Posted By Paul Leadbetter Mark That's well beyond what the law requires but what will be the impact on the premiums if this 'guidance' is ignored? Paul

Posted By Martyn Hendrie I know that employers liability insurance must be for £5 million but don't think there is any legal requirement or limits on PI insurance. What qualifications/training/ experience the insurers consider necessary for them to accept a proposal is a matter for them. As previous resonse states try another insurer.

Posted By Paul Craythorne I carry out a lot of insurance surveys and one of the issues that repeatedly comes up is competent assistance under reg 7 of MHSWR. I have to make a judgement on whether the company has access to competent assistance that is adequate for their needs. Whilst I could give some guidance on what is deemed competent, I would never stipulate a minimum qualification and PI cover requirement for the person(s)providing the assistance. However, as one respondent has already mentioned, the insurers (as in the underwriters and not the surveyor) can stipulate whatever they feel is necessary to protect their premium. Paul

Posted By Steve Holliday I have found this piece of case law, in Tolley's, that seems to suggest the courts do not view the NEBOSH Cert as adequate to show the knowledge part of 'competence'. In the case Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v J Sainsbury plc14 (1998), Sainsbury was fined £425k and £75k costs when a warehouse operative was killed by a reach truck in December 1996. The truck’s safety cut out switch had been deliberately disconnected. The charges included failing to appoint competent person under 7(1) of MHSWR. The person appointed as H&S adviser at the depot was a general nurse with a general certificate from NEBOSH, an insufficient qualification to undertake this role unassisted. At company level there was a safety advisor but his role did not extend to advising on the operational hazards associated with reach trucks at the depot.

Posted By Steve Holliday Point taken Dave. I was using this case as a general point rather than commenting on the specific nature of the case. I would think however that one of those devious legal types would be able to slant this decision to include most situations.

Posted By Stuart Nagle I take then that the the insurers are also into providing health and safety consultancy and have a plethora of MIOSH RSP employees with not a lot to do!! Stuart