Folks we have a woodland site whereby trees cut down/ back by our staff are basically left to rot in the woods. A member of staff has asked if they can use their own chainsaw in their time to cut the wood and take it home. They are not doing this as any service to us as the wood would be left where it is otherwise. They state there are qualified and competent to do this (yet to check). Are there are specific issues or reasons why they cant do this that anyone is aware of, any answers would be happily received. thanks Billy

Hi Billy Theres a few things you need to check before you start felling any trees. Are any of the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), Is the area a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) this basically means that if there are any protected species such as Great Crested Newts located within the area. Any badger setts located? Are there any nesting bats hidden in the trees? If they are looking to fell the trees ensure there are no powerlines running through the woodland (the operative should be looking for things like this if they are trained accordingly). Ensure you have checked the trees for diseases. If it is ash trees that you are felling then last year they were found to have Chalara fraxinea. Have a look at the link below for more info and the symptoms: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/chalara One thing I find when looking at peoples' qualifications and especially with tree cutting is that once they pass their basic tree felling then they assume they can fell any size tree. You need to ensure they are only felling the trees they have been trained to fell. Taken from National Proficiency Tests Council (NPTC) which is the main training body for the use of chainsaws. For felling only, units CS 30 (Maintain the Chain Saw), and CS 31 (Fell Small Trees) are enough for trees up to 8 - 15" diameter; CS 30 and CS 32 (Fell Medium Sized Trees) for trees 15 - 30" diameter; CS 30 and CS 33 (Fell Large Trees) for trees over 30" diameter. For each of these, “A” after the unit means conifers, and “B” means broadleaves. I hope that hasn't scared you too much!! If I can help any more don't hesitate to contact me Happy Felling!! Les

There may be the "what if" scenario of injury to a third party to consider. There may also be conflict issues arising from vehicle movement. All potential liability issues for the occupier.

Simply check that the guy is suitably qualified and has the right ppe. Should be easy to ascertain as is an employee of yours. And let him collect some firewood. It is not a work activity. He has sought permission to glean firewood from discarded timber. You have taken reasonable means to ensure his safety. This sort of arrangement goes on throughout the country, particularly now with the increasing number of wood-burning stoves. If no chainsaw certificate, then advise him to use a bow saw and axe!

Because the individual would be chainsawing on land owned and/or controlled by biliath's (and his/her) company/employer, with that companies consent & permission.

lessaunders - the trees have already been felled. There is no work activity. you could say it is a hobby as it would be for the individuals own personal pleasure? If you are going to get into reasons for competence checking don't forget to make sure he does a fire risk assessment :-)

HSWA does not apply in these circumstances as there is no work activity. There may or may not be civil liability. But personally I would be happy for the person to go ahead and get the wood. With or without a chainsaw certificate and PPE. There comes a point where you just have to do what feels like the right thing to do rather than stop anyone doing anything just in case they may sue you.

I would say that the property owner has a duty of care in respect of granting access to the land and any risks associated with gaining access to or being on the land, that arise out of the owners business activities. (Basic HASAWA Section 3.) But I would say that is "Volenti non fit injuria" with regard to what the third party does on that land. Just my 2p...

Dear All thanks for all responses, I agree with some that there are no HASWA duties. Whilst I am not in the game of stopping people doing things, I have asked our facilities manager to check the competentcy of the individual, any ppe they plan to wear, to have a buddy with them, let us know when they plan to do it etc. I am mindful of something our faciltities manager said subsequently, that the indivudal would in fact by doing a service by taking the logs away, I have asked them to run that past our legal team and then come back to me. Steve and others, have checked with our environemental guy, shouldn't be an issue with removing the logs. cheers Billy

Billy I have taken an interest in the thread, being the owner of more than one chainsaw, for my own purposes i.e. cutting firewood for my wood burner. To date I haven’t had any major mishaps and have managed to retain all of my various ‘bits and pieces’. Of course pretty much any adult can buy a chainsaw without any check of whether they have any qualifications, training, checks as to their competency or PPE. I am not sure if most of us will be all that surprised at the advice from your legal team. Of course saying ‘no’ is ‘easy’ and carries no risk. I can understand an employer being cautious but I am not sure if they should have as much to fear as they might think. However, knowing the willingness of some people to make personal injury claims, sometimes speculative on the basis that they just might get something and have very little to lose, and the idiosyncrasies of the legal system, I suppose that there is a chance that there MAY be liability. On the other hand, unless the employer had been negligent, then I would like to think that ‘common sense’ might prevail; I live in hope. Let’s take the employer out of the scenario and consider the situation as if I owned the woodland and my mate asked me if he could cut up come of the wood. I agree to this and he subsequently injures himself by some means that couldn’t reasonably be considered to be my fault i.e. I did not and could not have any control over the events (other than the fact that I said he could do it). Would it be either likely or reasonable that I should either accept or be found liable? I would like to think not. On the other hand as soon as we involve an employer there is a possibility, although it is not necessarily certain, that there MAY be additional duties or that a court might see things slightly differently, even with regard to OLA (which applies to all occupiers, not just employers) or common law. There MAY be a section 3 duty, although maybe not towards the ‘employee’ cutting the wood (however, he may not be considered an employee at the time of the accident), but possibly to others who may be in the area and are subsequently injured. On the other hand a court might accept an argument that the activity was not part of the undertaking and that therefore section 3 doesn’t apply. As Phil Grace has already observed, who knows what a court may decide (we can but hazard a guess), or whether an appeal court might decide something different, or the Lords something different again; you get the picture!

Why oh why am I not surprised by this sort of answer from a company 'legal team'? Just the sort of 'Say NO is the easiest option' that we have come to expect from so many quarters. I don't see a problem with it. The guy is not at work. Far too many of the comments around here have sought to reinforce the perceptions of the Prime Minister and his Elf n'Safety Monster out busts. Try to facilitate the guy removing the pile of lumber rather than put obstacles in his way. I suggest a documented agreement that he will at all times act responsibility and undertake the work in a safe manner; but it's not up to you to check the PPE, tool maintenance etc. It may come as a shock to some people around here, but there are industries whereby the employees are responsible for providing their own tools at work, even though they are employees and not contractors/subbies. If one of them hurts themselves with a tool, it's not down to the employer to take the blame for having failed to check the guy's toolbag contents.

As I understand the discussion and following some of the comments, it seems that any accident occuring out of hours in a company vehicle would have implications for the Highways agency (Land owner) or vehicle manuafacturer (Design) or employer as leasor, and not the driver........ Clear now.

Thanks Paul, sorry for the tongue in cheek comments ITS FRIDAY!!!