Because of his known issues theen the employer does not have the option but to assist him. Under EA 2010 he would be protected by reason of a long standing mental condition that prevents normal actions in some circumstances. You are perfectly at liberty in my view to check his abilities yourself - as you seem already to have done. Do a RA for the person to demonstrate to the HSE what has been done and why and leave it there. Bob

Bob I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with you there. Safety law would take primacy and it would not just be his safety you would have to consider. I base these thoughts on outcome of; Lane Group plc and NSC v Farmiloe.

Hi Steve I personally would have grave concerns in allowing someone to operate machinery of any type if they are not able to handle the stress of being tested for his operators licence. Additionally, if there was an incident involving your labourer driving an FLT the fact that he failed both training courses could be indicate that he was not competent to operate the machine. Carl

I didn't realise just how some people can react to exam situations until last week when one of our factory managers went to pieces on a basic COSHH Awareness course i'd arranged, so I sympathise with the OP's dilema, however I personally wouldn't be happy to let someone continue to use a FLT having failed training twice, I've pulled guys from FLT driving for the same reason, whether they've historically been allowed use of a FLT or not Alan

sorry about the typos - just being too quick to hit the send button!

Safety Smurf et al I was certainly not advocating any assessment BUT the person is having difficulties and the employer needs to be creative in assisting him to demonstrate his competence - I have seen many who have passed such training and are less competent than many untrained persons.

There is no legal requirement that I know of for a FLT operator to hold a qualification. That said, the employer needs to ensure the person receives proper training and is competent to operate the FLT. An in-house assessment could be considered sufficient in my opinion.

Hi It seems a shame that no one has yet mentioned the ACoP L117 on rider operated lift truck training. The latest version came out last month, and included the guidance on safe use of Lift Trucks that previously was separate. If you do not follow it you may well be found in breach Of PUWER. Ian Here is the link. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l117.htm

Hi Everyone, thanks so much for all the replies, some interesting takes. The more I think about allowing him to do unaccredited training, the more I think its the wrong way to go, all our other drivers are AiTT so if he were to have an accident then the HSE would surely ask why he wasn't, we'd have to say well it was because he failed it a few times so we put him on a course he couldn't fail.... If no-one was AiTT then fine, but not one individual. I spoke to my director and I'm quite happy that he took a sympathetic view that some people just weren't able to take tests and didn't want to further pressurise him by sending him on test after test. He was happy that there was enough flexibililty in the workforce that the guy in question didn't really need to drive a FLT as a core part of his role. Must admit I was a bit suprised at this quite compassionate response! The plan now is for him to do no FLT driving, but when its quiet, one of our experienced guys will take him out into the yard (totally empty, no real hazards) and practice exam type conditions, and then perhaps in 6 months when the pressure is off we'll send him on his own for the exam - not tell anyone else then there is no pressure that if he fails he'll get the mickey taken out of him. On a side note, I've been delivering the IOSH working safely course to all our people and have been really suprised that at the mention of test quite a few people have got into a real state over it - its not something I appreciated enough before but hopefully I've learnt from it. The guy with the FLT was ex-army, great guy and you'd imagine a real 'solid' type individual who wouldn't be fazed by an exam, just goes to show you can't predict how people will react to circumstances based on their outward character. Thanks Again. Steve