Posted By Nicholas Bell Hi. On notifiable projects, clients have to appoint (in writing) a competent CDM-C and Principal Contractor. I've been a bit perplexed by some interpretations of Regulation 14(4)... essentially, for any duration that there is no CDM-C or PC formally appointed the client is deemed to have been appointed in these roles and to be subject to the duties held by these parties. I spoke to individuals in the HSE and IOSH helpline and they share my view that the function of 14(4) is to ensure the client can be held accountable for any breaches that would have been the responsibility of the CDM-C or PC (e.g. failure to notify the HSE). Some designers are taking the view that the client doesn't have to appoint a CDM-C or PC because - using their words - they take on this role by 'default'. I would be very grateful for your opinions on how to interpret 14(4).

Posted By Robert K Lewis I think strictly the designer could take this interpetation but if one considers the need for a designer to be competent under regulation 4 then another view emerges. As a competent designer I would assess whether the client was actually competent to carry out the tasks involved and write to him as necessary concerning the need to appoint a CDM-C. There is well established case law where a competent construction party ought to advise in writing anything he feels is contrary to what should be done. The most obvious one is a contractor who recognises that a wall design is deficient but continues the construction without advising the other parties of the deficiencies. The wall falls over and the contractor is liable for the faults - it is a decided case on appeal, anonymised. Therefore I think the HSE would be able to construct a suitable case against both designer and client. As the client is deemed to have appointed himself and if he is not competent then a breach of regulation 4 also kicks in, so to speak, together with any other breaches. Thats my view any way. Bob

Posted By holyterror72 Designers with no idea about CDM. Wasn't that part of the reason it was reviewed in the first place? Its like a vicious circle of ignorance isn't it?