Not sure I carch your drift there, John.

It is IMHO likely though that Local Authorities will suffer more than most from FFI. Such an easy target. Such a waste of public funds, transferring £££ form one public purse to pay another........

Councils being held responsible for hiring cheap cowboys perhaps??

My understanding is that HSE have high expectations of LAs, NHS Trusts etc. (as major procurers of construction work) to raise the general standard of the construction SMEs they engage. There is a I think a misguided perception I think that (compared to private industry) we have unlimited resources in this respect. The reality for LAs is that they deal with thousands of minor works orders every month. The amount that is subcontracted obviously depends on the limits of any internal resource. The stark reality is that LAs cannot directly supervise or scrutinise each and every job out there. Not uncommon too for the casual observer (and on occasion, the HSE Insepctor) to mistakenly presume that work being done of a "public" building or on housing stock is within the ambit of the LA. The plain fact of the matter may be that a higher proportion of commissioned LA work is highly visible in the public domain?

John An indication might be the latest ‘intensive inspections’ by the HSE in the refurbishment area of construction. It can be predicted that at least 20% of the sites visited will receive a Prohibition Notice. In such circumstances it could be anticipated each notice represents a material breach. So we can add maybe another few thousand quid to the costs of the shut down. The impact of the PN is already there as these are publicly registered and the effect is usually immediate. As many of the projects – but not all - in these inspections are on tight margins, the additional costs could have a significant impact on operating costs. It may put some out of business. However I have seen enough small/medium construction companies in the North East of England go out of business through lack of orders and cash flow problems: it is difficult to judge the additional ones that FFI may affect. However given the nature of the industry I would expect it will impact on some. I would think the owners/managing directors of such companies have more than the costs of material breaches on their mind. During the year a local small construction company had two year’s profits wiped out when another company owing them over £50,000 went bankrupt. The chance of getting any of the money owed to them back has worse odds than winning the lottery. So add the lack of orders; major competition for even small contracts; loads of construction workers not working; winter not being a good time for construction; large companies coming down the contract scale to tender cost only work smaller contracts to keep them ticking over; Local Authorities building reserves because they are uncertain about future changes; a Government that is only just waking up to the damage done to our roads over the last three years; and a shed load of other related issues, I’m not sure material breach costs will be at the forefront of construction business leader’s thoughts. It is just a guess here but for those who have even heard of FFI they may take the view that they will cross that particular bridge when they get to it: should their business survive, of course. Indeed even if they have a business that can build a bridge. This is not a post to condone not bothering with material breaches or health and safety standards but just recognition that desperate people do desperate things – and these are desperate times in many areas of construction. As with other compliance issues, until the cases where the costs of FFI can be seen clearly, I doubt whether it will register much. Once the first case carrying major costs is revealed then it may register more widely. Pity the multi-millionaires in Government couldn't do something to help construction. Cheers. Nigel