Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

FFI
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Invictus  
#1 Posted : 13 February 2013 11:25:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

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?
Norfolkboy  
#2 Posted : 13 February 2013 11:59:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Norfolkboy

Not really and I believe as the HSE becomes more experienced with this system the figure will only increase.
Phil Grace  
#3 Posted : 13 February 2013 13:14:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
Peter_OC  
#4 Posted : 15 February 2013 10:02:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Peter_OC

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.
CliveLowery  
#5 Posted : 15 February 2013 10:07:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CliveLowery

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
Farrall900153  
#6 Posted : 15 February 2013 10:13:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Farrall900153

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.
Peter_OC  
#7 Posted : 15 February 2013 10:19:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Peter_OC

Do we all get a pat on the back then?
DaveDowan  
#8 Posted : 15 February 2013 12:21:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DaveDowan

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
10MARK  
#9 Posted : 15 February 2013 13:34:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
10MARK

I think they are just getting warmed up ,lets see the figures after 6 months,I suspect they may increase exponentially !!
Clairel  
#10 Posted : 15 February 2013 15:15:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

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.
redken  
#11 Posted : 15 February 2013 15:49:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

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)
TonyCSS  
#12 Posted : 28 February 2013 13:02:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TonyCSS

Can anyone tell me where the figures are published?
smitch  
#13 Posted : 01 March 2013 13:56:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
smitch

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
NigelB  
#14 Posted : 01 March 2013 14:15:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Tony The figures are available in the HSE Chief Executive's Report to the Board: 30 January 2013: page 2. Should be found at: www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/m...013/300113/pjanb1306.pdf Cheers. Nigel
johnb  
#15 Posted : 01 March 2013 15:24:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnb

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
redken  
#16 Posted : 01 March 2013 15:31:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

Johnb, if you know this for a fact then I would suggest submitting it to the HSE Mythbusters!
johnb  
#17 Posted : 01 March 2013 15:43:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnb

its a fact read the notice myself, could not beleive it.
chas  
#18 Posted : 01 March 2013 16:08:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chas

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.
TonyCSS  
#19 Posted : 05 March 2013 09:36:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TonyCSS

NigelB Smitch, Thanks, got the figures from the Exec Board Report.
John J  
#20 Posted : 05 March 2013 22:02:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

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
damelcfc  
#21 Posted : 06 March 2013 08:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

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.
damelcfc  
#22 Posted : 06 March 2013 08:12:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

*should say 'was NOT needed at the time'
Dean Elliot  
#23 Posted : 06 March 2013 09:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dean Elliot

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.
Victor Meldrew  
#24 Posted : 07 March 2013 11:11:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

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.
Canopener  
#25 Posted : 07 March 2013 11:31:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

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 :-)
djupnorth  
#26 Posted : 07 March 2013 18:50:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
djupnorth

JohnB, If that is correct, where is the "material breach". The matter should be appealed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.