Rank: Forum user 
|
Latest article in the SHP (also on the HSE website) shows the a company AND contractor being fined for a contractor being injured while a lift was being carried out via a FLT which was being driven by the IP's colleague (another contractor).
The hiring company brings in the contracted engineering company to dismantle some equipment - presumably because they had identified their own limits and brought in someone who they thought was competent.
The hiring company were found guilty for not ensuring the work was carried out by competent persons and that its control of contractors was inadequate.
I have seen quite a few of these come up and I know it doesn't go into the fine detail of the failures but supervising a contractor is difficult, especially if you do not have the knowledge to know what is right or wrong (hence the reason why you bring in the contractor in the 1st place).
I don't agree that the hiring company ends up with a larger fine that the contractor - when the actual accident involved the contractors who made the decision on how the lift was carried out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Does the hiring company not have the ability to ensure a safe working practice is adhered to?
My experience in the past as a senior HSE professional for a large construction company is that we got kicked by enforcement bodies more than contractors (not prosecutions but stern advice).
In my opinion and belief this was to make it easier for the enforcement body as they kick us, knowing we push this on to our supply chain which for us we could have a big effect and influence on due to the work we give to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
KAJ
One of the problems here is that the client pleaded guilty.
It would have been more interesting if case had gone to trial.
Duty towards contractors R v Associated Octel but subject to qualifications. All too often HSE thinks that the client MUST be guilty if a contractor gets hurt at their premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think Peter was probably using the word "Client" in the sense of the person hiring the contractor rather than the CDM sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for the replies, I see quite a few of these and just think that you identify your own capabilities so that is the reason for bringing in a contractor.
Potentially, unless you stand with them, there is a chance of a contractor letting you down, which even with the method statements being in place, the client could be in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sometimes Prosecutions seem a bit bizarre, at least on the face of it, however when you look a bit deeper it becomes apparent there were inherent failings. The client should ensure to their best ability that the contractor is competent for the task. Normally through a robust procurement process and the work is properly planned with a SSoW ie method statement and risk assessments.
Clients are not expected to be experts in any particular field. That said, it does not absolve them from ensuring the contractor does not pose any additional hazards and they are provided the pre-construction information which they need to carry out the task safely. All too often clients engage a contractor and don't give them the support and information they need. In high risk operations the client may be required to provide some sort of supervision to protect their own staff and others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The riddles which Ray refers to as 'a bit bizarre' are discussed in terms of conflicts between criminal law and contractual obligations arising from civil law, by Tony Clarke in 'Managing Health and Safety in Building and Construction' (Butterworth Heinemann, 1999).
An experienced building contractor and registered adjudicator, Clarke uses R v Derby City Council as one example to explain joint responsibilities in a criminal case, adding that lawyers at times insert invalid clauses in contracts - invalid simply because a contract in civil law can't override a responsibility in criminal law.
While a version of the CDM later than the version in force at the time Clarke wrote, perhaps this may throw some light on a client's responsbility in the case under discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kieran, you must do an awful lot of reading in between posting on these forums. :)
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose it's a relative matter, Ray
For me, it's like learning to swim regularly late in life: taking to it with even greater enthusiasm than I did many decades ago, before I touch the end of the pool for the last time :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.