Hi Firestar967 Why are you concerned about the civil liability between the facility insurers and your employer insurers? As long as both are insured I am sure they will resolve it eventually. If it does fail and there is a fatality, this surely will be lower down on your agenda than both of you being on the other end of a criminal investigation? Regards

Hi Firestar967 My opinion [although this is not my industry] as both parties are insured is to sort the practical safety stuff out and appropriate documentation. It has been my experience that many people you deal with do not tell the truth however proper documentation puts any issues on file: hence the opinion to sort the practical. If the failure can lead to loss of life then I think the practical issues are the most important to sort and in a transparent way. The civil and criminal actions if they occur will make use of the documentation [unfortunately I have had too much of this experience]. Good luck. Steve

Why not e-mail the person who has given you this 'word of mouth' agreement and ask could they confirm by response that their insurers are aware of the potential safety system flaw you have highlighted and confirm they are also happy to continue with the policy on this basis. Might not save a life but it could be a good means of defence for you in court.

I'll just point-out that at the other end of a 'phone line is the HSE. Anonymous-complaints-r-us. I know it is not in the ethos of IOSH to use such a ratty method of solving possible deaths and injuries in the ranks of the lower paid....but: It's mine. It works.

You have a duty anyway to highlight any unsafe practice or unsafe conditions but seeing as you have managed to 'twist his arm' in the past, why not tell him you have asked people like yourself with various H&S qualifications what they would do and one said "I hope he likes prison food SHOULD anything go fatally wrong" Good luck with your task.

Agreed mate. Rock and a hard place springs to mind. I asked a friend of mine's father who didn't recognise and wouldn't waste money on 'elf and safety' to have a look at the picture of his grandson on the fireplace and imagine missing out on him growing up for a couple of years. The penny dropped for him.

Don’t worry well aware of my paper trail, I raised concerns at the start, a couple of months ago with a carefully worded email to the manager. At that time, even though the training had been carried out a couple of times, I asked if a RA had been carried out – guess the answer to that one – I have since been informed that this has now been done (I can’t validate this though as never seen them). Like I said many issues and a lot of concerns, the other frustrating part is that I’m a qualified instructor in this type of training with my previous employer and was in a management role. So I know the procedures and precautions that should be in place, that isn’t off memory either there is written guidance for this. However, steps are being taken and my hope is that I will make them see the light. I managed to stop an even more dangerous one previously but that did cost me.

Sounds like you did a good job. I am not sure being popular or being on Xmas card lists goes with the job.

Firestar, speaking as a liability surveyor for an insurer, it doesn't really matter if the insurer is happy or not. Provided a premium has been paid, we are legally obliged to meet Employer's Liability claims irrespective of how stupid / careless our policyholder has been. The only consideration is the tort of liability and proving the duty of care / breach / loss as a result of breach. If you are using a third party facility for training in connection with your employer's business, the policy automatically extends to cover that. We sort out our rights of recovery under subrogation rules after the event. The only three things that insurers need to be specifically told about during the course of the policy, other than new potential claims are these:- 1) You are engaging in work outside your normal business description. 2) You are working offshore or beyond the territorial limit of your policy. 3) You are working under an "indemnify and hold harmless" agreement - commonly encountered in the petrochem industry. 1 is the furthest reaching and would include exceeding any height or depth limits applicable or moving into a new field, e.g. a marine engineer getting into aerospace work.

Steve sorry was typing so missed your post. So if the client uses an external facility for training, with no written agreement, no checks of maintenance for the facility that is owned by the external organisation, follow no operational use of that facility or even follow the instructions for use, would still be covered? I think point 1 would apply here.

Thanks Steve for the information but it is looking as though I may have done enough to make them take notice. Many thanks for all the advice and opinions for those who posted.