Rank: Super forum user
|
http://www.theconstructi...d&utm_medium=twitter
(There are other news items covering this story...)
A salutary lesson for all of us I believe. The Commercial Director of a Construction Co has been jailed over three years for manslaughter. The independent H&S consultant on the job has been jailed for nine months (will serve half that....)
Unfortunately the various news reports do not identify what level of involvement the h&S bod had on site - although they all seem to report that he was responsible for writing the method statement, and that he had done a risk assessment which identified the risk of collapse which led to the fatality.
Would really like to know when an 'advisor' (the jailed consultant's reported job title) becomes a manager or officer responsible for the way works are done rather than responsible for providing advice? I might hazard a guess that the culpability arose when he visited site and failed to stop the works in progress (when he should have known the risks were or were becoming 'serious and imminent') rather than when he failed to write a robust method statement?
I'm sure there will be further discussions on this case but let's never forget genuine commiseration to the family of the deceased, and also a touch of humility as in 'there but for the grace of god'...
Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Also have a look at: http://www.getwestlondon...mercial-director-8217105
This identified:
"The court also heard that as a qualified health and safety advisor Golding was aware of the risks associated with working in excavations. He was responsible for drafting the method statement which set out a system of work to be followed by those working at Ellerby Street to ensure their safety".
"However the document he drafted was inadequate and was not followed. He was also responsible for carrying out health and safety inspections on site and had authority to stop dangerous works, which he failed to do".
Also: "Following the incident a local authority building control officer found the house was potentially at danger of collapse. A dangerous structure notice was served and the property had to be stabilised by independent contractors".
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It's really frustrating that:
A - The general Press are only reporting Mr Golding as being 'qualified' rather than any other adjectives. But I suppose this is only to be expected.
B - The specialist Press magazines, such as SHP etc are regurgitating the same press release type information, rather than the details that their specialist readership would like to know.
Why are the specialist Press, not just SHP, not providing their readership with the greater depth that we might expect from specialist publications?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Route66, what would you like to know in terms of your point A?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well I'm guessing he must of been at least GradIOSH or Chartered (I guess?) re: Qualified?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, I understand quite abit is due to come out.
However, my understanding from the membership department is that he was neither GradIOSH or Chartered. He had been a member some years ago, but at a lower level of membership.
The company who he worked for at that time still use the IOSH logo but are not registered as a IOSH training provider nor are any of them chartered practitioners, the owner is the only one on the OSHCR as a member of IIRSM.
Hope that helps?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
IOSH doesn't "qualify" anyone to my knowledge.
It is a membership club - no more. Or am I missing something.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, but that does not answer the question that was posed. IOSH membership is a different contention I guess.
NB. IOSH is the Chartered body for Health and Safety Professionals (it holds the Royal Charter), therefore it’s not a membership club.
However, our thoughts should be on Anghel Milosavlevici family and friends.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Freelance Safety wrote:Route66, what would you like to know in terms of your point A?
Well, simply the reported 'qualification' of the individual. I realise the general Press are often limited on space, but it's such a throwaway phrase.
A bit like saying the Cross Channel Swimmer is qualified, and then we discover all they had was a coloured ribbon for one width of the pool when at school (am I showing my age; they get nice badges now I understand).
I often find people with little or no qualification trading as 'H&S Consultants'.
There is someone in my region now whose website claims "the skills to deliver your project requirements in connection with Health, Safety, Quality, Fire and Environmental Management, with our consultancy and training services."
His top qualifications being:
A NEBOSH NGC gained in 2005
Courses for ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9000:2000 (these are somewhat behind...)
Now if this guy wants to work in-house as an employee, that's fine, but to be marketing himself as a top level all-rounder 'Consultant', he's a disaster waiting to happen.
So when someone attracts bad publicity to the profession, such as getting jailed, it would be nice if there was a process of full disclosure in the Press.
That way some company owners/employers might actually pay attention to what they are getting as a Consultant.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Freelance Safety wrote:
The company who he worked for at that time still use the IOSH logo but are not registered as a IOSH training provider nor are any of them chartered practitioners, the owner is the only one on the OSHCR as a member of IIRSM.
In which case why hasn't IOSH taken them to task over breach of copyright or trademark? They must have a decent enough legal team to do that?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Route66 wrote:
..... his top qualifications being:
A NEBOSH NGC gained in 2005
Courses for ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9000:2000 (these are somewhat behind...)
Now if this guy wants to work in-house as an employee, that's fine, but to be marketing himself as a top level all-rounder 'Consultant', he's a disaster waiting to happen.
That might be very unfair on the fellow, Route66, you are ignoring his nine years of experience in the field of H&S !
How many years experience do you have?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We assume that over the nine years he was working in the field, however many persons undertake the Gen Cert who do not work as practitioners, so I would not like to speculate without the actual facts in front of me. Worth noting though that many people who undertake health and safety courses find it very difficult to get into the profession whatsoever.
On another note a case not that long ago involving someone who was acting as the health and safety officer for an organisation was proved in court to be incompetent, this was fortunate for him because otherwise he could and probably would have gone to prison.
That case involved the individual having only the Gen Cert, in court an expert from NEBOSH stated under oath that the course is ‘only for persons with an interest in health and safety’. This was accepted as fact and the individual was found not guilty. That case was brought as a result of a fatal in Liverpool (fall from height).
In terms of this case I believe the consultants employer (the consultancy), should have been scrutinised rather than just the employee.
Not sure what is happening re: IOSH and the consultancy, but I’m sure someone is on with it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnW wrote:Route66 wrote:
..... his top qualifications being:
A NEBOSH NGC gained in 2005
Courses for ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9000:2000 (these are somewhat behind...)
Now if this guy wants to work in-house as an employee, that's fine, but to be marketing himself as a top level all-rounder 'Consultant', he's a disaster waiting to happen.
That might be very unfair on the fellow, Route66, you are ignoring his nine years of experience in the field of H&S !
How many years experience do you have?
I gained my first formal qualification around 15 years ago, with many years 'safety' experience before that.
This individual on gaining his NGC, landed very much on his feet and states 5 years with a recycling company, before setting up on his own. So he hopefully knows a lot about the recycling world, but my point being that someone with limited qualifications and no obvious CPD shouldn't be touting themselves as a 'Consultant'.
People get in consultants as experts in their field. Would you employ a mathematics expert who only had an A level; no you'd expect at least a degree and ongoing development since.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think Freelance is correct, it seems he was employed as a consultant (as an employee) by a medium/large sized consultancy practice?
I wonder if the RAMS were generic that were used by this practice on a regular basis, maybe the consultant had not been exposed to enough to be conversant with the implications regarding temporary works and engineering?
I do question his employer, I’ve also noted this company still use the IOSH logo as I’ve checked their site – I’ve phoned IOSH and they don’t have permission to use it, it does make you wonder?
It’s a tragedy that someone has died resulting from these failures!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But how often do we see people of Gen Cert or technician/Grad IOSH standard being the sole H&S person in an organisation? By definition we would expect that chartered persons are competent within their experience parameters but other grades????
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think that we are missing the fundamental point here which is where was the structure engineering input? There are also building control and party wall issues that have not been raised at this stage by the SHP.
I am sure that we are going to hear a lot more about this incident.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
chambers wrote:I think Freelance is correct, it seems he was employed as a consultant (as an employee) by a medium/large sized consultancy practice?
I wonder if the RAMS were generic that were used by this practice on a regular basis, maybe the consultant had not been exposed to enough to be conversant with the implications regarding temporary works and engineering?
I do question his employer, I’ve also noted this company still use the IOSH logo as I’ve checked their site – I’ve phoned IOSH and they don’t have permission to use it, it does make you wonder?
It’s a tragedy that someone has died resulting from these failures!
Aside from any legal loopholes that allowed this company to escape mention, while the individual was described as 'independent', now that I also know the name of the company, I've noted that the IOSH and OSHCR logos are both used in breach of their respective T&C of use.
Unless organisations are going to enforce their rights in such matters, what's the point of the T&C?
We're in a profession where getting it right matters.
Without understating the severity of this incident, I do wonder if being allowed to breach what many would consider minor 'rules', fosters an attitude that creeps into other aspects of the job.
Basically, being gash in one area then spreading across the organisation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My understanding is that he was charged with and convicted of a FAILURE OF AN EMPLOYEE TO TAKE REASONABLE CARE FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHERS contrary to sections 7(1) and 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
XXXXXXXXX between 28 September and 3 December 2010, being an employee with the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, failed to take reasonable care for the health and safety of others, including Anghel Milosavlevici in that he failed to monitor in respect of the underpinning and basement formation works at 69, Ellerby Street, Fulham, London, SW6.
He could of course be an employee of his own Ltd Co. although there are reports of him being self employed.
I wonder what the Insurance implications are - now or in the future.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have a the NEBOSH Occupational H&S Cert and the Construction Cert, distinction in both, but there is no-way I would set myself up as a H&S advisor outside the electrical field. Would I feel happy about giving a talk to scaffolding people about how to build an erection or others involved in a serious excavation? Only if it were within my very limited certain knowledge (practically none)
Let's be honest here, a two week course in Occupational and two weeks on the Construction course does not even begin to cover site safety. Unless the person has an in-depth hands-on reservoir of experience to draw on there is only one outcome possible. I try, along with many others no doubt, to stick to what I know and keep my hands-in-pockets when out of my depth. Others 'think' they know and deem themselves as 'competent'.
Only others can call you competent and only then if they are adequately trained in that particular field and only then if they have had training as an Assessor (IMHO of course).
I have very little time for painters or brick layers who give 'advice' on electrical matters and I would expect the same from the same people if I started dishing it out to their trade.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Spot on Issac - therein lies the core of the problem - Safety Bods "knowing it all".
We have more than a smattering of type on my current site. Backgrounds in admin, nursing, & food safety and telling scaffs, riggers, sparks & boilermakers how to work safely. Give them a certificate and let them loose on a site - I despair.
The industry's reputation continues to spiral downwards I fear.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
John, I resigned from IOSH (Tech IOSH) for the reasons #20. If the 'leaders' don't take H&S seriously, if the HSE are as effective as fart in a thunder storm, if the legal system is useless, clueless and spineless then will the last one out please flick the lights off.
And if you think it's bad in H&S you would have a fit if you looked into our electrical trade. I kid you not.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think the problem is that we are experts, no doubt about that, but IN OUR OWN FIELD. Nobody can be an expert in all aspects of Health and Safety. For example, if a question is posed on the forum and, if we were all experts in every aspect, the questions would be answered exactly the same by every member and there would be no dissention - well, we know that doesn't happen!
I regard my field as being mechanical engineering and engineering workshops. I also do some facilities for the building, understand the rudiments of scaffolding, lintels, concrete strengths, supporting structures but that's all - I employ people to put up scaffolding who have certificates of competence, I employ structural engineers to ascertain if walls are load bearing, etc. So basically, my field of expertise is knowing who to employ in those circumstances, not giving the advice myself!
A fundamental part of the NVQ was identifying what you don't know - wish more people went down this route and realised that however much we do know, it is only useful when put in context and working with specialists in other areas.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
boblewis wrote:But how often do we see people of Gen Cert or technician/Grad IOSH standard being the sole H&S person in an organisation? By definition we would expect that chartered persons are competent within their experience parameters but other grades????
What a diabolical slur on all members who are not chartered.
In my time within H&S I have come across some excellent health and safety experts in their field of expertise. Just because they have not pursued chartered status (requiring an all round knowledge of stuff they'll never need or use and being a club member) does not mean that they are not competent within their working field. Also most of those employed within companies are employed precisely because they have the knowledge and expertise not the grand? title of CMIOSH.
I suggest Boblewis you owe a lot of Affiliates/Techs/GRAD members a resounding apology for this unwarranted slur with no backup to reality. Or perhaps you have proof and can justify your statement - if so where is it?
It's comments like yours that has lead to IOSH being considered the be all and end all in respect of H&S - which is not true and has lead to loads of members not renewing membership.
No doubt some of the IOSH members will wait a long time for your apology. With some members having opinions like you I am now seriously considering not renewing membership. Its a disgraceful state of affairs and you should be ashamed of yourself
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Everyone loves a public hanging.
No one can be an 'expert' in all fields. It's not just about qualifications either. I have had tags of adviser, manager, consultant, engineer, assurance, compliance, etc. Working in nuclear, construction, utilities and railways. Yet, I am all too quick to point out my lack of knowledge in certain areas. I often refer to specialist advice in technical fields where I input with some general health and safety knowledge - it's about working as a team.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hilary is spot on, as is John M but less politely. I know a lot about safety in health & social care environments, I am rapidly learning about the other areas my current employer is involved in, but I let my (very experienced) team lead me by the nose for now. Put me on a building site and I might well kill somebody. That's not to say I don't know about construction safety, for a given value of 'know', but I have absolutely no practical experience (apart from some work as lump labourer back in 1980s) of the actual trades. By the same token, I have found to my cost that people with good experience of manufacturing/construction environments can be dangerous in hospices & care homes.
What I think about CMIOSH vs TechIOSH etc is fairly complex, but this I think may be true. Getting the charter, whether through the academic or practical route, is often an indicator of flexibility and a desire to learn new things. Not entirely, I too have meet very capable safety people with no letters after their names, but I think there may be some correlation,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
RayRapp wrote:Everyone loves a public hanging.
No one can be an 'expert' in all fields. It's not just about qualifications either. I have had tags of adviser, manager, consultant, engineer, assurance, compliance, etc. Working in nuclear, construction, utilities and railways. Yet, I am all too quick to point out my lack of knowledge in certain areas. I often refer to specialist advice in technical fields where I input with some general health and safety knowledge - it's about working as a team.
Entirely agree! Know your limits should be blazed across the H&S world on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with many of the points that have been raised here, but I would also like to point out the following:
The Independent consultant was an employee of a consultancy practice – he was not the owner/director of the practice just an employee.
He had been a member of IOSH at an associate grade, but this had lapsed many years ago.
This is why I questioned his employers (the consultancy practice).
Having spent almost 25 years in H&S mainly based in the construction/civils side of things I do see people enter with so little experience coupled with low level qualifications who then embark on becoming consultants.
I believe the consultants employer has an obligation to ensure that they receive sufficient professional development and if requiring 1on1 mentoring and even chaperoning until they are let loose on an industry that has a myriad of technical challenges.
It’s easy to say that this chap had been a H&S professional for 9 years. When in those years he may of only been exposed to certain aspects and without further training or guidance left him limited in terms of capability.
This does not just apply to associate members of IOSH, having interviewed many people over the years at their Peer Review Interviews and asked them about their plans for the future, many say they are looking at the world of consultancy and pick a high risk industry such as construction.
What worries me is that the majority of these people have not been based in any role that has any construction bias whatsoever, so their knowledge and experience is going to be severely limited.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry another link, but as Freelance says, this link confirms that the consultant was
Quote:"..... a self-employed health and safety consultant, had been contracted to work on the project by (named) Safety Services. He had identified the risk of trench collapses in his risk assessment and drew up plans for the work, but did not ensure they were followed".
I've never worked for a consultancy group, so I'm curious to know what are their responsibilities with regard to ensuring their 'sub-contractor' IS providing competent advice and IS effectively completing any agreed inspections.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Surely we need more info here; wouldn't checking that the SSOW is actually In place usually be the job of site foremen/managers/PC or whoever, rather than the safety bod? What we don't know are the terms on which he was contracted; if he accepted responsibility for day-to day supervision of site safety I could understand it, if not it does seem a bit unjust on the face of it,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
we live in a country who worships capitalism to the extreme and anybody can call themselves anything they want to as clients do not check competence as the norm as all they care about is cheapness, and its interesting that dirty washing is cleaned in public e.g. this discussion page; unlike all the professions who keep things secret ---------- recently I attended an event where ~120 school H&S people were present and not one of them had any sort of academic qualification nor had practicable experience yet we let our children attend such places and the authorities do not bother!
As an example I am setting up another business in another area and the authorities inclusive of insurers are not interested in anything except that I have registered for tax purposes and have not asked for any sort of comment [irrespective of proof] that I am competent to undertake this new venture. I have asked the question but blankness is all I get back about competence even from the local EHO's who are supposed to monitor such areas
And this site is a good example where people who are not in the profession somehow get H&S jobs/are given H&S jobs-responsibilities and then we supply them with free answers to questions that are sometimes so basic it makes my hair stand on end to think that workforce's are reliant on such people
That said there are lots of good none H&S people out there who are given H&S jobs and are trying hard so I am not getting at everybody but the profession [if I can call it that as the occupation is not listed as a profession on the gov lists of professions?!] needs to stop giving away free advice [as I have argued for over many years] as free advice has undermined those working as H&S people to the point that it is a joke in many areas
All the above said is it not amusing that the one job that gets the most negative things chucked at it by the press and gov in particular and is not seen as a profession is the one job where we see people put in prison and fined for making mistakes - I have yet to see a HR, IT, legal, account etc. person reprimanded never mind put in prison or fined
Rant over - cannot wait to start my new venture in the new year as no HSE looking over my shoulder
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If I may add a personal opinion regarding competence and the general acceptance that an individual can be good at anything and everything what hacks me off is when an individual comes on here asking for advice on fire risk assessments because they have been tasked with undertaking one or more.
There has been much support on here for these individuals, probablymfrom like minded individuals, also some criticism by the likes of myself. (he who shouts loudest gets heard).
I am of the opinion that you need to be more than just a H&S trained person to carry out proper fire risk assessments, have said it before and am saying it now.
Fire risk assessment is about saving lives by preventing fires, there are other aspects of H&S that do not directly save life so there needs some perspective on these issues.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
FireSafety101, I was put in a position of making a 'fire risk assessment' with my last-but-one firm. Was I competent to do it? NO! Was I trained to do it? NO!. . I flagged it up in the assessment by saying so. I flagged other issues before being made 'redundant'. There and many firms (small to medium in my case) who really don't give a whatever as long as someone is scared to loose there job.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mr Threadbare, well done to you for stating your case for not doing the FRA, but commiserations for losing your job because you stood up to be counted.
This country needs more like you who will put your head above the parapet and take the risk of being fired at.
I trust you are is a better employment now?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
FS101
Not working at this moment FS. I spent 6 month teaching our armed forces lads electrical work when they were on the MOD resettlement program and/or returning from Afgan and retiring into civy street. But the firm lost the contract so the past 12 weeks I've been kicking the walls mate :-) At 61 it don't get easy :-) but living the dream. Not an easy path H&S, I'm glad I have electrical
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a self employed H&S consultant I take out PI insurance and take the cover that suits my work. At present I am covered for general health and safety advice and fire risk assessment. There is a cost for that level of cover and I will never ever step outside those areas as I am not competent to do so.
I also have Grad I Fire E by qualification and I see that as support for my fire risk assessment competence.
I will be retiring at the end of this month, 65 on Boxing Day and have decided to drop a lot of my present workload to make more time for myself, and decided that fire risk assessment will be one of those areas. I have notified the IFE I will not be renewing my membership and I will not be doing any more fire risk assessments.
My main area of work for the past three years has been CDM C and that is the other main area I will be dropping.
I have notified my PI insurers of the changes and has resulted in a good reduction in my insurance payment.
Reason I am saying all this is that as a self employed consultant I have to limit my work to what I am insured for, whereas as an employed H&S person you do what the Boss wants you to do. Otherwise risk the sack.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
FireSafety101 wrote:I am of the opinion that you need to be more than just a H&S trained person to carry out proper fire risk assessments, have said it before and am saying it now
I agree entirely with this comment, it's about knowing your limitations. However, not everyone agrees; when doing my NGC 2 years ago (yes I am a lowly TechIOSH) after just one day on the fire safety training syllabus the tutor asked the question as to whether people were now trained enough to carry out a FRA, on hearing the entire room state no the trainer then declared that we were in fact fully trained and good to go!
I disagreed with this completely but fell on deaf ears I'm afraid, and no doubt this guy has taught dozens more courses, telling hundreds of students who haven't even at that time passed NGC that they are trained and competent to carry out a FRA, regardless of what background they have or what scenario they are working in - I found this advice to be irresponsible, if not dangerous.
Adding further to this, our site (chemical process) falls under DSEAR with having 100+tonnes methanol stored at any one time, my manager has for the last 2 years told me I am competent to carry out a FRA, which I have thus-far resisted, instead bringing in external help from people far more qualified and experienced than me (know your limits). A recent independent Risk Control Audit initiated by our insurers saw my manager ask this question of the auditor, who himself confirmed his opinion that I'm qualified to carry the FRA out.
When people are dishing this type of advice out it makes it difficult for those with H&S responsibilities to stand up and say they aren't qualified enough for this. Which is why individuals probably end up on this forum asking for help and advice, especially if they feel their job depends on it.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=FireSafety101]If I may add a personal opinion regarding competence and the general acceptance that an individual can be good at anything and everything what hacks me off is when an individual comes on here asking for advice on fire risk assessments because they have been tasked with undertaking one or more.
.
Though not always, I have in the recent past asked quite a number of fire related questions. Out of general interest and to do by own assessment of what I could see and thought not right. This allowed me to tell the MD recently that he needs to get an external fire assessment done by someone qualified and experienced as I was not (or at least not for the set up we have). I do think however there are different levels to things, but again that is knowing how far you can go.
Yes I risked losing my job, even though I was very clear at interview that I could not do this. He was quite unhappy, but too bad. I will have to wait and see the long term effects, If I wait around that long. It is not as easy as some make it out to be, I have spent time on the dole and I can assure you its not nice . Gone are the days you would learn your trade under the tutelage of a more experienced person in a large organisation. You are very often it, and I think we need to recognise the good old days have gone forever. You come out of your exams and have to get on with it, learning and picking up specific info as you go. I can see why independent consultants do not like giving away their hard earned information and experience, but how else are others to learn.
Again as always just MHO
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Fire risk assessment is certainly not something that NGC or Dip or BSc in general H&S covers in anything like sufficient depth. I don't think that something like the Nebosh fire cert on its own does, for that matter. Competence is as always a mix of knowledge and experience, and you can't gain experience on a course
It does depend on your environment, certainly, somebody doing a FRA for a portakabin in a field needs a lot less in the way of technical knowledge than somebody like Alan would - if he took the FRA for his workplace on himself which so far he's been honest enough to resists.
I did my first FRA some 15 years ago in response to the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regs; anybody remember them? I was rubbish at the time, and my risk assessment was lamentable. By the time the RRFSO (and Fire (Scotland) Act) came in I had learnt a lot, mainly by talking to fire officers, reading lots of stuff, including, in my case and for my environment HTMs and Building Regs, and talking to people who understand how structures are nailed together. Nowadays I reckon I'm just about competent to do a risk assessment of, say, a small to medium healthcare premises, a shop, or office type workplaces with limited hotworks. Anything beyond that is well beyond me. Part of the problem is the lack of any authoritative interpretation of the law (the Guidance series have no legal authority), and the resulting lack of anything like a recognised level of competence for fire risk assessment. Yes there are trade bodies, but their standards are not universally applicable.
John
|
|
|
|
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.