Posted By Adam Jackson Personally I take the same approach. With company-provided tools you know the history of the tool, have more control over its appropriateness and can ensure you know what tools are being used on your site, particularly in relation to the competence of the people involved. Having once found someone removing a fitted kitchen with a chainsaw I found banning all personally-owned tools and supplying company ones was a 'good thing'. (The chainsaw-as-kitchen-removal-tool was very effective by the way!)

Posted By Renny Thomson Chainsaw to remove a kitchen! Just about as good as using a "Sthil" saw to lop branches off a tree... Whilst standing on the roof of a Transit van

Posted By Ron Hunter I 'Stihl' remember that one, Renny! Yes you are being lazy John. Go read the PUWER ACoP. Generally, how does the employer control risk (including HAVs) if he doesn't control /set standards for the tools being brought in by the workforce and how do you ensure defective tools are withdrawn or repaired? You say that change was effected with your support in Estates Management - presumably then you put forward some sort of argument?

Posted By Ron Hunter Your accident stats. might lend some weight to your arguments John? I know of many accidents attributed to employees own stanley knifes - employer could (should?) having been supplying retractable blades. (Bear in mind I don't know all the trades you are involved with) whilst you haven't been supplying the tools, do you provide facilities for sharpening of chisels, drills etc.? More outlay to provide for proper maintenance, but could also help to reduce accidents?

Posted By colin Can I have clarifcation on the "own tools" responsibility please Example.... Self employed "sub contractor" on building site using own tools======= is main contractor responsible ? or subbie's contractor ? or subbie himself who is responsible for tools safety/testing ?

Posted By Frank Hallett Good evening Colin You have raised a very important point for all those who are not direct employees of the controller of the work! The start point has to be that the actual employer or self-employed person is entirely responsible for the appropriateness, condition, selection and maintenance of all tools & other work equipment used in their undertaking. If there is a sub-contract relationship, the "senior" contractor will have the duty of ensuring that the sub-contractor does all of the above, but only insofar as it is within their competence to do so. This is 'cos the subby is usually brought in to fill a gap in the senior contractor skill, knowledge or plant provision. The best way to consider this is as decided in "Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths [Liverpool] Ltd which determined the various liabilities in negligence in relation to work controller & sub-contractor for the first time. This must be read in conjunction with Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd which dealt with the corollary of the principal contractor's lack of ability to delegate tasks and avoid liability Frank Hallett