IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Oooppss. Now, about that "needs testing" chart..
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To be exact, it's examination not testing is almost all cases.
There would be a huge difference in cost to employers if everything needed testing rather than a thorough examination.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't think a chart that shows what needs testing will do any good. They obviously just didn't want to do it, not just forgetful. They got what they deserved.
Where is the H&S person in this, I wonder this at every new case that comes out. Are they just not being listened to or is there no one advising. There should be separate punishments for not listening to the person providing advice or not having one in place.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That's a hefty fine!
And good luck to that employer when their liability insurance policies are up for renewal. Finding insurance will be 'challenging'. The premiums will be an additional ouch! factor.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron Hunter wrote:That's a hefty fine!
And good luck to that employer when their liability insurance policies are up for renewal. Finding insurance will be 'challenging'. The premiums will be an additional ouch! factor. An interesting point you make Ron. My experience in this industry it that is the insurance company that normally conduct the statutory inspections.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unfortunately its a fact of life that when you go to court, mainly the Crown Court for an offence, they do ask to see your last set of audited accounts so that they can set the fine to suit the wealth of the company. There has been many in the past and still now that simply decide they cannot afford to pay and would rather close the business down as opposed to paying the fine. The courts now try and use a figure that is readily available by the company, giving enough punishment by fining you an appropriate amount without making you go bust. Thats why you see such massive fines in one case and a different one would be in the lower thousands, Shame but both are hoping to inflict an affordable expense with a chance of Collection
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The hefty size of the fine surely reflects to a considerable degree the firm's failure to comply with the Improvement Notice (IN). The wording on it plus supporting information, probably a Schedule about how to comply with its requirements, plus guidance about grounds and procedure for appealing against it, should have left the firm in no doubt as to its intent and also the consequences which would arise in the event of non-compliance. Furthermore, the fact that the inspector twice extended the period for compliance suggests that the firm sought the extensions and gave plausible grounds for them. However, it's just possible that the firm thought that it could postpone complying with the IN by repeatedly seeking extensions. Also, if the IN which the firm received and presumably complied with in 2011 had been about the same matter, this would have been mentioned during the recent prosecution and taken into account by the magistrates.
What is not clear from the cited website is whether any of the items of lifting equipment which formed the subject of the IN were defective or not. As a parallel, the owner of a vehicle can be prosecuted for not ensuring that it is subjected to an MOT test at appropriate intervals - even if the vehicle is well maintained, complies with exhaust emission requirements and has no faults which render it unsafe. Either way, the prosecution would almost certainly have drawn attention to the fact that the firm's failure to have the lifting equipment thoroughly examined (at appropriate intervals as required by LOLER) would have given it some financial advantage over similar firms which do comply with LOLER.
Graham B
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Never a truer statement made [via gerry s] "...would rather close the business down as opposed to paying the fine..."
In my personal opinion, the company creation and management system in the UK is a shambles as anybody can start almost any type of business without any form of competence etc. and then close it as they wish to avoid tax etc. & until things change things will not get better so people are continually put at risk -- directors should be put in prison which can easily be achieved if political leaders get to grips with the appropriate laws but hey-ho these political types are all self employed so they will not change the system
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Oooppss. Now, about that "needs testing" chart..
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.