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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
jarsmith83  
#1 Posted : 01 August 2013 09:00:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

Hi all A scaffold has been erected by a principal contractor for a local authority for the local authority to use. The principal contractor is using a sub-contractor (scaffold company). The principal contractor will not be using the scaffold for their own purposes and have had the scaffold erected for the use of the local authorities direct labor staff. What is the forum users take on the hand over process? i.e. who should receive the hand over certificate and who should be responsible for the subsequent scaffold inspections? Background: At present it has been stated that a joint initial inspection between the local authority and principal contractor will take place before the hand over certificate is issued to the local authority from the scaffold company (As the local authority will need to be happy with the scaffold for their use). It has then been said that it will be the local authorities staffs responsibility for the subsequent scaffold inspection. The local authority have their own in house team of 'engineers' the will be using the scaffold for a number of tasks over the coming months. Any views will be most helpful and direction to specific guidance on this very much appreciated.
jarsmith83  
#2 Posted : 01 August 2013 12:50:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

Just had this clarified by NASC so no problem.
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 01 August 2013 14:55:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I'd be more concerned about the scaffold assembly being to the appropriate standard and design for the intended purpose - things that could get lost in the communication process. Is the PC involved in overlapping work around the same Project here? If the PC appointed by the LA, then the LA's (Client's) direct labour force become the sub-contractor for that Project!
safetyamateur  
#4 Posted : 02 August 2013 08:26:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
safetyamateur

jars, would be good to know how it was clarified.
jarsmith83  
#5 Posted : 02 August 2013 10:17:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

Hi safety amateur NASC clarified that it was the end user that should have the acceptance or rather the handover certificate. In my particular situation we was merely supplying the scaffold by using a sub contractor, which meant the client would have been the end user (as they are using their in house workforce). Hope that helps
boblewis  
#6 Posted : 02 August 2013 10:31:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

I have a slight contractual issue with the NASC reply - The Scaffold Co have NO relationship in law to the client but only to the PC. They thus do not exist on site in strict terms as to the client they are the PC, by virtue of being his subcontractor. Route must be SC to PC to Client. The contract will determine how inspections are then carried out for the register. Bob
Mick Noonan  
#7 Posted : 02 August 2013 10:57:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Responsibility follows the money. Client to PC to subcontractor. The handover cert should follow the same line; subcontractor to PC. Scaffold company keeps a copy of the cert on file and also record of weekly inspections.
jarsmith83  
#8 Posted : 02 August 2013 11:12:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

This is not a construction site/project I am referring to. We are merely supplying/hiring a scaffold to the said person/company, in this case the local authourity, for their use i.e using their direct labor staff. Although I understand the replies, as thus was my original concern, I have been through regs etc whilst in telephone conversation with the rep of NASC and agree.
boblewis  
#9 Posted : 02 August 2013 15:44:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Jarsmith -you introduced the PC etc concepts - but in any case it rather sounds as though construction work is to be done from the scaffold and the NASC have rather short circuited normal arrangements even IF it was not construction. Bob
jarsmith83  
#10 Posted : 03 August 2013 14:52:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

boblewis wrote:
Jarsmith -you introduced the PC etc concepts - but in any case it rather sounds as though construction work is to be done from the scaffold and the NASC have rather short circuited normal arrangements even IF it was not construction. Bob
Again, comes down to conteactual agreement. That is why I was seeking clarification. We have issued the scaffold no more thn a hire agreement. The client is putting THEIR workforce to work. We will not have anything else to do with this scaffold.
jarsmith83  
#11 Posted : 03 August 2013 14:53:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

*contractual agreement
RayRapp  
#12 Posted : 03 August 2013 21:40:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Hmm, all bit odd. Why did the LA not procure their own scaffold to reduce all the confusion in the first instance? If there is a PC (as defined by the CDM Regs) and the PC engages a sub-contractor, then the handover cert and subsequent responsibility for the scaffold must surely lie with the PC. It matters not in my opinion that the PC is doing this on behalf of the Client. Interesting topic.
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.