As you may have gathered, most of my experience work etc. is centred around machinery & electrical!
This subject came up on a conversation today and I just wanted a few views.
I'll give an example scenario and see what you think.

Construction company with their own joinery shop.
Almost all machinery pre CE.
Some updates done on some machines, guards, braking fitted etc.
They have a service contract with a local engineering company to visit and "service" the machinery on a 6 monthly basis.
Should the "service engineer" be making judgements and recommendations with regard to PUWER compliance to the customer, the construction company?
Or should he just be getting on with the servicing according to manuf' schedules and accepted engineering practice?


Not involving the legal aspects of the clients procedures, really focusing mainly on the requirements of the "service" contractor.

SSW, etc. all in place so just keeping to this narrow topic area really.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

I have carried out PUWER assessments of all my machinery, even though I have CE Markings and the certificate of conformity. When maintenance do any work on machinery I make sure that the log book is updated and recorded. I then know I am in compliance with all legislation

Bob? Where are you getting CDM from on this question raised?

Paul,

I would like to think that the Service Engineer would tell me if the equipment isnt complient or defective in anyway. However I have had issues in the past where a company we use for servicing the lift didnt tell us about any issues and it was infact the insurance company doing the LOLER inspection that raised them.

A lot will depend on your relationship with them, as already said whats stated in the contract and the service engineer.

SI

Paul,

If the service engineer is not contracted to comment on the compliance with PUWER then he has no need to do so. However I would expect him to point out any obvious breaches.
Who was responsible for the assessments connected with the updates that you mentioned?

Peter

Paul, I guess the bottom line here is that you are employing someone to maintain the kit, not to specifically conduct compliance assessment. Whilst the competent engineer has at least a moral obligation to advise you of anything manifestly unsafe within his knowledge, I suggest that otherwise you (your employer) cannot delegate the ultimate (stress on the ultimate) responsibility to ensure PUWER compliance.

Engaging a 'specialist' to conduct a compliance assessment is another matter would fall within the context and duty of Reg 7 of the Management Regulations, and again the primary responsibility to ensure a competent appointment rests with the commissioning employer.
(Too many out there think Reg 7 stops with the appointment of a H&S Adviser.)
In truth though, these technical issues usually only tend to be properly explored after something goes badly wrong - fair play to you for exploring things proactively!

Peter,
I don't believe that CE would be required.
The machinery was all modified "in place" as it were.
DC brakes added, some "EN e-stops" added, bits of guarding here & there.
The mods generally are restriced to the above so as I can see it the general mechanical maintenance would be as per OEM.
Additions would be for the mods, i.e. testing & recording function of electrical mods. Checking for damage to any additional guarding as it is almost all fixed guarding.
These have been accounted for in the contractors service schedule.
Along with a few other obvious things that come to light with engineering knowledge & experience of these kinds of machinery and moving toward full compliance as far as they understand it to PUWER98 for the machine itself, i.e. they push the customer to ensure that the electrical isolators are lockable, that any damage is repaired, that suitable e-stops with good access are fitted.

I think that a full formal PUWER98 assessment may be required as ron hunter mentions.

Thanks all for the input so far, however, any more discussion is welcomed.