Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Still say the LA CEO ought have been in the dock!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
The HSE should have been in the dock along with them.Putting this bloke through an ordeal like that.
This is there blinkered mentality,
"nick them all"
Half of them are kids with no experience just paper certificates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
Salus,
I'm sure you'd be saying that if it was your kids who had been potentially exposed to asbestos.
Fancy HSE putting anyone through such an ordeal? What will we have next? Fancy the police putting this person through an ordeal just because the court found him not guilty?
The HSE is there like the police to bring to court breaches of law. If there was no case to answer for this guy he wouldnt have been prosecuted. Its for the courts to decide etc...
Ah, I see, its a wind up. Sorry Salus, I thought you were serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
All,
I would like to remind users not to make complaints against individuals or organisations on these forums.
This would be a breach of AUG 3 and may result in posts being hidden.
You may however continue the discussion about enforcers being taken to court for 'enforcing' in hypothetical terms, although extreme deviations from the topic in question may also risk threads being locked.
Regards
Jonathan Breeze
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Jonathon,
These gentle reminders we are seeing from the moderators are most welcome, rather than heavy handed deletions we have witnessed in the past six months.
A breath of fresh air ! (pun intended)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
This article is clearly not telling the whole story.
Who was the Duty Holder and controlled the Asbestos management plan? I cant believe that the Head Teacher of a school was adaquately trained to do so.
The Head Teacher authorised the go ahead, but once the Asbestos was found in a survey it should have been made very clear to the person(s) who carryout maintance at the property of the areas containing ACM's.
I would like to know alot more before I make such a judgement on a Head Teacher, and I assume these were the reasons he was cleared!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
HMMM!!!
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
my thoughts exactly JPK, how did a supposedly competent organisation like the HSE even think about prosecuting the head of the school, as if he was responsible.
LA's are riddled with employee incompetence and attitudes of it's not my responsibility.
The HSE know legislation, they know procedures for H & S management,why did the HSE not follow their own advice on ascertaining the responsible person or corporate body?
You would be incompetent if you thought the head was responsible.
I am glad he was cleared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Astey
I can't comment on the facts of this particular case because I don't really know them but ........
I'm a Parent Governor at a Derby Primary School similar to the one in question.
The Local Authority (LA) is the employer and owns the buildings. As the employer, the LA is responsible for ensuring that health and safety is implemented in the school.
The management of the school, control of the budget (around £1 million in my school) and responsibility for maintenance of the buildings is delegated to the Head Teacher and Governors.
The Governors can opt to buy in the services of the local authority out of the school budget - health and safety, finance, personnel, but don't have to.
There is a premises handbook which outlines requirements for building work, etc - this was updated after the asbestos incident so I don't know what it was like before. There are now strict controls laid down for building work.
The Head Teacher has a budget authorisation level set by the Governors (£10K in my school) anything above this must be authorised by the Governors.
I would say that schools are quite unusual in that they have a lot of powers to do what they want, delegated in law.
All maintenace, utilities, wages, books, etc....etc comes out of the school budget. It is only some of the bigger projects that will be partly funded by the LA.
I imagine it would be very tempting for some people to cut costs by looking for cheaper ways of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
The problem with the article though, is that it does not clearly identify who controls maintenance at the school.
Although, yes the Head gave a go ahead for the works to the windows, who gave the GA for an Asbestos Survey during the summer holidays, and then in turn implemented the management plan accordingly???
A Head Teacher of a school? Come on!
Whoever controls maintenance, and construction should have controlled this.
I work in Construction, and my first question would be, Did the Glazing company ask to see an Asbestos Management plan, and if not, why not?
The vague details provided here are not substaintial for me to argue the case against the HSE, the Head, or any other party for that matter im afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Astey
This is how it works in my school .......
The Local Authority as owner of the buildings undertakes the asbestos survey and develops management plan.
The Head Teacher and School Governors are responsible for all maintenance at the school as they control the budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
Ok, so may I ask who is actually trained on the board of Governers to understand the implication of works to an area containing Asbestos, as per the management plan, when arranging maintenance?
This is very interesting as it seems the understanding of Asbestos and who the duty lies with seems to be confused or at best ignored until these such cases arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
In addition the guidence on the HSE web site, with regards the management of Asbestos states...
'The dutyholder is anyone responsible for maintaining and repairing all or part
of a property, or who has control of the building. For example, the occupier or
the owner.'
So in this case the LA is the owner, but the Head/Governers are responsible for maintenance.
Therefore the Head is the dutyholder however it also states...
'If you control or have information about the building, you must co-operate
with the dutyholder. For instance, landlords must pass on relevant information to
new tenants, and leaseholders must allow access for inspection by
managing agents.'
So the LA has authorised the Survey, but have they provided suitable IITS to the Head on how to comply, as the Head is effectively the LA's employee!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
I agree.
Like the Barrow Leigionella deaths, the LA has a clear duty (in my opinion) to ensure people making these decisions are competent to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Astey
I want to make it clear that I was not a Governor at the time of the incident so am unaware of the systems in place at that time.
When I became a Governor I attended a New Governors induction course run by the Local Authority - premises management and asbestos was part of this course.
Every school holds a premises handbook which details do's and don'ts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Lets not continue to bash the LA, school or governors on this issue. There are other parties including the window replacement industry which should know that 60s fabricated concrete buildings have asbestos around windows unless otherwise proven.
There is already a (prosecution) case, which should have alerted this industry to this hazard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
My thoughts exactly!
The glaziers have a duty of care, and to not request an asbestos management plan is quite frankly irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Actually, I'd dearly like to bash some LAs
The CEOs demand wages on par with Business CEOs yet ignore their legal responsibilities; whingeing about lack of money as though that is an excuse for law breaking.
Viewing the salaries (which I would not get out of bed for) that H&S advisers in LAs earn. It seems quite obvious to me that most LAs do not take their H&s responsibilities seriously enough and that is before you look at the accident statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.