A scenario if you will. Our offices are in one block (6 stories) of a multi occupied office complex. As such the external window cleaning is done by a contractor directly engaged by the landlord, NOT my company. 3 or 4 times a year a cherry picker turns up in the main courtyard and a couple of guys get in it and start cleaning the windows. However, on every occasion they have used a fall arrest (bungee) lanyard instead of a fall restraint one. Over the last few years I have raised the issue, firstly as a simple point of note through our facilities management team to discuss with the landlord, then with the guys in the MEWP (and yes you guessed it, I got the proverbial bird!) and just last week with the boss of the window cleaning company. His response "sure they can only die once, hee, hee". In total I have raised the issue 5 times now. So being a conscientious safety professional just how far does one go to assure the safety of someone elses staff when they show no interest themselves? Just interested in your views as it has really peeved me off, but that wont help if someone was to be injured, I will still probably feel bad!

Hi Jonty Playing Devil's advocate here......Is there a reason why they should wear a Faill Restraint rather than a fall arrest? The risk assessment undertaken by the company (assuming there is one) may have identified that the fall arrest is the Ppe which will provide the better protection for the foreseeable hazards. My experience of MEWP's is that the Fall Restraint is useful when there is a possibility that the users will climb up the sides of the basket but that fall arrest is the better system where the potential is for the basket to fail and thus the person falls from the basket. Not sure that there is a right or wrong, but would definitely be something that should have been considered and covered by their risk assessment.

A restraint is required to keep people in the basket, even if the machine topples over or is hit. A fall from a basket with a fall arrest equipment could, in the wrong circumstances cause the machine to topple over as it will not with stand the shock loading. I agree with Cooper103721 - report them to the HSE when they are next on site, they normally respond quick enough to catch them, especially if you inform them what steps you have already taken. The response from "The Boss" is shocking but all to familiar, he needs reminding of the consequences.

Don't do anymore. As stated you or your company are not responsible for the safety of the window cleaners. You can't go around worrying about stuff outside of your control. Harsh, but true.

Thanks for the last 2 posts folks, the sanity check! That's the balance I am struggling with to be honest. We have NO duty or obligation to them but if in the future I was to be looking over the shoulders of the crowd around the paramedics securing the window cleaner to a spinal board, would that make me feel OK? Is that when I wrestle with issues of morality, or is that too late? Thanks for all the responses, just helping me clarify my thoughts, much appreciated.

Whay don't you put it in writing to the company explaining your concerns. It's not as though if the HSE or the LA turn up and pull them on it they won't put two and two together. If they don't want to play then leave them to it and save your fights to improve the safety standards for the employees of the company you work for.

Why not tell the Landlord you will contact the HSE if you see them doing this again. After all it is not just the contractor that the HSE etc would be interested in. Say you feel it only fair that you warn him /her. Offer to explain to them (landlord the reason for the difference), they may not understand. It is possible that despite the Bosses response that they will actually do something. Would not an arrest harness be more expensive than a restraint harness ?. Cost saving for inconsiderate boss. If you were in the street and noticed a mother with push chair about to walk in front of a moving vehicle, due to being distracted ( conversation or phone or whatever), would you not shout or intervene. Would you not help and injured person if you could. Surly if you would do either of these, then why wait for the accident before helping. What an interesting world we live in.

Thanks Chris Just running this thread has been a great benefit, thank you one and all. I have arranged to meet the Landlords agent on Monday and will try to impress upon them that it is in everyones interest to prevent an accident. I also remembered that I gave a reference for the Safety Manager working for the Facilities Service Provider (landlord also) as he used to work for me, so I dropped him an email to give me a call! ta

I agree that if the lanyard is too long to be effective then it should be a restraint, but as for the basket always being the safest place if the MEWP falls, well that is not always true. I used to have to deal with risks where the potential was that a MEWP being used on a quayside in shipping operations could fail and in that instance you definitely don't want them trapped in a basket if it is in the water.

Jonty As I understand that you profess to 'being a conscientious safety professional', I to what extent you have given appropriate attention to influencing the other parties other than through offering legal and technical information? As substantial research on influencing indicates, there are many more fruitful approaches especially when you are apt to be perceived as both interfering and threatening. If you consult even popular versions of relevant social research such as by the social psychologist, Roberto Cialdini, you can readily consider options that involve presentation of video film and reliable statistical data indicating the dependence between working at height and different levels of injury and death. Cialdini gives numerous examples of how, in the proverbial expression, a teaspoon of honey is more likely to achieve desired results economically than a barrel of vinegar, not least on the part of a 'conscientious' professional disposed to stimulate others to deliver value consistently by doing valuable work safely.

Apart from the fall arrest, sounds like there could be other failings, namely rescue procedures, banks man,etc. The client(Landlord) also has a duty to ensure competence of the cleaning company and approve/accept there SSOW

Just as an aside; - Comments have been made about contacting the HSE so can I ask "how does a member of the public contact the local HSE as the telephone numbers are now not publicly available"?! I have written to the appropriate people in the HSE with regards to the removal of their telephone numbers from the web etc. but I have had no reply nor expect one As for where/when to stop; if you go on you will have to look at almost every job etc. in the country [inclusive of your own company] and you would spend most of your time on the phone to the HSE [if you could find the number!] or writing letters to them and I strongly advise that you think very carefully about pushing/prompting your employer in areas that they have no control over!

I agree entirely with comments concerning the deliberate act by HSE that makes them effectively inaccessible. I have serious concerns about their performance, past and present. I have posted other comments previously on this Forum concerning their attitudes and performance with regard to their Myths panel pronouncements. The degree of sarcasm there paints a picture of a failing organisation intent on criticising everything and everyone while drawing back into an entrenched defence of their own. I have no doubt that HSE is no longer fit for purpose. The top tier management should be removed and replaced by those with a clear foresight to the purpose of HSE, to effective methods of delivery, and ready to deliver a sharp kick in the pants to all of those who remain. Times are hard and budgets reduced. But only then with the publicly-funded cash cow deliver the service that is required and expected of it.

Jay, that is just for complaints, I suspect Ian means more than that and will be noting this with anticipation. https://www.gov.uk/gover...afety-executive-launched

It is such a shame that this thread, which started out as a sounding board to help me rationalise my own thoughts, motivations and principles and when and where these could and indeed should be applied, has gone the route of so many before it. It seems to have been hijacked by those with a different point to make, or those just wanting to look clever. This was about a safety professional sitting watching (repeatedly) an unsafe system of work being carried out by someone elses contractor and wondering if there was something else I could or should do to reduce the risk I was observing. The wider picture which most missed is that if they were adopting an unsafe practise at this location then on how many other sites were they doing the same thing? It wasn't just the risk exposure here but for every similar task. For anyone genuinely interested - result, got talking to the Contracts Manager for the Facilities Management company who is reviewing their requirements for all contracting works involving work at height! So, a small intervention may (I hope) lead to a significant change and subsequent reduction of risk on a much wider basis. Oh, by the way our offices are in Dublin, so all the nice references to HSE are not relevant.

Touché Ian. Must admit I am as perplexed as you at the previous post. Although I hadn't joined in the discussion I have followed it and overall the various contributions seem entirely reasonable and essentially innocuous to me. It doesn't give anyone much encouragement to join in. But here goes. The answer to the original question is 'as far as you want' it's your personal choice. This old soak has learned that when you have been banging you head against a brick wall do long enough, it starts to hurt. That's one indication that it might be time to give up, accept defeat or move on to something else.