Posted By Paul
Hi all, I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.

The HSE has informed us, (a Fire and Rescue Service) that they will serve an improvement notice on us if we do not come up with an alternative system of work for fixing smoke detectors in domestic properties!

We have been fixing detectors using a sticky pads and no nails system using a pole and plate device to locate the detector alleviating the need to work at height. This system has proved ineffective recently, especially on textured ceilings and ones which are less than clean. This risk using this method is too high i.e. a detector falls from the ceiling and the property has a fire, causing a major concern and is unacceptable.

A new system was devised in which the Service proposed to use a three step, step ladder conforming to BS EN 131. The ladders chosen are extremely sturdy with a D bar to prevent falling over the top. The detector would be screwed into the ceiling. Part of the safe system of work involved a fire fighter bracing the step ladder and the fire fighter fixing the detector. As you can imagine this is not seen as a high risk activity for fire fighters who are trained in using ladders. The risk assessment comes out as low, taking into account the frequency and duration of this activity and also carrying out a dynamic risk assessment prior to starting work. This activity is carried out in domestic homes only. The HSE have stated that if three points of contact can not be maintained then a working platform is required!

The Fire Service offers free home fire risk assessments to the public and will fit free smoke detectors if it is deemed necessary. This is all carried out by operational crews as part of their routine daily/evening activities. So because the equipment has to be stored on the fire appliance along with all the rest of the equipment, space is at a premium. I understand that this is not a reason to compromise safety but is a consideration and it would prove impossible to store a working platform on a fire appliance.

So, the question is, are the HSE going over the top in their improvement notice for an activity that is in our opinion controlled to an acceptable level or should we withdraw from fitting free smoke alarms for the public because we can not get a working platform on a fire appliance? Is it me or is this an example of Health and Safety gone mad???

Thanks in advance for your opinions

Posted By I McDonald
Hi Paul

tough question as it is another area were enforcement seems to differ from Inspector to Inspector. Suggest to check out this link (if you have not already)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg402.pdf

Take a good, long and hard look at figure 2b. Looks very similar to the activity you are describing only there is no second person supporting the steps. HSE seem to be making a lot of noise to identify that steps and ladders are not banned however; during enforcement visits they are portraying a different picture.

You could try to talk in more detail to the Inspector regarding the obvious problems with the physical features of the different structures you will visit. Alternatively, you could even appeal against the notice if issued (good luck on that one).

My own experience in dealing with Inspectors on this issue is the risk assessment is the key. Providing the assessment is suitable and sufficient and you can clearly demonstrate why alternative equipment (podium towers, etc) can not be used, this has proven sufficient (note that the RA always identifies a higher level of supervision).

Sorry cant give a definitive answer but as said earlier, seems to be inconsistent enforcement.

Ian

Posted By Catman
Hi Paul

I searched for almost a year for a suitable bit of kit for the application you describe and came up with a three step platform which has a locking D rail which acts as the top half of the steps. Therefore the operatives simply cannot climb too high.

They have deep steps with rubber matting and are broad providing a stable base. They mimic the feel of a domestic staircase.

I suspect you may have found the same three step platform.

If you find a suitable alternative with a full handrail, please let me know as I was unsuccessful.

Cheers
TW

Posted By ITK CMIOSH
Appeal the notice if you feel your controls are robust enough.

Let the tribunal decide.

Posted By TBC
If needed - Can you still climb up about 100 feet on the turntable ladders with a BA on your back? Can you still carry a rescued person down a ladder? Can you enter a burning building? Can you do 'anything' without the HSE on your back?

I would have thought given my recent experience of trying to draw the attention of the both the HSE and LA to some really dodgy activities on a building site - with no luck - 'Not Ours' was the response from both. That the HSE would have better things to do with their time.

Posted By David Bannister
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister needs to be alerted to this (apparently unreasonable) stance by the HSE in his own constituency. If the Daily Wail picks this up it will make some sub-editors day to dream up splash headlines along the lines of "HSE tells firefighters to stop using ladders"

I can't wait!

Posted By Adrian Watson
Paul,

Make a formal representation to the HSE Inspector's manager with a copy of your risk assessment, asking for a review of the inspectors decision.

Remember the inspector has to show a breach of the regulations for a Improvement Notice.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Chris Pope
Paul

Send your email address to me I have something that will help.

clp@taunton83.freeserve.co.uk

Posted By I McDonald
Hi Paul

sorry you did not have any luck talking the Inspector round.

Totally agree with Dave B on the potential for further adverse publicity!!!

If I was in your position I would insist on a meeting with the Inspectors superior. The task will obviously be of short duration, carried out in premises with differing structural features and will not involve significant manual handling.

The link I sent earlier was to the "employers guide" which shows 2 pictures of tasks being conducted in the way you have explained. If HSE will not or have no intention of applying the detail in the document, why have they wasted our (taxpayers) money in producing it.

On a lighter note, have you considered attending their offices to review and discuss their fire risk assessment and controls?

Ian

P.S. If you attend a meeting the Principal Inspector, etc. make sure your RA is robust enough to cover all eventualities (i.e. pets running around premises, etc).

Posted By Brian Rudge
Paul,
I'm surprised at the Inspector's attitude as in my experience the majority are sensible, pragmatic individuals. It may be that he feels his authority is being challenged, so suggest that in your discussions he is given chance to change his stance without losing face e.g by stressing the additional measures you already mention. I would counsel against going down formal routes such as going up the HSE management chain until you have to as that will only harden attitudes.

Brian

Posted By John Battye
slightly off the subject

why are the hse the enforcing authority

If this was some other individual company, would it not be the local authority whio are enforcing this

it would be woorth while seeking your local authority (Environmental health) view

John Battye

Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Just on the aside, safety is a local not a county council function. It also intrigues me as to circumstances in which the HSE were observing the activity in peoples homes.

Posted By Red Ones
If the HSE Inspector is right (go with the idea for a minute) then surely you can risk assess the alternative, i.e. no room for an access tower on the vehicle, no room for a tower in most homes - no smoke detectors fitted - risk of personal injury to your client????? tada - HSE decide that death by fire is an acceptable risk!!



Daily Wail has field day.



Alternatively slightly alter your RA and represent to the Inspector underlining the level of training that the personnel have received, the updates they get, that a knee is an acceptable point of contact as per the HSE guide INDG 402. Present the accident record of the Service in this line of work and ask if he would like a Risk Assessment for a house that does not have a smoke detector.



You may have guessed this has peed me off. I think that the fitting of smoke detectors is a valuable service and helps not only underline the importance of them, but also helps maintain the Fire & Rescue Service in a positive light in a way that the Police struggle and HSE never manage. Surely it is the job of the HSE (and EHO) to push this sort of activity and not stifle it.

Posted By Stupendous Man
Stuart,

How can a longer ladder enable three points of contact to be made? Surely you need one hand to support the detector and one hand to screw the thing to the ceiling?

Or am I missing something?

Posted By Chris. R.
I was working in a local authority office when a member of the Humberside fire service came in with the forms which enabled members to have a free home fire inspection and detectors fitted if required. The response by the people present was amazing, everyone in the office requested a visit and even filled forms in for their aging parents.

This HSE inspector should now issue a statement explaining to all these people why he finds it acceptable to put them at risk over what can only be described in this case as a jobsworth decision

Has this inspector not read the HSC publication entitled "Get a Life" which "urged people in Yorkshire and the Humber to focus on real risks - those that cause real harm and suffering - and stop concentrating efforts on trivial risks and petty health and safety". Reference YH/344/06 dated 22 August 2006.

I must agree with everyone who totally disagrees with this decision. What chance do we have of convincing employers and workers of the importance of H&S when the so called "fonts of all knowledge" give us such bad press.

We must all hope that this new year will revive that almost extinct quality of 'Common Sense'.

Happy and safe new year to all

Chris

Posted By Paul
I am afraid that it is a Principal Inspector, not a graduate!

Thank you all for your comments on this issue so far.

Posted By CRT
I've been reading this thread with intrest. It appears you have two choices; as it is a principal HSE inspector serving the notice, he must feel that it is justified (you may think)consequently he will not be open to persuasion, you will either have to comply or to appeal. I know it seems a nonesense so hopefully a tribunal will agree SFARP. On the other hand, do these have to be fitted by firemen, could they not be fitted by other officers (community safety) who would use a vehicle that has no constraints on what may be carried on it, then you could purchase a more appropriate type of access equipment.

just a thought.

Colin

Posted By Alan Hoskins
Some alarms will be fitted to ceilings on landings and in stairwells so the fall risk is greater in those circumstances.

Having said that, negotiating domestic stairways with an access platform could also introduce additional risks.

Good luck.

Alan

Posted By db
A very interesting debate. However, put yourself in the inspectors position. (I have no feelings either way whether its right or wrong by the way)

As a principal inspector, he will be sifting through hundreds of accidents involving ladders and stepladders a week - causing a wide ramge of serious and not so serious injuries that cause people to have time off work and costs the business and the country a lot of money. No training can prevent someone falling off so just because the firemen do superhuman feats every day doesnt mean to say they are invulnerable. HSE will not invesigate 99% of these.

From reading the original posting it seems the inspector may have a problem with the three-step ladder which as some have pointed out, does not provide support. This is entirely consistent with HSE's guidelines - any stepladder should be used so that the persons navel is in line with the top of the ladder.

The IN seems to have been issued within the scope of the wah regs - which says that work at height should be planned - ladders do not prevent or mitigate and so are not on the hierarchy. Just because you have a risk assessment doesnt mean to say that its a good one or one that complies with the law. Ladders should be used for one off short duration work - the message about electricians using steps illustrates that although a job up a ladder may take ten minutes, if you do that for eight hours a day then its no longer a ten minute job.

That is not to say the work above is not short duration and may be perfectly suited to work with a ladder. However, there are bits of kit out there which are no bigger than a stepladder and there really is no excuse for not using them. The excuse that they are too big or heavy just can not hold any more. Just take a look on the net. You dont even need to go for a podium - there are even better stepladders with bigger platforms/handholds and protection around four sides.

The IN can only say that you need to plan the work w.r.t. reg 4, 6 and 7 (off the top of my head) so this does not preclude you from using a stepladder - just a better one than the one you mention.

As for people saying that HSE is inconsistent - not every job can be assessed in the same way - which is why we all have to risk assess each job.

As for calls from many professionals here that this is Daily wail territory, sorry guys, its the law. What we should be telling people as professionals, even for the short duration job where, lets face it the risk is still high - is that hey - there's some really good kit on the market that just maybe will stop you being off work for three weeks. It makes sense to buy it instead of buying the same bit of kit we always buy.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear db,

With great respect, it is not the law it is the interpretation of the law!

These regulations require that an employer:

"Regulation 6. — (1) In identifying the measures required by this regulation, every employer shall take account of a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations.

(2) Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely otherwise than at height.

(3) Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.

(4) The measures required by paragraph (3) shall include—

(a)his ensuring that the work is carried out—

(i)from an existing place of work; or

(ii)(in the case of obtaining access or egress) using an existing means,
which complies with Schedule 1, where it is reasonably practicable to carry it out safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions; and

(b)where it is not reasonably practicable for the work to be carried out in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), his providing sufficient work equipment for preventing, so far as is reasonably practicable, a fall occurring.

(5) Where the measures taken under paragraph

(4) do not eliminate the risk of a fall occurring, every employer shall—

(a)so far as is reasonably practicable, provide sufficient work equipment to minimise—

(i)the distance and consequences; or

(ii)where it is not reasonably practicable to minimise the distance, the consequences,
of a fall; and

(b)without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), provide such additional training and instruction or take other additional suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."

and

Regulation 8-(e). "Every employer shall ensure that, in the case of ... a ladder, Schedule 6 is complied with."

SCHEDULE 6

Regulation 8(e)

REQUIREMENTS FOR LADDERS

1. Every employer shall ensure that a ladder is used for work at height only if a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and—

(a)the short duration of use; or

(b)existing features on site which he cannot alter.

2. Any surface upon which a ladder rests shall be stable, firm, of sufficient strength and of suitable composition safely to support the ladder so that its rungs or steps remain horizontal, and any loading intended to be placed on it.

3. A ladder shall be so positioned as to ensure its stability during use.

4. A suspended ladder shall be attached in a secure manner and so that, with the exception of a flexible ladder, it cannot be displaced and swinging is prevented.

5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by—

(a)securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends;

(b)an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or

(c)any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness.

6. A ladder used for access shall be long enough to protrude sufficiently above the place of landing to which it provides access, unless other measures have been taken to ensure a firm handhold.

7. No interlocking or extension ladder shall be used unless its sections are prevented from moving relative to each other while in use.

8. A mobile ladder shall be prevented from moving before it is stepped on.

9. Where a ladder or run of ladders rises a vertical distance of 9 metres or more above its base, there shall, where reasonably practicable, be provided at suitable intervals sufficient safe landing areas or rest platforms.

10. Every ladder shall be used in such a way that—

(a)a secure handhold and secure support are always available to the user; and

(b)the user can maintain a safe handhold when carrying a load unless, in the case of a step ladder, the maintenance of a handhold is not practicable when a load is carried, and a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of a stepladder is justified because of—

(i)the low risk; and

(ii)the short duration of use.

Regards Adrian