YO HO HO and all that malarcy this is the second time I have tried to get this post onto the forum so I hope it goes through this time. As always apologies if this topic has been done to death but having tried the search feature cant really get anything definitive. So the scenario is as follows contractor has a reactive maintenance/inspection /service type contract in place with a client (who through contract negotiations has passed the duty holder responsibilities back to the contracor). The contractor has to attend to callouts immediatley and 99% of the time would need to access flat roof space. Full edge protection in the form of scaffold etc is not an option as the reactive nature of the callout etc deems it unsuitable/ not appropriate. ie we need it fixing and we need it fixing now. Having looked at HSG 33 I have devised a possible SSOW and am suggesting that routine inspection may be controlled with a certain time frame ie 0-15 mins no physical fall prevention but rigouous instruction etc would be provided in the RAMS. the 15 min time frame would allow operative onto roof space. moveto laction of task. assess likely lentgh of task and based on that assessment the second phase of the SSOW would kick in. 15 mins - 4 hours use a man portable demarcation system that once assembled creates a safe working zone from point of access to the roof to the task location. The demarcation system would be assembled such that it is min 2m from any edge. The system would prevent a fall physically but it does create that safe working zone and again in the RAMS strict instruction would be given that operative would not step outside the demarcated zone. Anything longer than 4 hours I am suggesting a re assessment of the task with more sturdy edge protection in place. As it stands there are no eyebolts for guys to harness up and clip into once on the roof, there are no man safe systems in place and would you belive no edge protection in place either. So the questions 1. is 0- 15 mins to long without some form of demarcation , or would rigouros methodology in the RAMS suffice 2. The demarcation system would be man portable but could mean frequent trips up and down a ladder to get it from ground to roof level (does any one have any suggestions how to remove the up and down the ladder Idea) This SSOW is still at the early stages of development and I am using a combination of Google earth and attending sites for survey purposes. I am recommending Ladder Access Points with eyebolts to be secured in place for tying in ladders for accessing the roof. Installing mansafe sytems and eyebolts throught the properties is not really an option as the client has already passed the duty holder responsibilities back to the contractor. Guys . . . any ideas Have a good one all the best L

RayRapp thanks for the reply can you belive 104 views and only one reply L

Why; if the client has passed the duty holder responsibilities back to the contracor are U creating the SSOW's as that must now be the contractors duty and can U define just what U mean by 'duty holder responsibilities' e.g. which duties

My initial thought was people are going up there for maintenance/inspection duties so as it isn't a one off, it should have something permanent in place to avoid a fall. The 2m from the edge is ok in principal but what about accessing the roof from the ladder and coming back down it? Surely they have to be nearer than 2m from the edge twice? You said 'The contractor has to attend call outs immeadiately?' During the night in darkness? Heavy rain? Snow? Ice? Winds? Suddenly that 2m might not be enough.

No worries Ray - these things can be ballasted. Note of caution only because I've seen these very flimsy plastic barriers used - it doesn't take much to blow them over. Contractors are often quick to do the job, but tardy in taking everything away. There will be many organisations out there blissfully unaware of all manner of "stuff" left on their roofs over the years!

Reading the initial post my perception is that the contractor's work is primarily situated at height, on a roof. If this is the case then the building owner / occupier will need to determine if investment in edge protection is more suitable against the time, cost and effort in removing or reducing risk of fall from height. For the building owner / occupier to determine this they would obviously consider such issues as frequency of contractor accessing the roof, availability of funding, practicalities determining types of edge protection or methods of access. Importantly, the building occupier must assess the practicability of removing any recurring defect / maintenance which necessitates the need for work on the roof. Overall it could be cheaper to design / engineer a solution as work at height is also potentially costly in terms of providing access, handling materials and equipment, engaging a competent contractor in the first instance. In terms of employer liability your company cannot delegate its statutory duties to a contractor. They will still have liabilities under HASAWA 74, ss. 2, 3 & 4 in terms of contractor engagement. Apart from these main employer duties there is also the practicalities of any personnel working on the roof, and the need for compliance with other associated legislation (e.g. WAH, FSO, MHSAWR, etc). So, if this roof work is frequently undertaken, my advice would be to apply the WAHR 05 hierarchy of control, and assess the feasibility of designing / engineering a solution, to remove the need to work at height. If not reasonably practicable, then obviously the variety of WAH industry controls must be considered. MEWP's can be an expedient solution if suitable for the task, and overall cost effective.

Seasons greetings all. My view is the Client requires an attendance to fix his systems therefore he has to ensure safety for the engineer. HASAWA74. Therefore the client needs to install edge protection - in the form of a handrail around the access part/s of the flat roof. The engineer will need to ensure his own safety while accessing the roof by ladder. No transfer of responsibility - both have a duty of care. If the engineer has doubts about his safety then don't do the work.

Greetings to all, and all the best Not enough information? As is that sometimes the case? I feel in the many scenarios that may present themselves with this kind of work competence is the key for the people assessing and conducting the work. For that reason and a number of the posts have highlighted the relevant legislation not least CDM and Work at Height Regs and the Hierarchy of controls and then of course SFARP. My advice would be to ensure all are trained and competent in not only work at height but also risk assessment and method statement, it alright having all the systems and procedures but if the personnel at the sharp end do not have the training, experience and awareness of the principals of prevention and the authority to stop a task until it is planned and resourced safely, then there is risk for all, from client contractor, and more importantly the chaps at the dangerous end of the activity. unfortunately I and I am sure many others have had the misfortune of attending an accident investigation where the planning has not been there, and even when the planning and resource has been there and it has gone wrong because something changed and was not re-assessed. the post was sent as the chap presenting it is not entirely satisfied that controls are in place, and I should think not as the contract should be to react quickly and then suitably plan and effect repairs, which may not be in the timescales they are going to be happy with, but each scenario is different, and requires tackling with the controls and resource required to meet the challenge of the task, which sound fairly high risk to me maintenance does not get the resource in planning and access that say a construction task would get, that's why so many people fall from height whilst conducting maintenance work.