Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=Jane Blunt] chris42 wrote:smith6720 wrote:
The HSE Board has heard (30 Jan) that a “broad breakdown” of the invoices shows:
• 10% of invoices are for values greater than £1,000;
• 70% of the invoices are for less than £500;
• 30% less than £200.
The independent members of the disputes panel will be selected on 6 February and then invited to agree their terms and conditions so that the first panel can be in pace by the end of March if needed.
That is 110% !
I don't think so.
We have 10% that are greater than £1000, therefore we have 90% that are less.
Of these, 70% are less than £500, so it follows that 20% were between £500 and £1000.
The 70% that are less than £500 must include the 30% that are less than £200, so the final breakdown is
> £1000 10%
between £500 and £1000 20%
between £200 and £500 40%
below £200 30%
I know, I thought a diversion was needed. I admit I had to look at it few times before I realised that the 30% was part of the 70%. I was wondering if I could work out the average cost of those above £1k. Became distracted with job hunting but may have a go later ( will have to assume full £500 for the 40% and £200 for the 30% etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure anyone will be interested but.
If you base the numbers on the lowest each could be ( not the highest as I originally intended) :-
So the £500 to £1,000 being 20% of invoices at £501, and the Less than £500 ( but >£200) at £201, And the less than £200 at £1. The top 10% = 142 ( rounded up) invoices would total £471,128.61, giving an average of £3,322 each.
If you use the highest possible value in each you end up with the top 10% at around £500, which can’t be as they must be over £1k. If you set the numbers at mid value so £750, £350 and £100 you get £1,931 average for each of the top 10%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
edwardh wrote:Lets try to keep this factual.
From the information provided it would appear that:
1) An untrained scaffolder [aka inexperienced lad] was allowed to work at height on an incomplete scaffold [i.e. he was still fitting the handrails].
2) He was not adequately trained for the task of fitting the handrails.
3) Supervision of this inexperienced, new starter working in a high risk industry was not adequate to pick up his defective work.
4) The statutory inspection of the scaffold was inadequate
5) For all of the above reasons the working platform did not comply with the statutory standard.
How many material breaches should there be before FFI is justified?
[Whether the PC or the scaffolding subcon should be targetted is a whole other can of worms]
A lot of supposition there which is not all factual. In any event my whole point of the post was highlighting my first experience of FFI. I don't believe that had it not been for FFI, a similar official process would have been administered. I of course stand corrected if it would have been. My experience in the past 26years with HSE Inspectors on site visits / inspections has, where someone was not seen to be working unsafely & no one in any specific and immediate danger, generally, to work 'with' rather than 'hit'' them with immediate enforcement...... Especially when there is a quick 'fix'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I well remember when we called the HSE about advice concerning an adjacent owner who would not allow inspection interanally of what looked an unsafe wall. We had cordoned off the area pending a resolution. The Inspector called and served a Prohibition Notice on us as we had people on site and they might go past the Herrass fencing into the possible danger zone!!
Give a pen pusher a chance and they will print money. Politicians and civil servants are very good at taking money from others.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You seem to be on one for criticisng others Bob.
Not all HSE inspectors are pen pushers and not all pen pushers are HSE inspectors!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
boblewis wrote:I well remember when we called the HSE about advice concerning an adjacent owner who would not allow inspection interanally of what looked an unsafe wall. We had cordoned off the area pending a resolution. The Inspector called and served a Prohibition Notice on us as we had people on site and they might go past the Herrass fencing into the possible danger zone!!
Give a pen pusher a chance and they will print money. Politicians and civil servants are very good at taking money from others.
Bob
You must be aware that this type of behaviour is not new and certainly not just the preserve of HSE inspectors.
Time and time again I hear from others about times where they have proactively asked for advice from a regulator (any regulator!) and then received a notice / formal action.
We've had a policy of never asking for advice proactively (apart from our primary authority) for a number of years, it's serves us well and I believe you have to be realistic about the situation. There are some good inspectors (I assume, having heard good stories) and some not so good (only experienced the latter), but I don't think it's worth the risk!
At the end of the day, we're the "experts" and if we're outwith our competence ask for advice from a consultant / other expert or take steps to improve your own competence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel
I call it as I encounter it. I did not say ALL but the ratio seems to climb in my experience. The HSE inspectors are more and more police officers and les and less advice points. I suppose criminals will soon face police costs and fees.
Jake
I have had that policy ever since that day and yes it was 12 years ago which goes to show the issues run deep.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.