I am having a debate with a client at the moment. They do small machine modifications when repairing old machines, the modifications themselves are done to current standards and they are not normally significant and they are often done to say re-instate the original machine function where a part has failed and a suitable direct alternative cannot be sourced. In many cases the machine manufacturer is no longer in business. They have the competence to design and implement these modifications, along with the necessary insurance cover PI, PL, EL & Product. The mods are a little bit more complex than say replacing a failed switch with a modern alternative, they often require some electrical circuit works, maybe hydraulic or pneumatic changes and perhaps some mechanical modifications. The machines are rarely if ever CE marked, I know this is a whole new debate and realise what is involved with this, once we get over the non CE marked machines then I will move into the CE marked bit with them, so for now can we please steer clear of any reference to CE, just for now! The time will come I suspect! The debate is over the provision of information. I am saying that without giving their IP away they must supply suitable information to the client, for example, drawings, parts lists etc. to enable the client to suitably operate the machine with the modification in place, and if necessary undertake repairs and /or maintenance safely. This may extend to instructions and even training. They are very reluctant to undertake thus due to costs, clients don’t see the requirement so won’t pay for the additional service. They also say that they would be doing the maintenance on the machine / system anyway, which they may, but not perhaps forever. There is also the “we don’t want to tell anyone else how to do this as it gives us a competitive edge” which I can also see and agree with. Has anyone any suggestions or feelings on this please? Many thanks in advance. Paul

Paul, instruction for safe use is an absolute, however provision of drawings, parts lists etc. is more of a commercial contract matter. Training for safe use may be offered, but the onus there rests with the employer using the machinery. Much would depend on the complexity or unusual nature of the machine.

Paul, you say "the modifications themselves are done to current standards". What do these standards have to say on the subject?

Paul It makes no difference whether they are the manufacturer of the kit, your client would be deemed a supplier and possibly a designer at the very least. Therefore compliance with s6 HSWA makes it perfectly clear...'It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work...to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work;' Furthermore, '...that persons so supplied are provided with all such revisions of information provided to them by virtue of the preceding paragraph as are necessary by reason of its becoming known that anything gives rise to a serious risk to health or safety...' Your client has duties, how they comply with those in practice depends to some extent on what the machine is used for or whether the modification alters it from its intended use. Remember, the term is sfairp, which allows some discretion for your client.