Rank: Super forum user
|
Like a lot of posers I think that the FFI scheme will backfire.
a) There will be a lot of businesses particularly SMEs who will find themselves either paying out to the HSE or paying out to consultants to try to prevent paying out to the HSE- so much for less burden on business
b) There will be a breakdown in trust between employers and the HSE as people will no longer be able to have a friendly word with the HSE but will be striving to avoid that bill.
c) I don’t think that it will generate as much extra income as the government thinks, which will pressurise the HSE to tighten the screws to get more cash which will make points a) and b) worse
d) A lot of this extra money will be swallowed up in the extra costs that the process will generate eg employers will now expect the HSE to deliver letters and feedback on time, in a coherent format. We have over the years had a number of visits from inspectors and the feedback has been erratic. In the past we did not mind as we understood that they were busy but now I would expect some sort of response asap. And of course there will be the cost of managing all of those appeals.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Dean Elliot wrote:
Some Inspectors may think differently but then it has always been thus.
That is the key Dean. Because having read your posts I can definately dispuiute many of the things you have said as being how you operate and not how all inspectors operate. You seem to be quoting the 'official' line yet I can say that the official line is not how all (or IMO most) inspectors inspect.
Discretion is discretion and no one can regulate how each individual inspector applies that. There is no way anyone can know what an inspector uses discretion on. It has always been possible to not put an enforcement notice on something and not even send a letter, it would depend on the business as a whole and the inspectors feel for the company. As well as just indivdual approach. I use the example of an unguarded milling machine or pillar drill. Walked away from many with no PN or IN or letter, just a verbal and I definately wasn't alone in that.
EMM is completely easy to manipulate.
No targets. Were we in the same HSE??????
I can only offer the advice to others that you can speak to one inspectOr and get one impression and speak to another and get another impression. Although Dean offers the opinion that is business as usual no change, open and transparent etc I would often caution that another inspector may see and operate differently.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The thing is Claire, things were like that - and may be still with some but internally within HSE the miscroscope has come out to look at every small decision - and these have to be justified. If some Inspectors are still working the way you suggest, they won't be for long. EMM has changed and is less open to interpretation. But the decision to give or not give a notice will not change whether or not the visit is chargeable as the EMM only allows Inspectors to go one step up or down from notice to letter or vice versa. THAT is what will be looked at with every interaction by the PI.
I agree with every single point of A Kurdziel too. The problems will come with investigations - having an accident will be an expensive business.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
One more thing,
Walking away fom an unguarded machine with just verbal advice hasn't been the norm for a long time - certainly in my region. There'd be an email from the data checkers to the Band 1 in less than a week! Not to mention awkward questions if a case was taken.
Even if you did decide not to issue a notice, the changes to HSE's policies recently mean that you would be expected to send a letter if you use your discretion as you will have to follow the EMM.
To be fair Claire, these are facts that you may disagree with - but when EMM first came out and even quite recently, not many people fully understood it. Some may not still but you can bet that there are a few people looking at the decisions quite closely.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
'I agree with every single point of A Kurdziel too. The problems will come with investigations - having an accident will be an expensive business.'
Indeed it will, a bonanza I would think with ENs being hand out like confetti. I wonder if prosecutions will decline still further with the HSE preferring ENs to bolster their kitty?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You've missed my point too Ray.
FFI does not rely on serving notices. It is the severity of the breach that will determine whether it is chargeable. An Inspector cannot change the severity of the breach. If an Inspector decides not to issue a notice it will still be chargeable. If an inspector decides to issue a notice where the risk gap is nominal, it can be challenged and they will have to justify the decision on the basis of the EMM.
I would suggest that in order to understand how HSE will be working - and to be able to counter any charges that you think unfair, an understanding of EMM is vital for all. Examples are also given in the FFI guidance.
Will it result in more notices? Possibly, but only because Inspectors will be forced to justify their decisions more than ever. But NOT because Inspectors will want to make more money for HSE as some have suggested. That just cannot happen under the current system. This would be fraudulent.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
'FFI does not rely on serving notices. It is the severity of the breach that will determine whether it is chargeable. An Inspector cannot change the severity of the breach. If an Inspector decides not to issue a notice it will still be chargeable.'
Dean, it my understanding that HSE inspectors can only serve an EN for a 'material breach' and only charge for issuing ENs. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:'FFI does not rely on serving notices. It is the severity of the breach that will determine whether it is chargeable. An Inspector cannot change the severity of the breach. If an Inspector decides not to issue a notice it will still be chargeable.'
Dean, it my understanding that HSE inspectors can only serve an EN for a 'material breach' and only charge for issuing ENs. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
Ray - a material breach is where an inspector is required to notify a dutyholder in writing that there is something requiring remedial action. The notification can be either a Notice of Contravention (similar to the old incident visit form), a letter, an IN, a PN or a combination of all of them. In fact, it's probably easier, if you wanted to rack up lots of money, not to engage in complicated Notices and simply hand out loads of Notices of Contravention; for which the whole of the visit becomes then becomes chargeable & any follow up (not jsut the part dealing with the contravention). The EMM lays out the criteria for when written notification is appropriate,
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Good evening
I understand that there won't be targets - rather there will be 'Expectations' of the amount of cash to be brought in by each Inspector (pass my copy of '1984' someone!).
The opening paragraph of the new guidance document was enough to ring alarm bells - the HSE will have a 'Duty' to recover costs - so inevitably there will be pressure on Inspectors to do just that.
Expect more letters and notices - they bring money in; and fewer prosecutions - they cost far too much money.
Are the cowboys threatened by this - I doubt it, why go after minnows with no money? Far more likely to get the bills paid without that costly court action if the target is a well established company with a healthy bank statement - or the public sector that can't run away.
Call me cynical? We shall see.
|
|
|
|
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.