Rank: Forum user 
|
We have had a visit of the back of an occupational asthma declaration (we are a bakery)
we have masks in place with training, LEV in place with training and occupational health service in place with weekly visits and lung tests
the inspector observed a number of individuals not putting the LEV in the best place to capture the maximum amount of flour dust and felt that the standard LEV hood could be improved, we had training in place for using LEV but it didn't state where to place it
result FFI for Reg 7 of COSHH (information and training) and a follow up visit with a written letter
I don't dispute what has been said, improving the training in this way and improving the LEV hood can only be a good thing but is this really the material breach that we were led to believe?
I have a lot of respect for this inspector, on this visit and others he has been very helpful, given excellent advice and worked with us to improve things
We have reduced accidents by 30% and working practices are now good to very good in most areas
I will certainly continue to contact him and ask his advice, I feel that he had no choice and that any visit will now result in an FFI invoice.
My advice to my senior management team will be to expect a £,000 bill following any visit.
Forget an appeal, you have to register an dispute which will be heard at FFI rates and then you can appeal also at FFI rates only if you win do you get the money back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ianjones wrote: but is this really the material breach that we were led to believe?........... I think its going to be a case of "I hear what you say but there is very little I can do". Very worrying times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This was always the worry that inspectors have got their hands tied now with discretion being eroded.
I assume that because you have declared a case of occupational asthma the inspector had no choice but to go down the route of being seen to take action. The worry is that this will lead to more under reporting of injuries and illnesses as businesses begin to fear reporting anything that may prompt a visit that could result in FFI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
@ Clairel #3
and the reality is (as we have discussed times without number on the RIDDOR? threads) its 'implied' in MOST employed safety managers of bigger firms who objectivise < RIDDOR than year before that 'reasons NOT to report' are already explored to minutia.
Its almost a cardinal sin to report already - unless its so obvious that there is not a mm of wriggle room
just saying....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ianjones wrote:I have a lot of respect for this inspector, on this visit and others he has been very helpful, given excellent advice and worked with us to improve things And yet he didn't comment on this before now? Seems just a little bit sinister - a suspicion of a directive or edict to invoke FFI as a result of a reactive (RIDDOR) visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.