Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
davidjohn#1  
#1 Posted : 15 May 2012 16:12:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
davidjohn#1

Can anyone point me in the right direction of where to look, so i'm able to raise both arguements for and against checking a contractors risk assesment
CliveLowery  
#2 Posted : 15 May 2012 16:29:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CliveLowery

Look at Page 37, para 158 of the CDM Acop (L144) as a starter. I'm sure you will then be able to cross reference from there.

"158. The principal contractor should work with other contractors to identify the hazards and assess the risks related to their work, including the risks they may create for others. Using this information and applying the general principles of prevention (see Appendix 7) the principal contractor, in discussion with the contractors involved, must plan, manage and co-ordinate the construction phase. This includes supervising and monitoring work to ensure that it is done safely and that it is safe for new activities to begin."

I can't think how the against would win though.

Regards

Clive
dennish  
#3 Posted : 15 May 2012 17:13:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
dennish

Have a read of http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf some useful information that you may be able to use.
davidjohn#1  
#4 Posted : 15 May 2012 21:56:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
davidjohn#1

Thanks for your responses, i will look L144 and the hse link. Just to clarify the scenario is the client checking the contractors risk assessments prior to them conmmencing their works not the PC checking the sub contractors, if that makes any difference.
bob youel  
#5 Posted : 16 May 2012 07:42:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

Forget the law areas; if you are the client you can do what you want and that's that - noting that it is not logical and sensible that as the client you want poor standards by those that serve U as if poor standards are present the results of those poor standards will come back to U

Another point is that written words e.g. Risk assessments mean not a lot as its how people manage in reality on the clients behalf that counts as time and again I see poorly written risk assessments etc. along side good management practices and very good well written [and presented in bound colour coded folders] risk assessments etc along side very poor day to day management standards

Just some observations
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.