IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
client and principal contractor taking the mickey
Rank: Forum user
|
This is the first time I've come across this situation as CDM-C all the previous clients and PC's have been half decent at least.
A local company is acting as Client and PC on a small project to demolish a bungalow and replace it with a new timber framed bungalow. They started the project and soon got an improvement notice (for no CDM-C) and a prohibition notice (for no asbestos survey). Subsiquently did asbestos survey, it came back as non licensable. Then our company was engaged as CDM-C so I notified, gave the usual notice of duties etc and advised that a CP plan and welfare must be in place and to look out for the posibility of deep trenches due to ground conditions (other usual advice as well) the client/PC has gone quiet as far as I am concerned but continued building.
The client/PC's attitude is why should he bother to provide welfare etc and has reluctantly supplied a portaloo and hung a notice on an old garden shed which is completely full of rubbish and unusable, which says canteen - welfare. On a passing visit there are 2M deep trenches dug by a sub contractor and large piles of spoil on the trench edges waiting for concrete and blockwork. In my view a death trap.
I know what I am planning to do on Monday, but would like any opinions from other members who may have come across this type of situation.
Thanks for any opinions.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How do you get a Notice for non-appointment of CDM-C when the Regs say those duties then default to the Client?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello Ron, the notice states that the inspector is of the opinion that the person in control of non domestic premises is in contravention of the following statutory provisions
HASAWA section 2(1) & 3(1)
CDM regs R14 (appointment of CDM-C) & R16 (ensuring that an adequate CP plan is in place)
Reasons for said oppinion
That a CDM-C has not been appointed
An appropriate CP plan not available
The site has not been notified
A CDM-C must be competent, even if it defaults to the client then they are contravening the regs by not appointing a competent person.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Terry
Not sure how the non-compliance was flagged up to the HSE when presumably with no CDM-C there was also no F10? However, from a professional perspective this must be a difficult project to be involved with and no doubt you are considering whether you wish to be associated with such a project. Personally, I think these cowboys deserve all they get. ;)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A technical point I know, butI honestly don't think the Client can be found to be in breach of Reg 14, by virtue of Regulation 14(4)(a). I wonder if there's case law on that?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ron, I've just re-read the relevant sections of the regs rather than the ACOP and agree the client would be deemed to be both CDM-C & PC but 14(1) would probably be breached because there is no appointment in writing of competent dutyholders. Also the default client / PC would be in breach of secitions 16, 20 to 24 and several other sections although a prosecution would be for breach of the HASAWA rather than the CDM regs as the technicality you've highlighted would be argueable, especially if there isn't an case law. The regs infer that a notifiable project can't operate without a CDM-C and a PC in place, therefore the client must assume these roles so that there is always someone responsible (liable for prosecution).
RayRapp, I did hear that a local resident called the HSE over the asbestos issue. I intend to call our client (followed by a letter) later today. I'm not entirely sure which way it will go yet as it depends on the clients attitude. Also I'm not entirely sure how to break association with the contract as far as the F10 goes, I'm not keen to call the HSE re this but you can't just remove the CDM-C from the online form, so I'll have get their advice. Agreed companies like this deserve all they get, but they usually get away with it until some poor sod get's badly hurt or killed and having been on the receiving end of some near fatalities in construction I don't like to think that workers are left at risk partly because I've walked away from someone who's happly to break the law.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
client and principal contractor taking the mickey
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.