I have a new (ish) FLT which is on permanent hire.
It was noticed (while not in use) that one of the forks was cracked and bent inwards.

Knowing the environment/mentality, I would say it is misuse with someone trying to nudge/move a heavy item sideways.

Is the cracked fork classed as a failure of lifting equipment and as such, reportable under LOLER.

Do you mean as a defect under LOLER or as a dangerous occurrence under RIDDOR?
Wouldn't it need to have been found during a thorough examination to be potentially reportable as a defect under LOLER, and then by the competent person doing the thorough examination and not by the employer?
And wouldn't it need to have actually snapped or similar (dropping the load) rather than just being damaged to be a RIDDOR failure?

In the light of FFI I would always err on the side of caution with any report now. The failure was discovered when not in use and thus no issue with LOLER or RIDDOR have occurred. If it had failed in use then no doubt you would need to report and face potential investigation and FFI invoice.

Bob

Again could only agree with Bob what has failed ,when? what are you reporting?

Another vehicle may have hit it whilst it was parked.

Ta Alex

Bob

I'm slightly puzzled by your comment at #5 that if the fork "had failed in use then no doubt you would need to report and face potential investigation and FFI invoice."

My understanding of FFI is that HSE will charge for visits and other work which relate to "material breaches" of OS&H legislation. Therefore, if an inspector investigates something which has been reported to HSE but does NOT identify that it stemmed from any clear legal breach, FFI surely will not apply.

If my understanding of FFI in this respect is wrong I'm happy to be corrected. However, if it's not wrong, it might help to reduce the unnecessary anxiety felt by some people about the prospect of a visit by an HSE inspector.

Graham

If you notify and there is an investigation then the HSE inspector could in fact, as I see it, find a material breach in some way and thence FFI follows. Reporting brings attention to potential breaches and a failure during lifting is likely to bring about a PN especially if the load falls to the ground with personnel in the vicinity. Report when necessary but not just in case!!!

KAJ safe doesn't say in his original post who noticed the damage to the lift fork. If it was an operator or someone else within the company, this would tend, as colinreeves suggests at #12, to indicate a "good, pro-active safety regime". Such a regime could also include appropriate in-house enquiries as to why the fork was cracked and bent.

boblewis - I'm still puzzled about your suggestion that an HSE inspector's investigation of the circumstances of the fork failing in use would be likely to result in a charge under FFI and a Prohibition Notice (PN). Perhaps the work methods and approaches of inspectors have radically changed since my time with HSE, especially with the recent introduction of FFI, so that inspectors are now conditioned to identify any circumstances which could be classed as a material breach in order to generate income under FFI. As for a PN regarding a reported fork failure incident, what activity would be the subject of the PN? If the fork is broken, it's unlikely to continue in use. Also, soon after such an incident, even a dimwitted manager would surely arrange for the remaining fork (and the forks of any other fork lift truck )to be checked and replaced if necessary.

On a general point, unless an incident results in death or serious injury and leads to police attending the scene and insisting that it be left untouched until the arrival of an HSE inspector, is there any obligation for an employer to leave an incident scene untouched? Even though many less serious incidents are notified to HSE, there's no certainty about if or when inspectors will investigate them.