Rank: Forum user 
|
Dear All
One of our employees was recently involved in an incident with electronic gates that operate across a vehicle access way.
The gates closed on the Co. vehicle as he drove through them. Our client is now trying to claim the cost of repair from us (several thousand pounds). The vehicle was undamaged and no personal injury occurred.
I'm sure that some of you will be aware of two incidents over the last 12 months where two children were crushed to death by similar gates due to the lack of sensor equipment. The HSE issued a safety alert.
A quote for the work has indicated that the gates do not currently comply with the above standard, and therefore failed to operate safely.
I have asked for a copy of the sites risk assessment for these gates.
My question is where do we stand as far as paying for the repairs if they were not installed to the above standard?
I look forward to all helpful responses.
DHM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Also, can anyone tell me what the statutory requirements would be for inspection and testing of these gates to the above standard. I'm thinking it would come under PUWER? Any other ideas most welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
If I understand you correctly, the Client's own gates operated incorrectly, striking your Company vehicle, yet he trying to claim the cost of repairs to those gates from you?
I think he's trying it on, but you would have to ensure that your employee followed the correct procedure (i.e waiting for them to open/close fully before trying to go through them) before telling him politely to clear off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My initial reaction to this, if I am reading it right is that no safety device was fitted to stop the gate from closing when an obstruction occured. If this is the case then the gates are not fit for purpose and the client is very lucky that a vehicle has highlighted this rather than a person (possible fatality).
Do you feel your client is attempting to have these gates altered so they are fit for purpose and in turn attempting to pass the cost on to you.
If this was on my desk I would contact our insures pointing out my concerns and let the 2 insurance companies argue it out themselves. After all this is what we pay our premiums for.
Asking them for thier RAs may make them think again about taking things further (if they have none) but I would cut it short by asking for thier insurance contact details and pass these onto your vehicle insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes our client is trying it on! Our employee did follow the correct procedure the gates closed on him as he was driving halfway through the gates.
I have asked about the insurance side of things and our insurance excess is soo high at the moment that they are more or less refusing to deal with this matter.
It would appear that the gates do not comply with the above standard. Would this standard be policed by the HSE or the local authority?
Cheers
DHM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would say the local authority is the first port of call (how much do you rely on this clients business). Have them visit this site and if the company has a notice served on them ref the gates I feel that will be the end of the matter.
There is an article in this months SHP that may be of interest to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Entering into the spirit of things and opening up a slightly larger worm can, exchange the words 'electronic gates' for 'roller shutter doors' or 'fast acting doors', same things but they operate in a different plane. Now we include quite a few businesses who weren't aware of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The nature of the client/principal relationship will ultimately dictate whether this is a fight worth having. If a £10M contract renewal is put in jeapordy for a £750 bill you may take one view whereas if you have just finished the one-off contract and been paid you may take another.
Disputes between businesses are generally decided on a business basis, regardless of the legal rights or wrongs. Sadly that is how things work but it doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I must admit that I was trying to unravel the original post and assumed that as the vehicle and driver were uninjured that the 'owner' of the gate is claiming for damage to the gate?
As far as where you stand for paying for the repairs, I think they are taking the 'proverbial' and I suggest that you have reasonable grounds for refusing to do so, and I would be surprised if your insurer would accept liability on the basis of your account of the incident. On the other hand I am 'mindful' of what 'stuff' has said.
I have electric gates on my house and have two sets of IR sensors fitted in the travel zone of the gate. If they 'sense' a presence the gate does not close, or if it is in the process of closing, it opens again. Simple and straightforward to fit to most control panels (hey, if I can do it!!) and cheap as chips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We have communicated our unhappiness about this situation to our insurance brokers. I have now seen the CCTV footage of this incident and it clearly shows the gates behaving in a random manner, opening an closing far quicker than our driver is able to react whilst trying to reverse a LGV through them.
Thanks again for all responses.
Cheers
DHM
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.