Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all,
Im just trying to unpick the following and any thoughts would be much appreciated.
A grant was awarded to organisation A to upgrade vulnerable adults' homes. This organistaion then contracted Organisation B to complete the work who in turn sub contracted it to organisation C.
All through this process PAS 91 has been used and all organisations are SSIP Accredited.
Organisation C then let this vulnerable person into the bathroom to use her toilet facilities and she tripped over tools in the bathroom where work had been taking place and has suffered a serious injury.
An investiagtion has started and it is 100% reportable - but who reports it? If the client has followed PAS91 surely there it is not their responsibility?
Finally, in the method statement and RA organisation C stated clearly that access to work areas by tennets were to be prevented at all times (obviously this didnt happen!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Clarkyb,
From what you say it appears that "A" were in overall charge (because they received the money and appointed the contractors) while "C" were in charge of the site at the time of the accident.
My approach would be that "C" should report it (it happened on their watch) and that "A" should verify that it has been reported.
If "C" fail (or refuse) to notify then "A" should do it and make clear that "C" didn't want to say anything to the HSE. In this way "A" have done all they reasonably can - as lead company - to ensure compliance with RIDDOR.
As regards liability, I feel the lawyers could have a little fun with this.
"C" is certainly in the frame since it appears that they didn't follow their own RA, but it might be argued that "A" also bear some responsibility for (allegedly) not employing a safe sub-contractor.
But I'm not a lawyer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Farrall900153
Thanks for this - this is the thoughts of myself but not shared by the rest of the organisation!
I feel that organisation A had done everything possible to appoint a safe contractor and carry out the required checks.
However a curve ball has just been thrown in to the mix!!!!!
Not sure about CDM 15 (still trying to get head around it) but previously the clients duties were to ensure welfare facilities. Does this extend to home users or purely contractors/employees?
I have been told that it was agreed the tennet had agreed to use a relatives toilet nearby but this has not been clarified at present and will certainly not be recorded anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My understanding is that under CDM 2015 the domestic client's responsibilities pass to the principal contractor unless the domestic client specifies otherwise.
The tenant in this case (the injured person) would surely not be the client - that role would be taken by the housing association who both own the property and authorised the work via a contract with "A".
With regards to the problems of a) failure in the duty of care to the tenant (s3 HSW74) and b) a civil claim by the tenant for negligence I think it's significant that - from what you've said - the tenant is a "vulnerable adult". The mere fact that they have been deemed "vulnerable" should have immediately triggered a high level of care from all parties concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.