Sounds painful Tony.....

Tony, mind your generals near that broken plug socket ;)

Tony, I work for a national rental company and I can say that since the introduction of FFI we have seen a sharp increase in visits from the local HSE inspectors. They use Immediate defects reported to them from LOLER inspections as an excuse to visit the depots and it usually goes like this "Do you mind if I have a look around while I am here?" Our locations are strictly controlled with regards to SH&E and so far we have not had a problem but any workplace you like to mention will have something out of place or non compliant at some point and all it takes is for an inspection on a bad day (or an inspector who doesn't really know their job) for them to serve an improvement notice for which you will be charged £124 per hour. The other thing is, who are they going to target, the little guy with the bad practices who can't pay or the big guy who does most things right and can? FFI has really had a negative impact also in the fact that where I previously went to the HSE for advice, I would now rather not draw their attention and risk them coming into the depots.

Are those who were lauding their performance and defending HSE, including IOSH, still so sure? They criticised my repeated suggestion that in many ways the organisation is no longer fit for purpose. Perhaps the naysayers are fewer now than just a few days ago?

It seems that IOSH can and have been doing something. According to several of your colleagues who were so critical of my comments in another threat, they had noted that IOSH is currently being singularly supportive toward HSE. http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=108970 It wouldn't be my choice, but each to their own. I wonder to what extent that represents members' views. As more and more pick up an FFI bill, I guess the spilt may shift though that should not be the only criterion for assessment. I have been particularly critical of HSE for some years and believe that as an organisation it is no longer fit for service. But as an organisation I guess it's a bit like Marmite, you either love it or hate it.

Following on from RayRapp's response it seems appropriate to pose the following questions to forum users who know of employers or clients who have been subject to FFI and what alleged breaches of OS&H legislation were involved: Did it seem that the HSE inspectors involved took action over relatively trivial matters in the knowledge that FFI would apply and thus generate considerable income? If so, does it seem that a small proportion of inspectors have become notably more diligent in looking for and finding breaches because of FFI or do most inspectors seem to be doing this? Also, where FFI invoices have stemmed from action over relatively trivial breaches, did recipients challenge HSE - and with what result - or did they simply pay up in the belief that instigating any challenge was futile and likely to result in even greater costs? Though the principle which underlies FFI is commendable (akin to that of the Poll Tax in the late 1980s) it is surely flawed in practice for various reasons including the following: It is vulnerable to suspicions that at least some HSE inspectors are now working in ways intended to maximise income through FFI. Though FFI may well generate considerable income (mainly for HM Treasury and less so for HSE itself) it could also generate considerable ill-will towards HSE and its inspectors. It certainly introduces extra unnecessary bureaucracy and cost plus likely disagreements as to whether the breaches involved are material or not. There's also an inequality because workplaces and activities which come within the ambit of local authority inspectors are not subject to FFI. (Can anyone suggest what influences were known or thought to be responsible for this fact? For example, did local authorities with environmental health departments collectively react successfully against FFI after it was first mooted?) Furthermore, now that FFI has operated for almost 7 months, what do HSE inspectors feel about it and its known and foreseeable effects - both for them as individuals in their work and also for HSE as their employer? Could it prompt some inspectors to consider quitting HSE in due course?

Graham, Yes we did challenge a trivial intervention made by an inspector who didn't really know her stuff about the asbestos management regs and it was overturned at a higher level. The problem with all this is the time and effort (and hence, cost) it takes to defend these things. The company I work for is a well known and respected hire company and when we fill in pre-qual questionnaires we are able to say "no we have never had any improvement notices". This goes a long way with some of our bigger customers and so to keep that reputation we have to defend it. I can probably be accused of cynisism here but since the scheme was predicted to be about £35 million behind target they seem to have set their minds to upping the game so we are having to deal with the inspectors visits much more frequently. I wonder, what would we do if the local police were way behind on quotas so started coming to our homes to see if there was something they could pin on us? The HSE is in my view a good and neccesary entity that has the ability to serve the public well. Scrap the FFI scheme and we would all be better off.

These spiteful policies that criminalise and create civil disharmony are always started by imho "Those with the most to Hide".