Huge fine-work at height Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

KDP		#1 Posted : 22 August 2016 09:45:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		http://www.constructione...t-with-huge-safety-fine/ Wonder if the client was also fined?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#2 Posted : 22 August 2016 10:03:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		KDP wrote: http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/08/22/bulgarian-contractor-hit-with-huge-safety-fine/ Wonder if the client was also fined? Don't know, but clients often seem to get away with being prosecuted, which is a tragedy as they are supposed to be responsible for the health and safety of projects according to CDM 2015. Nonetheless a hefty fine for the contractor. Employing a decent h&s person to oversee the work would have cost the company a fraction of the fine.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ron Hunter		#3 Posted : 22 August 2016 11:55:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I wonder what the chances are of that fine actually being paid..................?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

walker		#4 Posted : 22 August 2016 12:12:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		We really need a level playing field for the decent contractors who are prepared to do the job properly. The client needs to brought to book.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SP900308		#5 Posted : 22 August 2016 12:47:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Slightly off topic, did anyone here go to the mock CDM2015 trial at Salford Quays? Simon
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

sadlass		#6 Posted : 22 August 2016 13:41:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		It's quite possible that the client had done their bit. The contractor is the employer with primary duties. It is not a given that clients are automatically 'responsible' for contractor breaches.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

walker		#7 Posted : 22 August 2016 13:46:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		sadlass wrote: It's quite possible that the client had done their bit. The contractor is the employer with primary duties. It is not a given that clients are automatically 'responsible' for contractor breaches. You don't think it was "cheapest quote wins" then?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#8 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:04:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Of course the lowest bid wins...that's the way of the world. However cheap often does not relate good health and safety practices as we practitioners know only too well. The article does not state when the offence occurred so we do not know whether it was CDM 2015 or 2007, either way what was the role of the CDM-C/PD, was there a CPP, RAMS, etc? Makes a mockery of CDM if you ask me.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

walker		#9 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:18:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Assume the client was Derby City Council as thery own Markeaton park
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#10 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:24:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		walker wrote: Assume the client was Derby City Council as thery own Markeaton park Hmm, that figures.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

James Robinson		#11 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Stand back a bit..... The company prosecuted Walltopia is a global player with 1000+ projects (specializes in climbing walls, etc.), and happens to be based in Bulgaria - hence Bulgarian labour. So, the Client may very well have selected their contractor diligently, and not just picked someone out of the yellow pages, who then sub-contracted, etc. etc. Maybe that's why the prosecution didn't go all the way up the chain to the Client.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

walker		#12 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:49:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		James Robinson wrote: Stand back a bit..... The company prosecuted Walltopia is a global player with 1000+ projects (specializes in climbing walls, etc.), and happens to be based in Bulgaria - hence Bulgarian labour. So, the Client may very well have selected their contractor diligently, and not just picked someone out of the yellow pages, who then sub-contracted, etc. etc. Maybe that's why the prosecution didn't go all the way up the chain to the Client. Interesting! Maybe the fine will get paid after all
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

RayRapp		#13 Posted : 22 August 2016 15:57:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		They also have a base in the UK - so maybe not Bulgarian labour.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

SP900308		#14 Posted : 22 August 2016 16:00:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		RayRapp wrote: They also have a base in the UK - so maybe not Bulgarian labour. Quite....... could be Latvian, Romanian or Polish labour :)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest