IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Scaffolds.... Hand over process involving 3rd party
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just had this clarified by NASC so no problem.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jars, would be good to know how it was clarified.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Scaffolds.... Hand over process involving 3rd party
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.