Rank: New forum user 
|
Through audit of high rise lifts ive noted that thorough examinations are not being completed before the latest stated date as indicated on the previous certificates (every 6 months) and in some instances 20+ days later.
Colleagues in the department with responsibility for the managing of lifts dont seem bothered at all.
There is a suitable and sufficient robust servicing contract in place.
Sods law will ensure if there is a serious incident it will fall within this period of no certification and would value comments on what would happen if this was the case??????
Cheers, Phil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Lifts not being used in a workplace are not covered by LOLER.
The LOLER guidance does say however that where lifts are used principally by members of the public (e.g. lifts in a shopping centre) then employers will have to satisfy the requirements of the HSW Act,principally sections 3 and 4, but if they use the requirements of LOLER as a guide they will probably satisfy these legal duties.
The outcome in such a circumstance as descibed in your question may result in prosecution under the HSWA and there may also be implications under the occupiers liability act. There would certainly be a strong arguement for a civil case under the tort of negligence e.g. duty of care owed; breach of that duty of care; damage or loss resulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
INDG 339 May be of interest, and this paragraph of particular note: The law requires that all lifts when in use should be thoroughly examined............following ‘exceptional circumstances’ such as damage to, or failure of, the lift, long periods out of use or a major change in operating conditions which is likely to affect the integrity of the equipment. See: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg339.pdfGiven the frequent breakdowns to passenger lifts in domestic high-rise, I have to wonder who actually complies with that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron you haven't read the small print in that leaflet about public use lifts.
Phil, a thorough examination is a legal document similar to the realms of an MOT and if the date had been exceeded and an accident occured (as per your example) then a prosecution would be the enforcement expectation.
As others have said public use lifts aren't covered by LOLER but to achieve the same standard I would still have them subject to a thorough examination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel, as I read the "small print" (introduction) the Guidance I referred to is offered as relevant guidance to those operating public passenger lifts, and in complying with general HASAWA duties.
I think it relevant to the discusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
many thanks for all comments!!!
Phil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.