Rank: Forum user 
|
If an insurance company is employed to undertake inspections eg internal inspections of vessels boilers.acumulators etc Q: who is responsible for the risk assessment and rescue plan and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Both parties will have to be involved in the risk assessment - the inspectors will have a generic method statement but the site will have the information about what was in the vessel, how it has been cleaned, what the access is etc and will issue a confined space entry permit based on their own risk assessment. Similarly for the rescue plan, the inspectors may have a plan and equipment but site personnel may also be involved (not least for communications). HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I suspect you may get more than one answer to this question. However, I believe the insurance company should provide the Method Statement and RA, assuming the 'inspector' is employed by them and normally the employer would also supply all the necessary safety equipment. I see no reason why the company engaging the insurance company could not provide the specialist equipment and other resources such as supervision, but by prior agreement of course. Sometimes you need a flexible approach in unusual circumstances such as you describe. In terms of liability, there is likely to be a joint liability with the onus I suspect on the 'employer'.
The company engaging the insurance company should provide adequate safety information and also review the MS/RA for its sufficiency and to ensure a safe system of work has been articulated. That's it in a nutshell. I'm sure someone will add something I might have missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
To quote directly from the Acop
"Regulation 3 Persons upon whom duties are imposed
by these Regulations
(1) Every employer shall –
(a) ensure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations in respect of
any work carried out by his employees; and
(b) ensure compliance, so far as is reasonably practicable, with the
provisions of these Regulations in respect of any work carried out by
persons other than his employees insofar as the provisions relate to
matters which are within his control.
Regards
Toby
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Taylor
The onus to manage HS is upon your company.( Mgt Regulation). Now if you decide to contract out some of the responsibilities, the ultimate responsibility still remains upon your company, there are several court decisions wrt this issue. What I can advise you, is carry out a gap analysis with what is provided by the insurance company in terms of MS/RA and then bring about remedial actions so that you are sure you have covered all aspects.
Now, with regards to provision of equipment and other plans/ permits, was a pre- award assessment carried out prior to appointing the insurance company and were all these requested from them initially??? if yes OK but if NO, you have no other alternative than to provide same.
Least but not last, you have the onus to ensure the safety of all others in your premises ( I think it's Sec 7 of OSHAWA)
So at the end of the day, it is may be a question of who is going to provide what, but the most important thing is that your company would be fully held responsible if anything goes wrong.
Contributory Negligence (tort) will only come into action in a civil case
There are still much to say but I think it gives you a broad idea of the issue; others may still add over and above.
Yes, nice topic of discussion.
Vrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.