Posted By Blindwatchm@ker
Some thoughts on this would be helpful.
Imagine a scenario where roofwork is ongoing on a flat roof (with a very gentle slope). The roof is split into two parts - essentially two different roofs with one about a foot or so higher than the other. The contractors have finished the higher roof and have removed most of the edge protection on that roof - although there is still some edge protection it does not go all around the building. The higher roof is about 15 feet long. The edge protection around the lower roof is complete . There is access to the higher roof but the employees do not need to go there and are trained and competent etc.

Is this acceptable?

Would HSE be justified in issuing a PN?

Posted By Maj
Currently under the at height working you have a legal responsibility to assess the risk and document this as evidence that you are carrying out work in the safest manner possible. Failure to identify and control falls from height may well result in PN and prosecution. Those expected to undertake work on the premises,where, for practical reasons falls cannot be prevented, fall arrest equipment should be considered. When considering protection it is important to look at the heirarchy as described in the New work at height Regulations avaliable on HSE, which I found useful. There is no easy answer or solution to this. It may also I am afraid to say result in extra expenditure in order to access the task. I hope this helps though.

Posted By ddraigice
Phil,
With all due respects you are wrong.
-Regulation 11 of wah regs says that you must prevent access to all dangerous areas.
-Accident history tells us that this is a problem and we know that people do things that they shouldnt for a variety of reasons and very rarely is this down to horseplay or sheer bloody mindedness.
- If the risk is controllable and easily controllable then control it.

It is down to the management to take all reasonable steps and the defence "it was the employees fault he is dead" will never work in a situation like this - unless he blatantly over-rode a safety system.

I know you were only giving your point of view but some people may take this as fact and end up with the wrong advice.

In reply to the original post, if HSE came to the site they would be within their right to issue a PN and prosecute if they felt it was serious enough.

As for any other system that does not include some sort of physical control measure - such as an "overwatch" system from previous threads - even for short duratrion work, you are not complying with the hierarchy of control measures as set down in WAH regs or the management regs.

Posted By steven bentham
Yes - you have not mentioned the height of the roof, the condition, any previous history of advice or enforcement, client attitude, compliance with CDM, other issues on site etc

The inspector does not in law need to be correct, only to act reasonably and in 'his' opinion.

The inspector may consider that contractors or others may access this area.

Posted By ddraigice
Phil,

The serious and imminent risk is accessing the area and falling off the edge. In my experience, people access these areas (and sometimes die) for a number of reasons - they store material there, they eat their lunch there, someone shouts to them or they just go and look at the view.
The breach is clear, Reg 11 is very specific.

The hierarchy says avoid, prevent, mitigate AND provide instruction, not OR provide instruction.

Of course, the chances are the guys are sensible and won't go there but I wouldnt like to be the one standing in court defending why they didnt stop them in the first place. I've seen many people fail to do this both in court and in employment tribunals where they have failed to overturn prohibition notices. There is case law on this and planty of evidence in HSE's PR database.

You are partly right though - "put up a physical barrier". In this scanario it was already there but was taken down.

Enforcers do not issue notices for all breaches but where the risk is this high they usually will.