Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Please could you let me have your view on the following.
I note from the ACoP that the Coordinator is supposed to issue the F10, advise on competence of key project parties, and coordinate design and construction safety issues.
However I thought that the Coordinator was no longer a duty holder, but an advisor to the Client under CDM 2007.
If he fails in these duties, then can the Coordinator be prosecuted under Criminal law. If not then is it the Client who is to be prosecuted?
I suppose where I am coming from is this. If the Coordinator is there simply to advise, and fails to do so, it is a little unfair to penalise the Client. The Coordinator may be "competent" in terms of qualification but may still fail to give a good service. If the Client is the party who then picks up the liability for the Coordinator's failure, then it seems he is in Catch 22. i.e. The Client doesn't know what he is supposed to do because the Coordinator has not advised him - and because the Coordinator has not advised him then the key tasks have not been done. However the Coordinator who has failed to give adequate direction to the Client, or even performed his own tasks, seems to get away with it and the Client picks up the responsibility for the Coordinator's failures.
Have I read it right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave McIness
Jonathon
The CDM Coordinator is as a much a duty holder as the client, designer or principal contractor, so yes he can be prosecuted.
However if the client fails to appoint a coordinator, the client will assume all of the duties and responsibilities of the coordinator, and can then be held liable for failing to discharge the duties of the coordinator.
Assuming that a competent coordinator is appointed, the client would not be held liable for any omissions by the coordinator.
I hope that this helps.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The coordinator completes the F10 on behalf of the client, who holds the responsibility. Thus you are correct that the client is responsible for choosing a coordinator who is not competent, see regulation 4.
look out for some very determined clients looking closely at the coordinator PI insurance.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Jonathon, the CDM Co-ordinator should be managed in the same way as any other contractor or consultant the Client might engage. The Client should, in accordance with best practice and exercising due diligence, have adequate systems in place for assessing competency and monitoring and reviewing the performance of those he appoints.
Moreover, we sometimes forget the overarching duty (MHSWR) for all employers to have access to competent h&S advice. These advisors should be involved in the design & implementation of 'due diligence' systems.
It isn't a fair world. There have been, and will no doubt continue to be, prosecution of clients resulting from failures of their appointees. Ultimately, the Courts will decide!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Jonathan,
Just a bit of further clarification. I monitor the discussions on the HSE's CDM site and I'm alarmed by some of the suggestions there!
Regulations 20 & 21 of the new CDM Regs are statutory duties placed on the CDMC. See also Regulation 14 which states this clearly.
To confim - the CDMC is more than a peripheral 'adviser' - he is (in much the same way as the Planning Supervisor under 'old' CDM) a Duty Holder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Dickson
From a published HSC document PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2007: CLEARANCE OF DRAFT REGULATORY PACKAGE" dated 20 July 2006.
"Our intention is that the client (commensurate with the influence they have), will be accountable, but the co-ordinator (as the power behind the throne), will be simi-larly accountable. If enforcement action is necessary, each will be judged according to their level of construction experience and competence (respectively), whether their actions were reasonable according to the facts and circumstances of the case. (This would bear in mind that the client is entitled to rely upon professional advice given by the co-ordinator and others). We believe this will be particularly beneficial to SME and occasional clients, help raise standards and credibility levels not always associ-ated with the PS, and address consultees’ concerns about client liability."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Dickson
.... Also, shouldn't the PC have the F10 displayed on site, and shouldn't start on site without it. That should prevent site work without notification, or the PC ends up in court as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Parkinson
The F10 is supposed to be issued as soon as the project becomes feasible and this may be before the CDM co-ordinator is appointed so in this instance the client will send the initial F10 and then it will be updated when the CDMC and PC are appointed.
The change which I see as being quite a big issue is that the project should not proceed past the intial design stage until the CDMC is appointed. When I did Planning Supervisor work it was a regular occurrence to be appointed one or two weeks before construction work was due to commence!!
Also in the new regs whilst the CDMC is a duty holder the requirement is on the client to appoint someone who is capable and competent of acting as the CDMC. If they are not then the client commits the offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.