What is the definition of a competent person in respect to formal recorded ladder inspections? Can inspections be carried out in-house and if so how do we prove competency without throwing pots of money at it? Any sensible advice much appreciated!

A competent persons is someone who has the necessary technical expertise, training and experience to carry out the task. In respect of inspecting ladders you require a person of common sense who is aware of how ladders should be secured (tied, footed) correct way up, correct angle 1 in 4 and up the right way. Any buckles to a metal ladder is unacceptable. HSE are advertisding the ladder exchange currently with a list of companies involved for the replqcements on their web page.

A competent persons is someone who has the necessary technical expertise, training and experience to carry out the task. In respect of inspecting ladders you require a person of common sense who is aware of how ladders should be secured (tied, footed) correct way up, correct angle 1 in 4 and up the right way. No splits in the timber frame ladders with the metal strengthening support below the tread and any buckles to a metal ladder is unacceptable. HSE are advertisding the ladder exchange currently with a list of companies involved for the replacements on their web page.

Oh, it would also prove aptitude too I guess.

Hi Linda, I'll have a go. 1. What is the definition of a competent person in respect to formal recorded ladder inspections? The ‘definition’ of competency is pretty well established as per HSEA’s post, but it is a slightly nebulous concept, it ’rolls off the tongue’ and as ‘definitions’ go it is often of little help in deciding competency, without some further direction. In this case I suggest that it is someone who can understand how the component parts (including fixings) of a ladder contribute to the structural integrity of the ladder, can recognise defects in the types of ladders that you use and be able to make decisions on whether that defect makes them unserviceable, and/or whether they can be repaired etc. They should alsdo have the necessary 'clout' to remove that ladder from service. There is some quite good information on the HSE website with photographs and checklists. You don’t say what your industry is but I suggest that that by using the information and checklist on the HSE website that someone with reasonable practical skills could do this for you and for the main part I suggest that many of the people (not necessarily all) that are required to use a ladder, are, with some modest training, information, and a checklist would be able to carry out formal inspection of a ladder. My one word of warning is that even relatively small dents etc in aluminium ladders can create ’stress raisers’ and that can make them unserviceable, and my ’top tip’ would be to create a ’pass or fail’ style checklist. 2. Can inspections be carried out in-house? Yes, no reason why not (see above) and you might want to consider some sort of ‘management/tagging scheme‘. Try ladderstore, ladder log etc 3. How do we prove competency without throwing pots of money at it? Proving competency in whatever you do can be a difficult or a difficult balance and is in the main for each organisation to decide on the circumstances. However, in this case I don’t think you need to throw pots of money at it all, neither do I think you necessarily need to go down the route of using any external training provision, or hours of training (of course some trainers will tell you that you need to) and even if you did, in this particular case I am not at all convinced of the need for PTTLS.

Phil, I was actually pointing towards the trainers being PTTLS. Whats your definition of a competent trainer? The government is pretty clear on this. The only way I was allowed to teach in higher education, was to have completed a PTTLS course.

I personally dislike the judicious and unnecessary use of the 'quote' facility! For the most part I personally find it confrontational and is sometimes (not always) intended to be so. If you had posted without the quote, trust me I would have understood your post, and in this particular instance I am unclear what purpose it serves. Or am I just being a tetchy old …………..? Yes, I realise that you were referring to trainers being PTTLS (after all it is a training qualification!!!!). The point I was trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, was that for the purposes of training someone to inspect a ladder I didn't (and still don’t) personally see the need for the trainer to be PTTLS qualified. It isn’t, as has already been alluded to, rocket science, nor is it IMVHO, likely to need hours of expensive training. Although I am sure that there are any number of trainers that would like to try and convince me otherwise! Does someone who stands up and gives a tool box talk, which I suggest is a form of training, need PTLLS? I suggest not! I’m sorry but I aren’t going to be drawn into justifying the content of my post, by providing a definition of what I think is a competent trainer. Competency, whether for H&S purposes or for training, is, and has always been for each of us to decide depending on the circumstances. The other wider point that I was trying to make was that merely regurgitating the old chestnut that a competent persons is someone who has the necessary technical expertise, training and experience to carry out the task, actually isn’t all that helpful, and I would hazard a guess that it probably didn’t help Linda. I was trying to give Linda a more practical steer than she had had, and I think that my stab was more useful than the ’stock’ definition. As always though, I’m happy to be wrong, and it wouldn’t be the first time that I have had to apologise.

Frank, having quoted Linda, do you think your post actually helped to answer any of her questions? of course the answer to your question "Would it be fair to say ..", is probably, ‘no’. Wouldn’t it really rather depend on a number of factors including the cause(s) of the accident, whether any damage (if indeed damage was a causal factor) may have occurred after the formal inspection, and what arrangements there are in place for pre use checks etc? I really don’t think you can assume that a ’ladder accident’ automatically calls into question the competence, or otherwise of the person who has carried out the last formal inspection! If the serviceability or condition of the ladder was in question, then it MIGHT, otherwise, I suggest not. It seems to me to be a rather roundabout (almost perverse) way of thinking, to wait until you have an accident to decide or find out whether your people are competent or not.

Thanks for your feedback one and all, i'm off to save my compnay loads of money!

Betta, I think you could have your wires crossed. The original poster was asking about ladder inspection, not training in ladder safety.

Brian, I think you have made a very good point about competency which is always being discussed on these forums due to its nebulous nature. Competency must take into account the complexity of the task as well as the risks involved. Simple tasks like ladder inspections can be done by anyone with a basic understanding of ladders. They should be tagged and recorded as inspected in an inventory - job done. Funny thing ladders, I was asked yesterday by someone who wants to purchase some about the different certifications, standards and classes. I did not have a clue. A quick Google and a few minutes later I was an expert! For the record, Class 1 Heavy duty industrial use, Class EN131 Light trade use and Class 111 Light domestic use.

frankc, we all agree that working from height can be dangerous and people can be killed from relatively short heights. However, ladders and step ladders are used everyday by tens of thousands of workers without a serious accident. That said, the topic of the thread is about competency of inspection of ladders. Moreover, there will always be a worst case scenario, whatever the task or risk. The HSE are also very good at prosecuting after an adverse event, finding all sorts of issues that probably would not have been highlighted in a routine inspection and certainly would not have resulted in a prosecution.

Agree with point one, Ray...but would like to add that's little comfort to the 12 people on average each year who die falling from a ladder or the 1200 who suffer a major injury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladders.htm The topic was re competency but i asked the question has formal ladder training been given (either in house or external) to the OP's workforce because if someone is looking to save their company 'loads of money', imho, training is invariably one of the savings areas. Lindag has posted since but probably didn't see my question. I'll send her a PM.

Phil, why don't you just cheers up a little bit ;-) I bet working with you is a bundle of fun, if your confrontational manner on this forum is anything to go by. I was merely trying to highlight my thoughts, and was not trying to ridicule you. Just remember, we are all just offering advice to help. For what is is worth Frankc, clearly not a lot to Phil Rose, I thought you made a valuable point. I would rather cover all bases, than find out in hindsight, that something may have been overlooked.

Apology accepted, Phil. Like you said, it may not have been down to the competence of the ladder inspector should an accident have occurred. And the HSE may have decided the 'in house engineer' was equally competent as the chaps from Zurich Ins too.... Or on the other hand....:-)