The company has decided that to ease admin tasks they will provide only 3 variations of regulation ankle support safety boots and will no longer contribute to fashionable makes. As usual there is 1 person who does not like any of these designs and wishes to purchase his own. As long as he obtains the correct specification boots for the work area is do we need t obtain a declaration from the 1 person stating that he has been offered company funded PPE and has refused them, just in case.

I agree with PH2 - we now only issue standard boots unless there is a medical reason that more suitable ones are needed.

I had one chap like you a couple of years ago and got him to sign a form stating that he refused to wear the standard issue kit and that he was contributing £X towards a different pair of boots.

We used to pay £40 ish and he made up the rest with his own money - I wanted this in writing to be safe.

Don't do it now as it is difficult to police and ensure they meet our spec.

SW , this 'form' is what i am interested in. There are no issues medically with the boots its just personal preference. As there is only 1 person who is refusing to wear the company PPE it is not going to be an issue checking that he has the correct spec boots. I dont feel at this time that it could lead to anything disciplinary but need a compromise as the company will provide 3 models only and no cash alternative so the employee will be totally funding his own, which he is happy to do.
During site audits / inspections PPE is regularly checked both by us and our clients.

Whilst I can understand personal preference is, well, a personal thing, allowing some deviation from the company 'standard' is the thin end of the wedge. Once it is becomes known that this employee can decide for themselves what to wear, how long before other people beat a path to your door?

You can (and should if you allow this) insist on a standard to meet and you can police one person's preference but you say you're going to offer 3 choices anyway and it's not medically related; what are you going to say when the rest of the workforce find the supplied footwear is 'not as comfortable as I thought', or that they too want their needs pandered to?

You'll be policing multiple footwear types for compliance and the standard policy will be a thing of the past I fear

I am all in favour of people feeling comfortable with what they are wearing and if they have a degree of choice they tend to wear it without much fuss, but if they decide that the are not then section (2) informs them that they must fortunately we have never had to look at discipinary measures, although if employees do not turn up with PPE provided or part purchased by themselves then they have to clock off and go home for it. They can then make the hours back up or lose the pay.

So your problem is on the one hand, you want to make the admin of this easier, but on the other it would be nice if the employees were happy also.

So how about :-

Allowing a 4th authorised boot on the standard list to be picked from, its only one more. This boot is above the standard range in terms of cost, for which the employee ( any employee) can select and add the extra money to. It should not make admin any worse, allows all employees to have a “more comfortable” boot if they desire, No useless waivers (which would never work), you only have to police 4 types.

The man is happy, you are happy as you have a streamlined system. If you need other managerial buy in you could suggest that the extra cost may not be just the logo, but may be better quality (may not, but may), and the employee will probably look after them better as they have contributed, so will last longer before replacement.

We used to keep stocks of some boots, so it will need to be clear that this is special order only.

I think this would mean everyone is a winner, and if done correctly the employee will feel the H&S person is a good guy (ok a bit farfetched, but you can pretend).

Alternatively your option is to say no and suggest if he does not pick from the three options you will select for him. He has a duty to use anything provided for his safety.

It was not there the first time I hit post, honest.

Be aware you need to be careful if claiming vat back on your PPE. An employee buying their own boots does not pay vat but an employer does.

Good suggestions already mentioned, we actually only offer 1 standard safety boot and unless there is a medical condition for an employee requiring something different, the company don't contribute to any other designs. The strange thing is, we don't have any complaints!

I can definitely see mileage in adopting a policy where the employer sets a financial limit (and offers a boot(s) within this) and then if employees want something more flashy, they pay the difference (unless a medical condition dictates).

But I think the important issue is the bigger picture. All organisations have limited resources, therefore we must as OSH professionals look to best allocate and use these resources. Whilst our policy cannot be considered "best practice" we have much more important risk factors to work to reduce / improve that will have a greater impact on the overall risk management framework. I think you also need to ask yourself how important (in the overall scale of OSH) is this for you.

I believe John J has it the right way round - a normal 'joe public' buying safety boots does not pay VAT. A retailer does not charge VAT on safety boots - see eg http://www.screwfix.co.uk/ and look for safety boots - walk in off the street to your local screwfix branch and you won't pay VAT on safety boots.

However, a company buying safety boots to issue to their workforce should pay VAT (in so far as a company ever pays it - ie probably not because they are probably a net collector of VAT). Whether this happens as it should is less certain - if I walk in off the street to my local Screwfix and buy safety boots I won't pay VAT, but if I'm buying them on behalf of my employer, which I believe would be the case if I subsequently claim for them 'on expenses' then VAT should have been charged (but won't have been).

A lot of organisations sell shoes and boots, boots are VAT free but shoes are not. Therefore, when selling to an organisation who claim the VAT back anyway, it is easier to charge VAT across the board. However, when selling to Joe Public who is normally only buying either a pair shoes or boots, probably not both, they can either charge VAT or not specific to the individual requirements.