Rank: Super forum user
|
Now that the Fee For Intervention (FFI) scheme has been in effect for two months, the HSE has released figures for bills totalling over £700,000, following investigations at over 900 premises.
Anyone else find this shocking?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Not really and I believe as the HSE becomes more experienced with this system the figure will only increase.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The amount collected so far equates to c£4.2m across a 12 month period. Given that the impact assessment prepared by the HSE estimated c£35m to £40m (depends which report one read) the inspectors have got to do a bit more work to meet senior management expctations!
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Shocking at how low the figure is,
£700000/£124 per hour is 5645 hours of work,
A working week of 37.5 hours is then 150 weeks of work, take the 2 months as being 8 weeks and you are left with the employment of 19 inspectors. Maybe the FFI will not pay as much as was hoped, or we will be looking at a drastic rise in fees. The money has to come from somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Putting a positive spin on it - perhaps its safer than we think out there and the inspectors have not felt there was a material breach and no need to intervene.
Clive
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Before FFI came into force there was a fear that inspectors would run amok to generate as much revenue as possible.
It seems these fears may be unfounded since, as clivelowery has suggested (#5), inspectors may not have found a serious need to intervene.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Do we all get a pat on the back then?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would rather see what the cost was per intervention , did all of the 900 premises visited recieve bills? if so thats an average of £778.00 each.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think they are just getting warmed up ,lets see the figures after 6 months,I suspect they may increase exponentially !!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Peter_OC wrote:Shocking at how low the figure is,
£700000/£124 per hour is 5645 hours of work,
A working week of 37.5 hours is then 150 weeks of work, take the 2 months as being 8 weeks and you are left with the employment of 19 inspectors. Maybe the FFI will not pay as much as was hoped, or we will be looking at a drastic rise in fees. The money has to come from somewhere.
What absolute nonsense figures because they assume that 100% of the inspectors time is spent on FFI.
Travel
Non inspection work
Admin work
Union meetings
Group meeting
Meetings
Meetings
Chatting over cups of tea in the office......tea....more tea.........
I thought the figure was quite high myself being as it will take time for them to warm up.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interestingly none of us on the Forum appear to have experience of an FFI case. ( I am not counting the Victor one since I judge that to be not proven)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Can anyone tell me where the figures are published?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
TonyCSS wrote:Can anyone tell me where the figures are published?
Tony
According to health and safety at work magazine (March edition) the figures were obtained by law firm DWF under a Freedom of Information request.
HTH
smitch
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
FFI issued by an inspector for an operative having a dust mask dangling round his neck. He was not using the mask or creating any dust. Inspector issue notice of contravention(FFI) becase he had not shaved so mask did not fit properly.
Is this really going to improve health and safety standards. What was wrong with some advice.
Johnb
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Johnb,
if you know this for a fact then I would suggest submitting it to the HSE Mythbusters!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
its a fact read the notice myself, could not beleive it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Would love to know how much the Notice is invoiced for. Is the Inspector expecting to make a return visit to see that the operative has shaven.......and charge accordingly. I'm beginning to get a wee bit cynical about all this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
NigelB Smitch, Thanks, got the figures from the Exec Board Report.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnb wrote:FFI issued by an inspector for an operative having a dust mask dangling round his neck. He was not using the mask or creating any dust. Inspector issue notice of contravention(FFI) becase he had not shaved so mask did not fit properly.
Is this really going to improve health and safety standards. What was wrong with some advice.
Johnb
If its dangling round his neck he had either worn it or was intending to.
If he's not clean shaven he's reducing the effectiveness of the seal.
Perhaps you need to ask what your supervisors are doing because they dropped the ball on this one.
Is it improving health and safety - yes
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rubbish.
If anything the individual should have been the subject of the FFI for not using the PPE provided in good faith by the Company to fulfill their legal obligations.
If the individual has had his face fit training he knows damn well about shaving/face seal.
Now that message would be a great one - what has happened is complete tosh.
Although I hear the point loud and clear that it was needed at the time also - which, if true, is also grounds for not paying.
Something doesn't add up.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
*should say 'was NOT needed at the time'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The fact that it was not needed at the time is neither here nor there. It was provided for use for a reason and he was wearing it ready for use which suggests that it may have been needed in the not too distant future.
Unfortunately the chap decided not to shave.
Presumably he had training which told him that he should and he has a legal duty but ultimately the company have a duty to ensure that he does not put himself at any risk. It's not a difficult task. You may not like it, you may think it unfair but that is the way it is.
Depending on the risk that the employee faced, it is a proportional response to issue a notice where an individual is at risk. That decision is influenced by a myriad of other factors that are particular to every individual case such as previous history, general conditions on site and whether the Inspector feels that advice will be heeded. So the decision can never be second guessed.
If the company feels agrieved then the notice can be appealed. I would suggest that the only way the appeal would be successful were if there were no risk and the mask did not need to be worn. That would also mean that the deicision to charge under FFI could be challenged but unless the risk can be shown to be fanciful, then the Inspector was quite right and under the current guidance, a charge under FFI was correct.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
redken wrote:Interestingly none of us on the Forum appear to have experience of an FFI case. ( I am not counting the Victor one since I judge that to be not proven)
Maybe I should have updated you/everybody redken, but been extremely busy. Anyway, invoice of £1116 received, not challenged/disputed & subsequently paid.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I certainly think that it is going to change the relationship(s) that many of us will have built up with our local inspectors over the years. I have always considered my interaction with the HSE to be very much ‘partnership working’. I don’t know about others, but I am certainly less likely to contact the inspector for a chat about any issues that I might be having and where I might need a ‘helping hand’. That option that I am sure others will have used in the past, may well not be an option anymore.
I don’t have a problem where there are significant breaches and where the risk is ‘high’ but to use FFI and ‘material breaches’ ‘willy nilly’ is IMVHO a step in the wrong direction, and I hope that it isn’t merely used as a ‘cash cow’.
That old chestnut “Hello, I’m from the HSE and I’m here to help” is sounding even more hollow :-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnB, If that is correct, where is the "material breach". The matter should be appealed
|
|
|
|
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.