Rank: Forum user 
|
Just need to double check my own thoughts as brain not fully working yet on this Monday morning.
We are due to have some minor roof repairs carried out and when I have asked the contractor to provide a CPP he has said that this is not required as the project is non-notifiable. I understand that this was the case with the old 2007 regs but I believe under the 2015 a CPP is required for ALL projects and that it must be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the project and the risks involved.
Can anyone tell me if I am right or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I know nothing about CDM but I vaguely remember that (from by diploma of a long time ago) that CDM applies (and has always applied) to ALL construction type projects and so ALL projects require some sort of CPP. Whether the project is notifiable is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
fscott, your right, CCP required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You are correct.
Some may say this proves non competence, and they may be right or it could be they are just trying to avoid some paperwork, maybe they don't know how to write a CPP?
I am assuming the work is for your employer's premises, but it applies anyway.
Let's know how it progresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks guys your quick responses much appreciated on this Monday morning. And for the record, yes this is in a work capacity not domestic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
as i understand it a CPP is required for planned works but not for reactive works (i.e. roof springs a leak and needs dealing with pronto!).
hope this helps
allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So just putting a patch on the leaky section of roof would not require CPP but a proper planned repair would then ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
allanwood wrote:as i understand it a CPP is required for planned works but not for reactive works (i.e. roof springs a leak and needs dealing with pronto!).
hope this helps
allan Whilst the Regulations don't make that discrimination, I'm of the opinion that CPP for such reactive works need not involve additional paperwork provided the contractor has appropriate RAMS in place. On a point of detail: The Client has to 'ensure a CPP has been prepared'. In practice then, the Client duty in respect of CPP could be satisfied by exchange of e-mail?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
fscott - sounds like your contractor needs to update him/herself on the new CDM regs!
As has already been said a CPP is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ron
Presumably the email would also have attached the CPP, or would you as the client be satisfied purely with an email notification confirming a CPP had been prepared?
With regards to the 'prepared' aspect of a CPP I think these is an unfortunate choice of word. Surely, the regulations meant a CPP in place or something to that effect. Semantics maybe.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
irrespective of CDM HSWA, MHSW and all other laws require proper management so I would go with those laws if there is an argument as to what is what in CDM as they do apply and I would expect a proper management system to be in place and as U are the client U hold the purse strings
2 many contractors especially mid/small ones are using the complications of the new CDM regs to do little or nothing but they have no argument against HAWA etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Many thanks guys I now have a CPP in my posession from the contractor. At first glance, it looks basic to me (they have simply filled in the template from CIS80) but it does seem to contain the relevant information either directly or by referecing their RA and/or method statement. I will be reviewing in more depth just shortly but how much juristation (legally speaking I know we hold the purse strings) do I have as the client to insist on a more in depth CPP if I don't think it meets the requirements of the CDM regs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The client does not approve the CPP, rather just ensures a CPP has been prepared. That said, the client is entitled to review and comment on the suitability of the CPP. The client does also have duties to ensure the health, safety and welfare provisions for the project and that the PC/PD are fulfilling their duties. Arguably not preparing a proper CPP the PC is not fulfilling its duties.
So, I would argue if there are any glaring omissions from the CPP it is incumbent upon the client to advise the PC and for the PC to make the necessary amendments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Where a C.P.P. is required the level of information contained therin should be relevant to the risks involved. i.e. a small maintenance job would not need as much information as a refurbishment project.
There are some very good templates now available on the internet that reflect this, and there is also the CDM Wizard app (developed by the CITB in conjunction with the H.S.E).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:The client does not approve the CPP, rather just ensures a CPP has been prepared. That said, the client is entitled to review and comment on the suitability of the CPP. The client does also have duties to ensure the health, safety and welfare provisions for the project and that the PC/PD are fulfilling their duties. Arguably not preparing a proper CPP the PC is not fulfilling its duties.
So, I would argue if there are any glaring omissions from the CPP it is incumbent upon the client to advise the PC and for the PC to make the necessary amendments. One for Courts to decide perhaps. That said, CDM concedes that the Client may be 'inexpert' so little point in sending a copy of what after all would only be the initial CPP. The Client should also have assurance by form of contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.