Ask if you can borrow Claire’s cloak (make sure you get the trumpet as well, obviously a matching accessory)

I think that this is the sort of thing that many of us have feared. WAs an IP really necessary? I can't help but feel that this may end up being counter productive in the longer term and that the 'relationships' that many of us will have built up with our inspectors for mutual benefit may well fly out of the window.

Ho hum!

:-) Sorry Clairel..... attention to detail..... Senior moment I think....

do you intend to appeal? Looking at the process it seems the cost escalation could be massive but it seems the only way to regain some sanity in the process.

No ian I don't intend to appeal, I'm a consultant & as such not an employee of the company; however despite my advice I don't believe the company intend to appeal either. Besides the whole appeal/dispute process is geared towards failure & increased costs, so it just seems a 'pain' anyway.

Personally speaking & fortunately enough for me, I’ve had what I consider to be the 'best years' & with the current situation & FFI it has all left me feeling a bit deflated & that now is a good time to 'wind down’ & retire. I’ll leave it to the younger ones to carry on the ‘fight’ to a safer & healthy workplace – where reasonably practicable of course – or is that now a thing of the past?

The post is not to clear, on what activity the operative was undertaking, was he perhaps cutting tarmac with water suppression and no mask??

I have seen on HSE guidance previously, an article in relation to what action an HSE inspector would take on this type of material breach. which was an IN.The FFI just gives this no substance at all, and will now be regarded as a money making scheme, and to be fair to the HSE inspectors most dont want the FFI scheme.

I know you like to lurk waiting to pounce on the errors of the h&s (whoops!) folk but this seems to be scraping the barrel.

But I think I have got him. Indium is In. Good fun this pedantry.

Context. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.

For sure in your world it may be more important to be more precise. Any who wishes to see why might select ICU for example.

However, human nature is to use shorthand in all sorts of ways in all professions and sectors. Indeed, medical and science staff regularly do so-------but in context!

This is a safety and health forum where the context is safety and health so a sensitive feel for context would suggest what it means to most of us here.

I could no doubt visit your world and throw constant criticism at your efforts and those of your colleagues, we are all fallible human beings.

But what purpose does such activity serve other than self gratification?

Don't get drawn in pete48........ my name sake might have found him useful on Shrove Tuesday.

Whilst on a site in Manchester the other day, I read on the notice board that the HSE had issued a notice to the individual employee for an almost identical occurance some time last year I believe.

After a bit of investigating the inspector decided that as the operative had been trained to use the equipment, was trained to carry out the particular task, was aware of the PPE/RPE requirments and had been issued the RPE/PPE but chose not to wear it he should get the notice not the employer. Could you not base any appeal on these grounds?

Just a thought.

Regards

Clive

HM Government won't care - it is them that championed/ introduced FFI in the first place. If anything, they will be rubbing their hands as they will be able to see that their initiative is working with regard to revenue.

Victor,

I appreciate that you are a consultant and it will be for your client to appeal not you. However, have you advised the client to appeal the IN rather than the FeeFI. If you successfully appeal the IN then there can have been no material breach and therefore no FeeFI.

Contrary to what you might be led to believe the HSE are not infallible and they constantly make mistakes in serving enforcement notices that allow them to be successfully appealed.

If you need more info please feel free to message me.

Kind regards.

DJ

I've tried really hard to NOT post this but this thread appears to have teased it out of me.
The last time I had an Inspector on one my sites (manufacturing/chemicals) was the summer of 2007.

Nothing further to add, one way or another, just a fact.

Currently Mandy I'm inundated with work & calls, so much so that I have called another person in to help & someone else part-time this morning........ Approximately 75% of the extra work is due to the fear of FFI....... not ideal really, but there you are.

Victor,
Bearing in mind i know your home town: A friend who lives about 7 miles north of you has been spoken to by a HSE inspector neighbour about some roof work she had done telling her the contractor was working unsafely. She feels he was bulling her: I had "words" and he backed off.

Potentially the same bloke perchance ?

Victor,

Before the company pays out even more money I suggest you get them to look at the following guidance:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/guidance/cn6.pdf

This states that the risk is extreme (in EMM terms) and that water suppression AND RPE should be worn.

End of story. The inspector was correct.

If need be, you could look at :

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf

This refers to stone specificlly but substitute that with any silica-containing product

and Inspector guidance on stonemasons - a similarly high RCS content to concrete products:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/fo...inspect/stonemasonry.pdf


I think you'll find that you are incorrect in your assumption that the Inspector was asking for more than was reasonably practicable. At a tribunal, an occupational hygiene inspector could be called (although to be honest, one would not be necessary given the amount of guidance on it) who would say that rain is not sufficient on it's own to control the risk. Under section 7 of COSHH they are expected to Control exposure by measures that are proportionate to the health risk and where adequate control of exposure cannot be achieved by other means, provide, in combination with other control measures, suitable personal protective equipment.

I suspect that many feel the use of discretion has been affected. Put it another way - is verbal advice sufficient for a company that feels rain is an adequate control measure to prevent their employee from a potentially debilitating or life threatening disease? The Inspector would have a way to go to eplain why he did not issue a notice in this instance but then I guess he can never win.

I can see why it seems to be a problem but the Inspector has applied the EMM correctly. As the risk from silica is high, the initial enforcement expectation from EMM is a notice with consideration of an improvement notice (e.g. for management systems) and consideration of prosecution. The inspector has used discretion and after applying dutyholder factors and other considerations has decided to just issue the notice (the PN is not negotiable where there is an immediate risk and he would have been hard pressed to say why he didn't issue one) and not issue an IN to back it up.

This may not seem fair - and maybe in the past verbal advice would have been given but this is not HSE's current guidance. HSE see this as fairer because there is now a measurable framework to benchmark the decisions of inspectors. While someone may have been given a nod and a wink in one location, someone else may have been prosecuted for it just down the road.

But let's not forget the risk is not fanciful in this instance and a lax attitude to controlling this risk can lead to cancer. It may only have been two kerbs but management should ensure compliance at all times. Those two kerbs may well be in excess of the benchmark 0.1mg/m3. Next time it may only be 3... Reasonably practicable applies to the company, not the Inspector and it really is quite reasonable to expect a mask and proper water suppression.

Construction inspectors have always made visits after just driving past somewhere. This has not changed because of FFI. In fact, I've seen a few posts on here in the past suggesting that HSE Inspectors were to blame for high rates of Fall accidents as they were not stopping when they passed a risky site. They really can't win.

Frankly, I think there will be a marked reduction in the times Inspectors do stop because of the hassle of finding someone to charge or the threat of violence which is a shame.