Rank: Forum user 
|
I've received a call from a client of ours who employed a contractor to carry out work on their roof, whilst the work was being carried out an HSE inspector visited the site (not sure if this was a coincidence) but they have identified a material breach of health & safety during the intervention with the contractor and now the inspector wants to meet with the H&S manager of our client.
Could they potentially face a FFI if its found that they didn't have proper control measures in place for contractors?
From what I can gather the inspector found that workers for the contractor were putting themselves at risk of injury from a fall through the fragile roof or indeed from a fall from the roof as they had not taken suitable precautions and the method statement & risk assessment provided were not adequate for the works undertaken on a fragile roof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Martin
Going by what I have read in the shp the answer could well be yes. That said, if they can demonstrate that they have taken every possible precaution and instructed their contractors then it will be a damage limitation exercise. Further than that its still a new area for me.
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
... and while we're here may we take a look at your ...
Oh, you haven't done that = kerrching!
Sorry to be so cynical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Barrie(Badger)Etter wrote:Martin
Going by what I have read in the shp the answer could well be yes. That said, if they can demonstrate that they have taken every possible precaution and instructed their contractors then it will be a damage limitation exercise. Further than that its still a new area for me.
Badger Hi Badger, Thanks for getting back to me, Do you have a link to the shp article? Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
David Bannister wrote:... and while we're here may we take a look at your ...
Oh, you haven't done that = kerrching!
Sorry to be so cynical. this is exactly what I was thinking will happen and I've told our client to be prepared for a FFI bill after they've spoken to the inspector
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It depends what steps your client took to establish the competance of the contractor and what safety management procedures would be in place during the works.
If no attempt was made to ascertain either of these matters then they are probably for the high jump.
If they have made reasonable steps to ascertain competance and have documented evidence that the contractor stated they would be following certain safety procedures but then failed to do so then they will probably be ok.
Refer to para 52, 53, 54 of Managing Health and Safety in Construction acop.
regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apologies. I just noticed that you said a MS was provided but was unsuitable for fragile roof works.
Yes, I am afraid they could very well be up the creek on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To some extent it may depend on the perceived technical ability of your client. An engineering company might be expected to have greater awareness of the potential risks than a small retailer for example.
But like others here - I am cynical and can hear the sound of the till. Kerching kerching. That said - if your client was blatantly employing cheap labour to do dangerous work - they may deserve it!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The actual starting point for a fee under FFI has already been met. A material breach has been detected. Any meetings, emails, letters, telephone conversations from that point onwards will be charged accordingly. Who pays is a slightly different matter and the HSE have provided guidance on this applicable to construction and it's supply chain. However, if your client cannot demonstrate that they have met the CDM 2007 criteria in selecting competent contractors to undertake the work and don't forget supervision, then both parties will pay a fee for different aspects relating to the material breach. So that is why the (Kerching) inspector wants to meet the main contractor as this provides a additional avenue to raise monies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kerching - where did this nonsense come from.
It is not listed in my lexicon
Safety bod speak?
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you are not convicted of an offence you can claim the fees back in your tax returns!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.