Perhaps CHAS / Constructionline want to keep it a level playing field for all contractors big and small.

It is an onerous process though for small contractors but cynically keeps health and safety people in jobs !

John

A bit unfair on the likes of CHAS there, Chris? They have a seperate and much more streamlined process for the small contractor, and the application is packed with tips, advice and weblinks to support the application process.
The process has to be evidence-based.

The two schemes are not the same, although simialr ish. While they may not be 'perfect' (nor profess to be) they were both conceived to prevent contractors having to provide information time and time again for each and every contract where the company contracting out the work were seeking some sort of assurances as to finacial stability, health and safety performance etc. I think from that perspective they have succeded in reducing the administrative burden for those companies and the contractors themeselves.

If you want answers to your specific questions at #1, why not contact CHAS at Merton or safecontractor directly and get the answer from the 'horses mouth' rather than something more 'anecdotal'?

I don't know of any prosecutions on "..failing to check the competency of contractors..' but I suggest that there are many prosecutions where the 'lack of competency' has been the underlying cause or an incident and/or prosecution.

Chris, I agree. Why these schemes cannot be mutually supportive rather than being put into the position of mutual exclusion has always puzzled me.
If you apply for accreditation to a generalist quality standard, for example, it matters not who does the audit nor what they actually call it just as long as they are authorised to issue the accreditation and you met the prescribed criteria.
Why isnt there the same with all these various "construction" schemes.
There may be I wouldn't know. However, if there is then someone needs to be onto all those who insist on maintaining specific schemes.
Either way, it seems a deal of my taxpayers money is being unnecessarily spent on bureaucracy if it is Local Authorities driving this.
Formal external accreditation is a cost effective tool for establishing and maintaining checks on contractors but we only need one set of criteria surely??
Just why do we have all these different schemes?

p48

Phil,

Im sure if you dig about the prosecutions section of HSE's site you'll find plenty of clients being taken to task with having uncontrolled, unsafe works being carried out on their sites, and it will come to light very quickly whether a client has fulfilled their duty or not to engage competent persons.

In most cases, clients engage 'competent' contractors to fulfil certain tasks that are outwith the clients expertise, so it follows that a client, in fulfilling their duty of care, puts contractors through an approval process, asking the right questions and wanting documentation etc.

I know Im preaching to the converted, and I may be off in a tangent here (been a long day) so apologies!

PS

Chris...who competence checks the competence checkers that are checking the competence checkers ;) ?

Again it would all come out in the wash....do what reasonably practicable, all proportionate to the risks involved etc.

On that note....

I will have a look at SSIP later.

LAs will disqualify if they consider their competence checkers to be the right competence checkers.

I'll mention that to my client this morning and see what he thinks.

Thanks

Here goes - totally personal view:-

None of the schemes are in themselves competence checks - they merely look at the documentation that is in place and some worked examples. Checking of competence remains with the client no matter how much they wish to rely on external schemmes to protect themselves. If one is totally honest there are not enough competent assessors available to enable all construction organisations and designers to be assessed thus clients will need to learn to do it properly themselves.

On the matter of checking the assessor there is an audit system undertaken by a well known IOSH figure but this is about compliance only to the internal standards of the scheme.

Some persons who have offerd as assessors are also refused not through lack of competence but because they do not fundammentally agree with the scheme managers.

I wish the HSE would withdraw their support for these schemes as it is distorting the duties of the cloient to the extent that many good contractors are being unfairly excluded from tendering for work. Many of these with better safety records than those accreddited.