Hi, I'm getting a little confused and would appreciate some advice please. We operate a 'responsive repair team' who carry out day to day general repairs within the social housing sector. This team is made up of own employees and a few small sized contractors. My question is could i create a 'blanket' construction phase plan covering the works we do repeatedly do every day? If not does anyone else on here have a similar situation and how do you manage?

Thanks in advance

Yes I believe you can, a lot of large FM contractors have integrated the requirements of the CDM regulations with their H&S systems.

So they pick up pre-construction information e.g. tenant issues, asbestos etc., and relay it to the operatives with the job instruction. The operatives then carry with them a copy of the policy and procedures, generic RAMS etc. Once on site they carry out a short risk assessment to ensure there are not usual risk and hazards not covered by the generic RAMS.

They do tend to have work planners/coordinators in the office managing this, tracking locations, responding to queries and supporting the operatives.

With the new regulation there is sometimes the sticky issue of who is the PD. If the HA have issues a specification then they are, if they have just issues a job instruction e.g. replace a socket, then I believe you are, as you will choose the actual socket.

No way! That's entirely contrary to the stated objectives of CDM, which is all about reducing bureaucracy.

The employer's task is to ensure a competent workforce via provision of appropriate supervision, information, instruction and training.

So then Ron how do you propose to handle the risk assessment and safe working issues with this type of work? You cannot call possessing the RAMS bureaucracy.

My post was only intended as a general methodology and not an in-depth policy. The operative will only carry relevant documentation. I am not proposing a generic CPP, but the CPP for this type of work is very different from typical construction and a lot of it will be repeated.

Ron,
Construction has developed this methodology of RAMS due to the ever changing workforce, risks and hazards on a typical construction site. It has successfully played a major part in reducing accident rates. If the CPP is not on a typical construction site then there is something wrong!

If I was working at a fixed location I would expect to have access to the policies, procedures and RAMS. I do not expect operatives to carry them around with them but they should have access and be aware of them. How is this to be done with remote maintenance workers who rarely came to the office if they are not kept in the vans?

I am not saying a whole set of policies and procedures for every aspect of a company being kept on the van, only that relevant.

Some of the industries you mentioned have relative poor health and safety figures and could learn from others.

I never negated or even mentioned the requirements of competence but have seen excessively large RAMS that repeat core competences rather than refer to them, so perhaps understand where you are coming from.

The post was about remote working maintenance operatives in third party premises. I have managed maintenance crews and it was a practise that worked well. I know other large FM contractors use similar practises but it is only one element of an effective H&S system.

I'm all for cutting down unnecessary paper work...but CDM just perpetuates this absurdity. We are now in a situation where a CPP is required for ALL projects, RAs are a legal requirement and a Method Statement identifies how the contractor will carry out the task safely. On top of this there may be other documentation, such as an asbestos survey, lift plan, PtW, etc. And this documentation needs to be on site.

Now, that is hardly reducing bureaucracy is it?

IMHO Ron's suggestion not to burden on site operatives with more hard copies of documents is a good one.

Perhaps if the CPP is done in the office and remains there it will suffice and comply with regulation.

The new CDM regs are not clearly defined really.

When carrying out reactive maintenance it's basically asking you to do a CPP before going to change a light bulb, when a simple risk assessment and method statement would suffice. Creating more work for businesses.

I don't see how you can do one blanket CPP when you may have multi trades working for you. Maybe do one per skillset ?

This is what I have advised for people who have maintenance contractors leaving key info (like location) blank. It could almost form part of the work order and need not be more than a few pages.

If it's any help we keep one copy of the CPP, RAMS on site so anyone visiting can see it. this has been acceptable to the HSE. Although our work is identical, our sites are not and our CPP reflects these minor variations. We have also started adding temporary works to them as they evolved.