River Brain Scaffold Collapse: http://press.hse.gov.uk/...segen&cr=4/09-nov-15 This is "old" CDM2007 prosecution of the CDM-C However I can't help but ponder if the events described had unfolded now, what the implications might be for the Principal Designer? How does CDM2007 Reg 20(1) compare with CDM2015 Regulation 11(7) and should we (or at least the PDs of this World) be concerned?

Walker There have been precious few prosecutions of clients, designers or planning supervisors/CDMCs since the original CDM regs came into force in 1995. In the first 10 years of HSE's prosecutions database the number of successful CDM charges (not cases which can of course involve multiple charges) against clients was almost identical to the number of CDM charges against principal contractors (who will usually be in court for other charges). Not much has changed since.

Gary, I'd bet that Ron knew that already ;-)

Bigmac1, it sounds so easy! The problem is that a lot of Principal Contractors are unaware when (temporary works) scaffolding needs designing and simply rely on their scaffold contractor. Even when they do, this tends to be done at the last minute and the scaffolding is up before you know it. If the Principal Designer has not highlighted any significant hazards associated with the scaffolding and/or whether it required designing or was standard TR20:13 scaffolding I think they would have been in trouble under CDM 2015. It appears that the scaffolding had to be designed however what is worrying me is to what extent does the Principal Designer have to go to discharge their duties?

Would a designer fully appreciate the nuances with a design for a scaffold anyway?

When we have situations like this "It beggars belief that following the collapse, no lessons were learnt and untrained people were still allowed to adapt the scaffold." it is clear that some people cannot learn lessons of their own accord. Some people have little concern for their fellow man/woman and the law really cannot provide people with a conscience. Of course there are also those who have little concern from themselves and would even argue against those who tried to protect them from themselves. The real crime is that either there was no proper safety advice on the job or else the advice was ignored and yet there is nothing in the case which specifically emphasises the importance of that, IMHO.