Rank: New forum user 
|
I work for a large distribution company and we’re having an issue with self employed drivers vandalising our toilets at one for the sites. The manager implemented a key control system to try and prevent the damage, which worked. However a complaint was then made to the HSE, stating there were not enough facilities and that this was causing an issue with social distancing.
This wasn’t the case, as there are sufficient toilets in place and distancing measure throughout site. The site decided to remove the key control system and the vandalism stated again the very next day.
My question is, as long as we have a suitable number of toilets, are we legally permitted to control access with a key? We do have alternative hand washing facilities that are freely accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Presumably you are aware of the HSe complaint, so what did they have to say about it as the 'final' arbitors on key access being acceptabler.
Perhaps the real question is ablout the vandalism. As it sounds habitual and regular then it is worth spending so resources on finding out who is involved. we know who has been coming and going and are there trends as to who or which company may match the time slots of the damage. Perhaps even a letter/email to all the hauliers who came through on those days and advise of the problem, seek their help to stop it and the consequences of any driver found to be the culprit.
For my two'penneth, as long as the key is reasonably and readily available without too much disruption then I can;t really see an issue. Bit different if key and toilet are at opposite ends of the site with no walkways etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit  Sorry, I’m aware of that letter and I don’t think i worded my first post clearly enough. The drivers have all been made aware that facilities are available. We’ve even diverted some of the site employees away from these toilets to give them more access. The only issue is whether we can lock the facilities and ask drivers to request the key to gain access. The toilets keep having to been repaired, risking them being put out of use, due to the damage and misuse that is occurring. Surely the locking of the facilities to prevent this damage is beneficial to them in the long term, to keep the facilities open?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If it’s the drivers vandalising the toilets the surely it is simpler to identify those culprits and ban them from the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
They may be the only ones willing to accept the offered conditions of self employment (I am not a fan of the Gigg economy or zero hours contracts which are all slavery except in name).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
They may be the only ones willing to accept the offered conditions of self employment (I am not a fan of the Gigg economy or zero hours contracts which are all slavery except in name).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult Presumably you are aware of the HSe complaint, so what did they have to say about it as the 'final' arbitors on key access being acceptabler.
Perhaps the real question is ablout the vandalism. As it sounds habitual and regular then it is worth spending so resources on finding out who is involved. we know who has been coming and going and are there trends as to who or which company may match the time slots of the damage. Perhaps even a letter/email to all the hauliers who came through on those days and advise of the problem, seek their help to stop it and the consequences of any driver found to be the culprit.
For my two'penneth, as long as the key is reasonably and readily available without too much disruption then I can;t really see an issue. Bit different if key and toilet are at opposite ends of the site with no walkways etc.. The issue is these are all self employed van drivers delivering on our behalf and they are all on site at the same time, between about 6am and 9am. We’re talking approximately 60 drivers during this period, so finding the culprit is quite challenging. We’re relying on the good will of the drivers in the hope that they’ll refrain from the vandalism but unfortunately that isn’t happening. They’ve all been briefed about where the key is and they’re never refused access. It’s just a shame we’ve had to resort to these actions for the sake of one or individuals who choose to deliberately block toilets, causing them to overflow, damage soap dispensers, urinate all over the floor and write obscenities over the walls. These are grown men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Depending on the cost comparison of continually repairing the toilets, would CCTV be an option. Can act as a deterent as well as surveilance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: FHS Depending on the cost comparison of continually repairing the toilets, would CCTV be an option. Can act as a deterent as well as surveilance.
We do have CCTV at the site but, without checking the toilet every time somebody goes, it would be difficult to actually check this. I'm also not sure if the cameras cover the entrance to the toilet area, so may not be an option. I'm really just trying to determine if anybody is aware that the system of locking the toilets could be considered against the HSE guidance for the provision of welfare facilities. From the information I've been able to uncover so far I don't think this is the case. It pains me to be even raising this topic but the behaviour of some people never fails to amaze me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the toilets are available, and drivers can request and obtain a key to access them, I don't see a problem. One of the issues that came up during the lockdown was the lack of facilities for drivers, but you seem to have provided these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What sort of damage/vandalism is doing carried out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We seem to be in agreement that a readily accessible key is okay. As for damage. Could we spend more time making visits to check their condition and perhaps reduce the pool of potential naughty suspects.
Appreciating once is still too often, ho W frequent are we taking?having a key doesn't seem to be solving the problem unless you take additional action Edited by user 07 August 2020 21:37:22(UTC)
| Reason: Text
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.