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
cbrpete  
#1 Posted : 24 December 2010 23:28:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cbrpete

Hi everyone, I am currently studying NGC and have been asked by a friend that owns a taxi/private hire office for help, he has asked me to give the premises the once over just to make sure there is nothing that would contravene section 2/3 as all the staff are self employed and the public only have access to a waiting area at the front of the office with a coffee machine, with the drivers and telephonists being self employed, would I be right in classing them as contractors/sub-contractors? would they class as employee's for the purpose of the five or more employees for the purpose of having to have a written policy? The reason for this is that the Local Authority have sent a letter advising that they will be coming to inspect the premises shortly as they have never been visited before and have also sent a self assessment questionaire to be returned to them, I am presuming that depending on the answers will dictate how quick they get a visit. I think this could open a little can of worms as I have been in many taxi offices over the years and would say that work would need to be done in many of them to bring them up to scratch. I look forward to your help and comments. Wishing you all a merry christmas and happy new year. Thanks Pete
RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 25 December 2010 10:48:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Pete It's funny how an impending visit by the regulators can focus the mind, anyway, for s2 of HSWA, employees include anyone who works for an employer regardless of their status ie part-time, paid in kind, not paid at all etc. Even if drivers were considered as self-employed then s3 would apply as it does for visitors to the premises. The owner of the cab office may also wish to consider fire arrangements and specifically the RRFSO. Got to go out an deliver presents now, but should be enough above to give you a start. Ray
Steve-IOM  
#3 Posted : 25 December 2010 20:20:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steve-IOM

No need to worry about what HASAWA Sections apply, worry about checking/making it safe
cbrpete  
#4 Posted : 26 December 2010 00:24:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cbrpete

thanks for the replies guys, especially on christmas day, will keep me busy for a while cheers pete
freelance safety  
#5 Posted : 29 December 2010 16:02:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

Cbrpete, are you really qualified to be giving advice to a company? I think it’s great that you will be getting some live experience however; the fact remains that you are asking such basic questions leads me to believe that you should not be giving advice out to companies. Even if it’s for a friend you can find yourself in a whole heap of issues if enforcement action is taken and you are the one named as giving the advice (even free advice)! Having recently had a client who owned a similar company I noted breaches of the following: – Disability Discrimination Act 1995 – Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 – Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 1713) – Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No. 2739) – Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 1643) – Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 635) – Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) (SI 1998 No. 2307) – Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 3242) – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) (SI 1998 No. 2306) – Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3004) – The Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No. 1833) – Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 – Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 I was not the consultant at the time of the breaches however; the chap that had given advice was under-qualified with little experience. He did it as a favour and landed himself in court! (He was torn to pieces in court by the prosecutor). He was not a consultant, not insured as such and clearly was just doing something to help someone he knew. Please be very careful about any advice you give and the significance of what you are doing. PS. Best of luck for your future exams.
Steve-IOM  
#6 Posted : 29 December 2010 17:26:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steve-IOM

cbrepete Go for it Pete - its just a taxi office not a nuclear power plant! I am sure you will get the basics right without getting into enforcement problems. Tell your mate to ask the enforcement officer for any advice and then crack on with it. Search HSE they have a good web site. regards
chambers  
#7 Posted : 29 December 2010 18:41:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
chambers

I’d personally think carefully when giving out legal advice. Why doesn’t the company have access to a competent professional as required by current legislation? If the LA officer has stated they are specifically coming out to this business, is it from a complaint and/or concerns they have regarding this business? Pete, do you have professional indemnity insurance to covering giving out legal advice? Rayrapp and Freelance seem to be giving you some good advice!
Steve Sedgwick  
#8 Posted : 29 December 2010 20:22:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve Sedgwick

quote=Steve-IOM]cbrepete Go for it Pete - its just a taxi office not a nuclear power plant! I am sure you will get the basics right without getting into enforcement problems. Tell your mate to ask the enforcement officer for any advice and then crack on with it. Search HSE they have a good web site. regards
cbrpete, go with the above advise. Explain your HS qualifications and experience to your mate and do him favour. You are not charging him many hundreds of pounds as a Professional Consultant and this is a very small business with few risks. Have a look at the HS Policy and arrangements already in place, get a good understanding of the operation and its HS risks. Focus on the significant risks and dont go OTT by showing off your HS knowledge. Give him your advise and list some HSE guidance / leaflets that he may need. Don't let scare stories of courts and prosecutions put you off and don't bother with the insurance for providing level of help. Steve
teh_boy  
#9 Posted : 04 January 2011 09:22:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

Steve-IOM wrote:
cbrepete Go for it Pete - its just a taxi office not a nuclear power plant! I am sure you will get the basics right without getting into enforcement problems. Tell your mate to ask the enforcement officer for any advice and then crack on with it. Search HSE they have a good web site. regards
I agree there needs to be caution applied when offering advice, but this is how i cut my teeth, offering help to friends who ran low risk shops. You have to start somewhere and it helped to get some safety on my CV. Everything I did was free and I explained in all situations I would only guide. I see no harm in pointing someone to the HSE web page, explaining they need a policy and showing them an example risk assessment etc etc. The HSE clearly state most bussiness can do this themselves anyway, so a little pointing in the right direction is all that's needed.
kevbell  
#10 Posted : 04 January 2011 11:12:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kevbell

Good advice tech boy we all have to start at the bottom and work our way up to CMIOSH these are the low risk type of jobs we need to start with Pete just take your time with it and check things out with your mate .Tell him I have found our local enforcement office to be very helpfull with advice Regards Kev
Fletcher  
#11 Posted : 04 January 2011 11:12:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Fletcher

Happy New Year to all, Does this post demonstrate what Young was trying to point out? We have Freelance pointing out that a precedent has already been set by a prosecution in which a person giving advice to a friend ended up in court, being exposed for lack of knowledge though possibly not being prosecuted. Still not an experience you would want to go through. Then you have two Steve's saying "Go for it" which in view of the type of activity is not wrong if we follow the way forward outlined by Young. So you have opposing views and I don't think either is wrong, all have merit. My opinion, is that in your circumstances; 1) I would help point out deficiencies in what the company is doing BUT stipulate clearly that you could not be named as the competent person under Reg 7 of the Management Regulations (L21 available on-line from HSE). If your friend wants you to be the competent person to get them out of a bind then you need to consider what Freelance said very carefully. In your shoes I would not accept that accountability. 2) What I would look at to find deficiencies have been mentioned above but here are some pointers, a) H&S Policy - If the answer from your friend is "don't need a written one" then the question is "State your verbal one then" b) What risk assessments are available e.g. Lone working? Physical Assault? bad weather conditions? involvement in an accident? DSA? stress/long hours? etc c) What is available regarding asbestos in the office? d) Does an office fire risk assessment exist? e) What training records exist for the competence of the drivers, are they all correctly licensed. f) What maintenance records exist for the fleet? g) Does the company display their current insurance certification, is there a HSE H&S notice in the office. h) What is the company induction process? i) Do they have an incident recording system? j) And of course who provides their H&S assistance? The above is not the complete list of what I would look for but will give you a start. What you find does not need to be complicated but should be appropriate to a taxi company e.g. If the H&S Policy says when working over water personnel should wear life jackets then I would guess that it is a cut & paste job and not suitable. Lack of the existance of above documents/systems should start big warning bells ringing. Hope this helps, don't mean to be negative but when things go wrong, good intentions stand for nothing and the legal profession make their living out of the law as it stands, not as it should be, your interpretation of the law or how some Lord thinks it ought to be. Take Care
decimomal  
#12 Posted : 04 January 2011 11:32:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

Is the Taxi company a member of a Trade association (is there such a thing?) If so,perhaps they or the licensing authoritycan offer some guidance.
freelance safety  
#13 Posted : 04 January 2011 11:59:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

Fletcher, a well constructed and thought provoking response. Although, as I’ve said before, I think it’s great that MCbrpete will be getting some live experience however; the fact remains that MCbrpete is asking such basic questions leads me to believe that in this instance advice/assistance should be sought from someone who is more experienced to aid the process. Any experienced practitioner will note that enforcement officers do not usually inform you that they are calling unless they are giving you the opportunity to rectify existing issues or following a complaint etc. Has this company received any correspondence from any enforcement body? Food for thought relating to this low risk environment that some have suggested; Have the office got any ACM’s? Is a register in place, do we class this as low risk? Is maintenance work taking place to vehicles, quite common for taxi companies? This opens a whole area of issues which you would not necessarily call low risk? This may of course be a general visit with little to worry about. But would you know how to approach the situation if enforcement action is taken; legal protocols, legal privilege and the implications to protect yourself? By being part of the process and introduced as the person who is assessing the risks you could find yourself having to take your own time out to deal with any legal actions taken against you friends business. If things go wrong, this may even extend to obtaining legal advice yourself! In this instance I would be cautious before venturing to help out. I suggest that you get some impartial advice from IOSH and/or talk to you lecturer/tutor.
Heather Collins  
#14 Posted : 04 January 2011 12:15:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

HSE actually has a sample risk assessment for a car hire company which might give some pointers although clearly the business the OP is describing is simpler than this. http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...estudies/privatehire.htm I agree with what Fletcher has said. By all means point your friend in the direction of where to get help and give him some informal advice. I'm pretty sure the practical alternative for a small business like his is DIY (AKA nothing at all) Just be careful that you do not become his designated competent person unless you understand the personal and legal implications. Good luck.
teh_boy  
#15 Posted : 04 January 2011 13:26:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

Heather Collins wrote:
HSE actually has a sample risk assessment for a car hire company which might give some pointers although clearly the business the OP is describing is simpler than this. http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...estudies/privatehire.htm I agree with what Fletcher has said. By all means point your friend in the direction of where to get help and give him some informal advice. I'm pretty sure the practical alternative for a small business like his is DIY (AKA nothing at all) Just be careful that you do not become his designated competent person unless you understand the personal and legal implications. Good luck.
Good post! I think that it says it all - an articulated sum up of what we are all trying to say!
bob thompson  
#16 Posted : 04 January 2011 14:51:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bob thompson

worm's can open. Re arrange these words. I agree we all have to be careful when giving advice even at cmiosh level, however common sense usually prevails. One point I would make when advising taxi companies is to look at the provision for any special needs transport, interms of training for drivers in how to examine and use clamping systems for wheelchairs. I have recently investigated a serious accident where drivers had neither training or experience in using the wheelchair restraints. This is a mine field owing to the amount of different types of clamps and there interface with the hundreds of styles of wheelchairs on the market, one size does not fit all. The trick with giving any advice is to be able to recognise when you arnt as smarty as you think you are, then find someone who is. Bob
Yossarian  
#17 Posted : 04 January 2011 15:03:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Yossarian

If it helps focus the discussion any, I know that some LA's in my area have been looking at workplace violence issues and late night businesses. It strikes me that Private Hire cabs and offices are likely to be covered by this remit.
decimomal  
#18 Posted : 04 January 2011 16:31:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

bob thompson wrote:
however common sense usually prevails. Bob
Beware - we all know the problem with the common sense argument don't we?
freelance safety  
#19 Posted : 04 January 2011 16:34:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

Very true decimomal!
cbrpete  
#20 Posted : 03 April 2011 23:24:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cbrpete

Hi everyone, sorry for not posting to give the result of what happened sooner, i have been busy looking after my nan who has alzheimers. I would like to thank everyone for there comments, everyone needs to start somewhere and all advice has been duly noted. I contacted the LA and the HSE and spoke to a tutor about this, the LA said that the taxi drivers classed as self employed so no further action, the tutor said that the drivers are under the instruction of the taxi office so would class as employees and the HSE said that either could be right, taxi drivers are normally only self employed for tax purposes but they would leave it in the hands of the LA unless there was a problem/incident for which i presume they would come down hard on someone. Well only a week left now till i get my results for the NEBOSH NGC, for the start of what is hopefully going to be a long career in H&S Cheers Pete
David Bannister  
#21 Posted : 04 April 2011 09:57:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Sounds like that can of worms will not be opened by either HSE or LA! Good luck.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.