Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
link does not get me anywhere except a loop back to this page??????
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No.
The link clearly states that this is enforced by the Petroleum Enforcement Authority, not the HSE.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Here we go again. Don't bite.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For the benefit of others the legal powers are not new; the Petroleum Enforcement Authority ( ie the local council) have since the 1920's had the power the make sure that people do not store excessive amounts of petrol in their homes ( for obvious reasons). The current rules actually relax the limits in the amount of petrol you can store( from 20 to 30 litres)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So the original post was incorrect according to #5.
An odd posting, considering many other industrial activities are also not permitted in your own house.
Maybe 'they' are just a figment of someone's imagination.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why do we have to presume that just because there is useful information on the HSE Website, then HSE has direct enforcement jurisdictio
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I’m well disappointed. I’ve waited in all day for an HSE inspector to call and.................nothing, zip, diddlly, zilch.
And now you lot are telling me that they aren’t likely to either!
Well I never.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
So can the PEA demand to inspect your private domestic dwellings on a whim ? The HSE can inspect your business premises without any due cause perhaps it is the same.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Neither the HSE or the Local Authority should inspect your business without any due cause.
They have powers of entry that are tempered by the term 'reasonable' and the current political climate is such that there should be no visit to a premises without a reason i.e. the decision to cross the threshold of a business must be justifiable. If you believe they're turning up without justification then their presence can be challenged. Whether you wish to do so or not is your own call.
No idea about the PEA. They're not directly tarred with the h&s brush so probably fly under the Government radar.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Taken directly from the HSE .pdf guidance file "Are there any changes to powers of entry? The Regulations are made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA). If required, PEAs can therefore use the powers conferred on them under section 20 (Powers of inspectors) and section 25 (Power to deal with cause of imminent danger) of the HSWA. So the new Regulations do not carry forward the provisions of section 18 of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 relating to powers of entry."
For those that may not know the details; Section 18 of the 1928 Act covered the issue of warrants to search and remove where "satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting" etc. Thus no real change just a similar power under different laws. Another conspiracy theory flattened or maybe just not understanding that the power has existed for a long time?
So, a more interesting question might be that if the powers are now held under the HASAWA 1974 does this, by default, exclude my home, when only used as my home, from the jurisdiction? I guess not as it would fall into "controlling the keeping and use of explosive or highly flammable or otherwise dangerous substances, and generally preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of such substances". This is clearly a separate phrase from the "HSW in connection with work" in the intro text of the Act. Any thoughts?
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I confess to sometimes finding it difficult to hide my frustration. The OP has some history of similar posts, and I can only hazard a guess at their motivation.
So. Don’t do what I did yesterday and wait in with the kettle on expecting a queue of inspectors whether from the HSE, the PEA or the Ministry of Funny Works to come and break down the doors of your garage and rifle through all your stuff.
I rather expect that it isn’t going to happen except in someone’s fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Canopener wrote:I confess to sometimes finding it difficult to hide my frustration. The OP has some history of similar posts, and I can only hazard a guess at their motivation.
So. Don’t do what I did yesterday and wait in with the kettle on expecting a queue of inspectors whether from the HSE, the PEA or the Ministry of Funny Works to come and break down the doors of your garage and rifle through all your stuff.
I rather expect that it isn’t going to happen except in someone’s fantasy.
I entirely agree with your sentiments Canopener
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My thoughts as well. Hence why my comment was pulled at #4.
The guy is a TROLL poster.
This will get pulled, but the Moderators refuse to take any action.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My understanding is that if you pay a small fee in advance that the relevant enforcement body will also hoover you carpets, wash your car and iron your laundry.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am sure I recall someone saying that playing the devil's advocate can be a useful way to promote discussion? So there is a style apparent here but we all have that.
More importantly surely is the fact that poorly researched information, used to spread concern or hype something, should be challenged with the facts recorded. Readers can then see a balanced discussion. I guess what I am saying is that we can't choose the way in which questions are asked of us; we can only choose whether to respond.
And now back to the topic. Canopener is quite correct in his assertions about the likelihood of action but it has happened and, interestingly, the old sec 18 powers were more usually associated with non-work premises..
In the research for CD264 (section 47) the HSE recorded that "These powers are very rarely used and usually only to gain access when dealing with complaints about excess storage of petrol at non-workplace premises."
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
These and similar postings are just vexatious threads and have very little merit.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Pete48
I agree. The conclusion one can draw from this discussion is seemingly its intention to was to stimulate preconceived bias about the remit that state has within public safety. The premise of which creates farcical images of the Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition. Entertaining though they are, it is still little more than farcical.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Ian Bell wrote:My thoughts as well. Hence why my comment was pulled at #4.
The guy is a TROLL poster.
This will get pulled, but the Moderators refuse to take any action. This is not the first time this has happened and perpetrated by the same individual - indeed why do the Mods refuse to take any action - I'm guessing part of the answer is contained within Pete48's post
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Thank you for the feedback I am glad that another bureaucrat can not demand entry to my house without reasonable cause.
I for one feel that the balance of power in the UK has swung completely over to the enforcing powers which actually in the long term will backfire by non cooperation.
I think the HSE are losing respect very quickly and that means probably more accidents at work in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
BJC
I am curious if you extend that logic to other warrant card holders?
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I guess another thread that has been pulled may have been vexatious.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator
|
All,
We have locked this topic under FR 3.1 as it has deviated significantly from the stated topic.
We also request that posters refrain from personal attacks and use the "report a concern" facility rather than posting concerns directly to the topic.
Thank you.
Moderator 3
|
|
|
|
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.