current favourite consideration in these cash strapped times. As we know HASWA, Work alone/DSE etc at home are are subject to assessment monitoring and control. Whilst unlikely a regulator (HSE/LA) could visit. Does the same approach occur with regard to the RR(FS)O? No question it is a due consideration but a duty? Lord Young wants to lessen the burden on low risk working at home - so asking for fully fledged fire risk assessments and 'general fire precautions' including means of fighting fires, detection and warning may be OTT for home-based admin and professional duties.
jwk  
#2 Posted : 26 October 2010 13:42:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Afternoon, the definitions in article 2 explicitly exclude domestic premises, viz: '"workplace" means any premises or parts of premises, not being domestic premises, used for the purposes of an employer's undertaking and which are made available to an employee of the employer as a place of work and includes' so no, the RR(FS)O does not apply to homeworkers, John
multuminparvo  
#3 Posted : 26 October 2010 14:35:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

John thanks for your response. I too read it that way but Article 2 definition 'Workplace' is not totally clear when read against Article 5(2) premises not a workplace. In my case the employer is the responsible person and one could ask are they the dutyholder in respect of 'non-workplaces as defined' so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control. That is the crux. What is in their control? Depositing 500litres of petrol based solvent at a home once a week for decanting into little bottles is one thing but sitting at a PC in the spare bedroom?? Responsible for or in control of ---?
jwk  
#4 Posted : 26 October 2010 14:50:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

I think the key to Article 5(2) is 'so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control'. So requiring your employee to store 500l of petrol at home may be in the employer's control, whether the employee has an evacuation plan, smoke detectors or whatever is no business of the employer and not within the employer's control, John
David Bannister  
#5 Posted : 26 October 2010 15:05:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Given the recent Young report's criticism of over zealous H&S activity for low risk situations it would take a very brave enforcement officer (or one with a political agenda) to start bleating about a lack of a FRA in a simple domestic bedroom setting.
multuminparvo  
#6 Posted : 27 October 2010 11:54:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

Thanks guys for your thoughts. I am also of a mind to assess the significant risks that the employer controls and nothing else. I have been low key in the past on homeworking DSE allowing for competence to assess being provided by practical training of staff (you don't need Chartered for that - stir stir) and will remain doing so. My parallel fire related question stems from the fact that many Councils are being forced to consider agile working and working at home and if they are 'strict' on DSE etc they may feel similarly inclined on fire issues. With my laptop on my lap and the fat fryer going full blast in kitchen I thank you.
walker  
#7 Posted : 27 October 2010 12:01:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

I think references to LY are needless. Until his recommendsations get acted upon officially, they are not worth the paper they are written on here in the real world. Lets just forget about his report - its consequences (if ever there are any) are years away yet.
aud  
#8 Posted : 05 November 2010 14:08:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

There is a case going to civil action as I write. Was in paper a month ago? - can't recall which, but do I know the person, and the case, anyway. Using laptop provided by employer, authorised to work from home, left house to walk dog, on return (50 minutes later) house fully ablaze -uninhabitable. It took 4 years to rebuild, they have only recently got back in. It was a 400 year old listed thatched cottage with historic connections. The insurance would not pay the full amount spent to restore, so the additional £100,000 is being sought from the employer. The laptop "exploded" - well, the battery did. It was one with the batch of faulty batteries supplied by Sony (4 million recalled). Luckily there was nobody IN the house, or injured. I never leave my laptop on charge now overnight or if unattended. That's the significant finding of my own FRA. The newspaper suggested that if successful this claim would have significant impact on the homeworking sector.
David Bannister  
#9 Posted : 05 November 2010 14:25:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

aud, I think it's more likely to have significant impact on Sony's product liability insurers. The employer of the unfortunate householder would have a good case for shuffling any civil claim straight to the supplier of the faulty appliance.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.