Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By HarveyJ
Our insurance assessor believes that our swarf bins (bins used to hold metal working filings/turnings) are classed as lifting accessories under LOLER and require 6 monthly thorough examination.
Fork Lift Trucks lift them out of factory to waste area. They do not lift a load more support a load?
I phoned our ESH consultants and they couldn't even answer this one!
What are your thoughts and conclusion?
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Horrocks
I think your insurance people are smoking some strange things...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
John
Your swarf bins are containers not lifting accessories.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alex mccreadie
I would agree in principal with the last 2 posters.
Although if you look at LOLER A Refuse Vehicle loading mechanisms that lift the skips/bins come under LOLER but it says nothing about the skips/bins.
If I see a crane lifting skips which is an everyday practice I would expect to see a test certificate for the skip?
In your circumstances I think it is a bit OTT.
Regards Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Harvey
sounds like the insurance chappy is trying to be a little bit too clever!
The swarf bin is the "load" so I wouldnt consider it under LOLER. If you consider a swarf bin to be a mini skip, then how do you inspect a skip / swarf bin in accordance with LOLER? Every skip I've ever seen has had damage, rust, deformity, etc so should they all be condemned?
Talk to the chappy and ask him to explain his comments in a sensible manner, I'll bet he can't!
Its a "no" from me! But lets see what the other judges think!
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Holmzey
Which is why they are under PUWER for inspection:-) Trouble is no-one does any inspection do they? :-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
I agree with previous posters however this has got me thinking (which is a positive at this time in the morning!!!)
In a previous employment (still on tools at the time and pre-LOLER) our swarf bins were moved using an overhead crane, the bins had 'eyelets' that the crane hooks were located in prior to the lift taking place - in this scenario would the bins be deemed to be lifting equipment?
I would suggest that they are due to the 'lifting attachments' and, if this is the case, then it could be argued that as the handles on wheelie bins are used as lifting attachments then they would fall under LOLER.
I am not for a minute advocating that they should be but would make an interesting scenario should a waste operative be injured due to a handle on a wheelie bin failing - one for the courts??
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew W
FH
No, still not an accessory. If the lifting point is permanently attached to, or part of the load it is covered under PUWER and should have a scheme of inspection (as Bob says this appears to get overlooked in many organisations though)
In answer to the original question, no it's not a lifting accessory and not under the remit of LOLER but should have a scheme of inspection as per PUWER.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Andy,
"Any points provided on the load to assist in lifting it ar part of the load and not part of the lifting equipment" - para 124 ACOP.
This confirms what you have stated and clears up the scenario I described.
As you say they would / should be covered under PUWER but I don't want to be the one who asks for records of the wheelie bin inspections !!! :-)
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Are the bins of the tipping variety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By F Potter
What about going back to the insurance inspector and ask him or her to clarify their request. He or she may have experience of an indicent that has occurred at another site, whereby additonal control measures were put in and this information would be included in your revised risk assessment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
Another voice for the "they're not" camp. This is really a very old hoary chestnut which pre-dates LOLER. We had the same sorts of arguments about engine lifting brackets and the Factories Acts when I started in the Motor Industry as a Safety Engineer in the early 1970's.
If you really thought the scrap bin was part of the load, you'd have to consider every wooden pallet as a "lifting appliance" and inspect every one, since they're all lifted and moved by fork trucks and serve the same purpose. Clearly this would be extraordinarily costly and unjustified.
You have to bear in mind that LOLER was extremely badly written and eventually even the HSE decided to avoid specifying what was and was not "lifting equipment".
Write back to the insurance surveyor formally and tell him that no-one agrees with him and you are not prepared to accept this "requirement". If necessary escalate this via his superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
PS - Sounds like you also need to get yourself a new H&S consultancy, if they weren't able to offer advice on this one! Sometimes you have to challenge what you are told and stand up for your corner. I regularly take up insurance surveyors comments and assist our clients in complying or challenging their "requirements". We've had a few nonsensical ones.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Most insurance companies today include inspections as part of their premium, if it is then there isn't a problem. If it is above and beyond their fee then of course ask a few questions (as one poster previously mentioned it may be worth your while as there may be a few items you may wish to include in a reviewed RA).
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.