The problem for me is that this stance also portrays a client who has no confidence in the competency of the selected PC.  This could then be read as a breach of the client duty to select competent contractors.  I do know that many former CDM coordinators advertise this service as their work stream has shrunk.

If it is to be done by the client then it MUST be included in the tender documents as it is a priceable item for attendance and response to issues raised.

Competence is the first thing that should be checked before any appointment is made. So I would be careful in saying “Irrespective of the competencies of the individual duty holders” as you are already on a route to an accident if they are not competent.  This is where Clients need to resource as appose to carrying out site inspections.  

It is a misinterpretation of the Reg 4 (3) to say that the Client is compelled to carry out site inspections. Reg 4 refers to the client’s own arrangements and not that of the Principal Contractor.

In my mind there are a number of substantial issues with the Clients carrying out inspections:-

• It is not industry accepted or best practice and therefore not “reasonable steps” that must be taken.
• These inspections tend to concentrate on risks that any competent Principal Contractor should be well capable of controlling and not significant and usual risks.
• Let’s not forget a   competent Principal Contractor should be carrying out H&S Inspections themselves under their H&S Management System. So there is duplication.
• The Client is encroaching into the duties of the PC and taking on some of the liabilities if for whatever reason following a site inspection the Client dictates to or directs the PC what to do.
• There is a difference of opinion on the working method resulting in conflict.
• It assumes the inspector is equally as competent as the Principal Contractor’s management team.
• On a project with catastrophic risks client site inspections are not going to control those risks.
• Ill-informed Clients believing by just doing this they are CDM compliant.
• This approached has led to H&S consultants who are not designers acting as PD and carrying out these inspections for Clients. While there is nothing wrong with the standard of the inspections they are silent on the design risks.
• It is being driven by fee chasing consultants.

There are occasions that Client Inspection are necessary, for example on a live COMAH facility when they hold the competence and control the facility