Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MEden380  
#1 Posted : 12 November 2021 09:45:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Here's one about the HSE.

Small builder has removed asbestos roof tiles in a dangers manner - dropping off roof and chucking in the back of a small flat bed truck. I go round to see him and (as is his want) I recieve a load od verbal abuse.

I report to the HSE via their long winded procedure on their web site (as you can't actually speak to anyone in authority any more). Get an email bak saying they can't look in to it as they don't have a name of the builder. Why do we have an HSE. Dangerous occurance , dangerous site, small builder, no large cash reserves, HSE not interested. Big site, big construction company, ladder tag out of date, heafty fine, HSE happy.

thanks 1 user thanked MEden380 for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 12 November 2021 10:56:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Even when you provide photographs of the builders van (c/w contact details) and the sign they place on the road advertising their work - in this case an open excavation immediately adjacent to a public footpath on a main road, no barriers or shuttering to prevent public falling down the hole and left open for three days - still no interest and that included the Local Authority.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 12 November 2021 10:56:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Even when you provide photographs of the builders van (c/w contact details) and the sign they place on the road advertising their work - in this case an open excavation immediately adjacent to a public footpath on a main road, no barriers or shuttering to prevent public falling down the hole and left open for three days - still no interest and that included the Local Authority.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
achrn  
#4 Posted : 12 November 2021 11:35:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Yes, I've had the 'can't do anything because you haven't provided proof of who the the builder is' response.

In my case it was two ally towers, and the gap between them was longer than a youngman board, so they'd taken two youngman boards, overlapped the ends slightly and tied some ropes around the overlap, then used this to span from one tower to the other.  I was honestly quite surprised it supported its own weight.

No handrail and no toe-boards either, but in this case that was a relatively minor consideration.

Edited by user 12 November 2021 11:36:11(UTC)  | Reason: grammar

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#5 Posted : 12 November 2021 15:45:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

HSE explains its procedure for dealing with Complaints on its website.

In effect it says that it is very unlikely to investigate anything from a third party.

Twas not always the case - one of the outputs from sharp cuts at the front line.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/11/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#6 Posted : 13 November 2021 12:22:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

When I was in an emplyed position we had 26 sites and has almost 21 visits in a year...all trying to find a major item to prosecute...luckily nothing found...but it seems to me especially over the past 10 years that like the police they are only interested in the big ticket job or major prosecution...they seem to forget that from little acorns... 

thanks 2 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
firesafety101  
#7 Posted : 13 November 2021 23:13:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Haven't we all been there done that got the tee shirts.

I've had better luck when speaking to the fire safety officers about what I believe to be dangerour fire risks.  They usually go round right away and get back to me with what they have seen and done.

One occasion I was trying on shoes in a shop in Birkenhead precinct, they have patrolling security people.  I noticed lots of cardboard boxes stacked up against the fire exit.  Told the girl in the shop who said someone will be getting rid of it soon.

I phoned the fire service, within one hour I had a call back to say he had been round and given the shop workers a real good bollocking and the cardboard was removed while he watched.

peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 14 November 2021 13:00:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Steve - suggests an "interesting" change of approach by the HSE.

When I spent 4 years covering construction in HSE, one of the edicts I had from my Principal Inspector was NOT to focus on the sites that HAD been notified, but to keep an eye on my patch for the sites that SHOULD have been notified but hadn't or the small jobs that were not notifiable - the stats were quite clear - the accidents were much more likely to happen on small projects.

Now, since then we have had CDM and so HSE might rightly be targeting Clients and Designers but to do that effectively they don't actually need to go to many construction sites - compliance should be built in before the first spade goes into the ground.

As example, much easier to pour over a design in the designer's office than on site where there are unlikely to be many staff who were closely involved in the design.

That the focus remains on site visits is illustrative of the lack of attention that has been given by HSE to those front end duty holders - this is exhibited in the virtual absence of enforcement action under CDM against those front end duty holders.

There is a rationale behind visiting the big sites - HSE reaches the sub-contractors, but NOT (by and large) those at the worse part of the spectrum, where most of the accidents (and ill health) will happen

P

thanks 3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/11/2021(UTC), aud on 16/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
Caboche33383  
#9 Posted : 15 November 2021 17:11:36(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Caboche33383

HSE construction inspectors spend far more time on small (generally unnotified) sites than on larger major contractor sites when they actually get the opportunity to undertake proactive/concerns work.

The current concerns system relies on identification of duty holders as generally the concern will be dealt with by the concerns team initially which is a centrally based in Bootle. If evidence, like photographs and a positive identification of the duty holder is provided it can triaged to the principal inspector (PI) for the area to farm out to a member of their team. If the PI agrees that it is high priority it will be assigned.

Inspector time is a fairly valuble resource currently, and HSE tends not to send inspectors on concerns attendance where there is a high chance that the duty holder is unknown, a lot of the time the duty holder will not be present and the visit does turn out to be a waste of inspector time, at least with a duty holder identification the concern can be followed up in an "off site" manner.

If the concern is serious and is triaged as high risk, then the PI for the team will allocate it and it will be visited when the particular inspector has capacity.

I'm speculating here, but the original poster's overview may have indicated that the roof tiles are asbestos containing materials likely bound in a matrix and are thus a lot lower risk that asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for example and during the triage process the concern will have been downgraded, this combined with potentially no positive identification of the duty holder may have led to concerns team/local PI deciding a visit was not warranted in this instance.

Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 15 November 2021 20:01:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Caboche33383 Go to Quoted Post
I'm speculating here, but the original poster's overview may have indicated that the roof tiles are asbestos containing materials likely bound in a matrix and are thus a lot lower risk that asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for example and during the triage process the concern will have been downgraded, this combined with potentially no positive identification of the duty holder may have led to concerns team/local PI deciding a visit was not warranted in this instance.

Promptly dumped in the nearest farm lane to save paying for legal disposal - still that is now the problem of the land owner / Local Authority. If the contractor cut obvious corners (throwing from roof to ground) then it is highly unlikely any subsequent activity would be compliant and it would greatly benefit society if our agentcies could be bothered to work in partnership - Just a thought for any HSE staff viewing.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 15 November 2021 20:01:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Caboche33383 Go to Quoted Post
I'm speculating here, but the original poster's overview may have indicated that the roof tiles are asbestos containing materials likely bound in a matrix and are thus a lot lower risk that asbestos insulating board or asbestos insulation for example and during the triage process the concern will have been downgraded, this combined with potentially no positive identification of the duty holder may have led to concerns team/local PI deciding a visit was not warranted in this instance.

Promptly dumped in the nearest farm lane to save paying for legal disposal - still that is now the problem of the land owner / Local Authority. If the contractor cut obvious corners (throwing from roof to ground) then it is highly unlikely any subsequent activity would be compliant and it would greatly benefit society if our agentcies could be bothered to work in partnership - Just a thought for any HSE staff viewing.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#12 Posted : 16 November 2021 09:37:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Peter - I think it may be a bit simpler than that - it really is down to the individual, the drive just isn't there...I recently had a full on stand up argument with a new inspector about the affect of chemicals on hearing loss...as we had seen a threshold shift in the team so we changed to hearing protection to reduce the influx of vapours, temporarily...which did mean over protection..inside a paint shop...no you are over protecting and that is that...now cynical me says that because nothing else could be found..that stance justified the charge of a fee..I'm afraid gone are the days when you brought in and worked with your local inspector...we showed them our egro tool years ago, which then became ART...lots of repect for HID and EA Inspectors as they actually do know thier stuff and you can have a resonable technical debate, as we are actually all 'supposed' be to fighting the same fight...the standard of FOD inspector seems to vary quite significantly...hey ho..sorry rant over 

peter gotch  
#13 Posted : 16 November 2021 11:50:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Roundtuit - fully agree that asbestos materials being thrown into a skip tells you that they are likely to end up flytipped, but that's not within HSE's remit implying a need for a much more joined up approach by enforcing authorities.

Steve - agree that the quality of front line HSE Inspectors can vary signficantly and my own view is that the average has deteriorated partly as a result of continued cuts in HSE's budget. 

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 16/11/2021(UTC), stevedm on 17/11/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#14 Posted : 16 November 2021 12:03:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

One issue is that the Treasury has been pushing self-funding model for regulatory services. In the past agencies like HSE were assigned budget based on what they needed  to carry their statutory duties and what money was available to pay for that. About 20 years ago they were told to generate funds and charge for services, which of course led to Fee For Intervention. Now the budget includes a growing element that relies on this money. So there is suspicion that HSE(and others) are prioritising activities that generate an income and  relegating simple inspections as these might not produce that cash flow.

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
stevedm on 16/11/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#15 Posted : 16 November 2021 13:05:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

5 years now since i left my role as a LA inspector (which is what i did for over 30 years) so things may have changed. Worked alongside some amazing HSE inspectors - but also some very poor ones, was even duel warrented for that test peruiod they ran. One thing the HSE always isnsited on was that inspectors were not set a tarfet for FFI. But they did admit they were under scrutany frpom the minsiter as they were "expected to tagrget poor performers" so if visits did not result in FFI why were they there? For me consecutive governments have severly damaged the HSE and LAs ability to work with employers over the years following the Reclaiming health and safety for all, Löfstedt report back in 2011. Not that i think the report itself was bad just tehway it has been used.

thanks 2 users thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 16/11/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 23/11/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#16 Posted : 16 November 2021 15:51:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Following on from Brian's comment, Löfstedt was given an almost impossible task - to identify the number of "regulations" that could be ditched or improved. ("Deregulation" and "Reregulation").

Everything after that interpreted the word "regulation" as "Code of regulations".

So, as example some 50 Codes or regulations specific to underground mining were consolidated into one mega code. So at a stroke 49 "regulations" were removed according to the Coalition Government who claimed that during its term 83% of "regulations" covering health and safety had been removed or improved.

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
aud on 16/11/2021(UTC), stevedm on 16/11/2021(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.