Just an observation about official bodies giving out the wrong and/ or poor information Can I advise all that on occasions I have come across official bodies that are providing incorrect and poor information to their sector The point here is to give you a 'heads up' so as you can counter this area at the pass before it causes too much trouble in your area especially so as none expert people; from headteachers to builders etc, look to these bodies to give them [free] advice NB: I always write to these bodies explaining the situation in the hope that they will put their houses in order as most offer an excellent service/ information area

unfortunately (or perhaps that should be fortunately) we are all human. Just look at the number of opinions expressed here! Hands up those of us who have never made a mistake. I'm still typing with 2 hands. It does not matter if you work for a public body a private body whether you are a practitioner an enforcer CMIOSH or anything else you care to throw into the mix - no one is perfect.

Rich "And would the HSE prosecute the official body" What if the HSE is the official body? I have written to the HSE on several occasions pointing our errors in some of their guidance in my particular area of expertise, including the COSHH ACoP, which actually contradicts itself. I have yet to see them review the evidence and make the appropriate changes. It seems the HSE is always right, even when they are wrong! I even had a client issued with an Improvement Notice that insisted he change from the correct glove (butyl) for the chemical (acetone) in question to one that was totally unsuitable (nitrile). On this occasion, when I responded to the client that under no circustances should he implement the IN and gave the reasons, he forwarded it to the local HSE office. The IN was then withdrawn, but as he said, had he not had the knowledge from me he would probably have implemented the IN, with potentially disastrous results. He now treats all advice and guidance from the HSE with caution and always obtains alternative advice. Chris

Brian, I have - she's my Lifestyle Director. But on a serious note, I try to remember to ask where they've come up with the information from - is it in some guidance or publication or webpage they can direct me to so at least I can look at it myself and see if I agree or see if what they are saying makes sense. If need be I can then go back to them with further questions to clarify things. Sometimes there's just silence on the other end of the line because the person has limited knowledge. Would the HSE Challenge Panels that are being set up look into these sort of poor/incorrect/OTT requirements rather than having to go through the Employment Tribunals system (which you can only do for IN and PNs anyway, not informal advice).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so nobody could claim that had never heard of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or of the need to do a ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment. Bu the law, as we all know is rarely prescriptive, and the actions that need to be carried out are usually in the form of guidance or an ACop. If these are followed then it would be difficult for any enforcement body to turn around and say ‘So you followed our guidance but had an accident, therefore we must get you’ . What is more interesting if the guidance does not come from the HSE for example but from some other body, Ofsted for example. If you follow their guidance and it goes wrong, can you use the fact that their guidance was wrong as a defence?

I remember discussing this many years ago with a very well known occupational hygienist with many years experience and one of the leaders in his field. His view was that the court might well ask whether there was sufficient information in the public domain that the person responsible for the decision that led to the damage to health could be reasonably expected to know the real facts. In his view, supported later when I discussed this with a lawyer versed in health and safety law, was that merely following official guidance would then not be accepted as an extenuating circumstance. However, at the time we could find no case law on this and I am not aware of any having occurred since. (But to be fair I haven't looked that hard. Maybe I should!) Chris

Colleagues for info: The official 'body' in this case was not the HSE but another government body; a body that has a very large amount of power, is far reaching and where many professionals get their information from to support their occupations in the running of educational areas The information therein; as quoted last week, was 'almost' correct when it was put on their official web site but correct for 1994 and not 2012 --- My problem is gaining trust as the professionals concerned use this and similar sites as their fundamental guidance areas for almost all that they do and they are even measured against some of the areas concerned, so gaining their trust away from the official guidance to an individual is not easy