Dot Cotton Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have a cleaner at my work who self employed. Her hubby cam ein to see me and told that last night she was carrying loads of rubbish bags out to the bins and slipped in the carpark, badly bruised her leg and is now in a neck brace. Although she was in hospital at first was discharged the day after and is now at home for 5 - 6 weeks. As a result she has now resigned. Not fussed about losing her as she was gash anyway and we spoke about performance a few weeks ago so think this was her excuse to quit but as she / hubby has told me that she had an accident in my staff car park I need to take this seriously. He did say that she was carrying numerous bags at the time and there was adequate lighting in the car park. No trip hazards etc my main question is, can she sue? I realise that I need to report accidents at work for my self employed staff and have 10 days to do so and have to speak to her abou this but need to cover the bases so to speak. Thanks in advance. Dorothy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any proof she fell in your work area? does she have a medical report? did she report it in the accident book? All the above is due dilligence. And it may save your neck(s'cuse the pun) ma friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have a cleaner at my work who self employed. Her hubby cam ein to see me and told that last night she was carrying loads of rubbish bags out to the bins and slipped in the carpark, badly bruised her leg and is now in a neck brace. Although she was in hospital at first was discharged the day after and is now at home for 5 - 6 weeks. As a result she has now resigned. Not fussed about losing her as she was gash anyway and we spoke about performance a few weeks ago so think this was her excuse to quit but as she / hubby has told me that she had an accident in my staff car park I need to take this seriously. He did say that she was carrying numerous bags at the time and there was adequate lighting in the car park. No trip hazards etc my main question is, can she sue? I realise that I need to report accidents at work for my self employed staff and have 10 days to do so and have to speak to her abou this but need to cover the bases so to speak. Thanks in advance. Dorothy By the sounds of it there are no witnessess. What the hell, I fell in your car park too. Sprained my ankle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Cotton Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 Any proof she fell in your work area? does she have a medical report? Hubby witnessed it - noone else. did she report it in the accident book? Not seen her (yet) to report this into the accident book. Dont think she will be able to come in again. Might have to do this via the phone and then get a signature via post? All the above is due dilligence. And it may save your neck(s'cuse the pun) ma friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 My girlfriend witnessed me fall in your car park too dude! Get her to **** by the way. She is on one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Cotton Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 My girlfriend witnessed me fall in your car park too dude! Get her to **** by the way. She is on one I dont actually think she is and is purely looking for an excuse to quit as I pulled her up for the dust that was all over the place (I manage a private dental practice) so she wasnt impressed by no means. However I need to cover the bases here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Did she have a risk assessment / method statement for the job she was doing? I know it sounds silly but theres obviously an element of manual handling involved. If not, you could always find a witness who saw her hubby pushing her to the ground and stomping on her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 She would need to prove that you were not complying with relevant legislation (the HSE may prosecute in this case) and/or that you had been negligent. Presumably you'll have Risk Assessment(s) and Method Statements, covering the work that she carried out for you? These and other documentation you have regarding your Health & Safety Management System / Policy will be needed as this is reportable under RIDDOR. If you have complied with the law, and if you have not been negligent, you'll be fine. If you haven't, then you may have a lot of problems heading your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnut Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have a cleaner at my work who self employed. Her hubby cam ein to see me and told that last night she was carrying loads of rubbish bags out to the bins and slipped in the carpark, badly bruised her leg and is now in a neck brace. Although she was in hospital at first was discharged the day after and is now at home for 5 - 6 weeks. As a result she has now resigned. Not fussed about losing her as she was gash anyway and we spoke about performance a few weeks ago so think this was her excuse to quit but as she / hubby has told me that she had an accident in my staff car park I need to take this seriously. He did say that she was carrying numerous bags at the time and there was adequate lighting in the car park. No trip hazards etc my main question is, can she sue? I realise that I need to report accidents at work for my self employed staff and have 10 days to do so and have to speak to her abou this but need to cover the bases so to speak. Thanks in advance. Dorothy Does your company have a specific risk assessment and method statement? if so you are fine. If not your in soapy bubble with the hse if she decides to sue but you won't go to jail for something insignificant as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have a cleaner at my work who self employed. Her hubby cam ein to see me and told that last night she was carrying loads of rubbish bags out to the bins and slipped in the carpark, badly bruised her leg and is now in a neck brace. Although she was in hospital at first was discharged the day after and is now at home for 5 - 6 weeks. As a result she has now resigned. Not fussed about losing her as she was gash anyway and we spoke about performance a few weeks ago so think this was her excuse to quit but as she / hubby has told me that she had an accident in my staff car park I need to take this seriously. He did say that she was carrying numerous bags at the time and there was adequate lighting in the car park. No trip hazards etc my main question is, can she sue? I realise that I need to report accidents at work for my self employed staff and have 10 days to do so and have to speak to her abou this but need to cover the bases so to speak. Thanks in advance. Dorothy If she is self employed she is responsible for assessing her activities and producing risk assessments and method statements i.e. How many bags it is safe for her to carry at one time. As the client/employer you would be expected to point out any hazards on your property during her induction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Cotton Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 If she is self employed she is responsible for assessing her activities and producing risk assessments and method statements i.e. How many bags it is safe for her to carry at one time. As the client/employer you would be expected to point out any hazards on your property during her induction. You Sir, certainly live up to your name! Cheers folks for all the feedback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie1874 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I would ensure you cover as many bases as you can. I assume you have an accident book of some sort to record accidents So I would record the accident from what you have been told by her husband and also conduct an investigation on the area where the accident has happened. ( I would make a record in the accident book that you were made aware of the accident by her husband, it may also be worth it to call her and let her know you are recording the accident and was there any witnessed to get statement from so that you have begged that question) For the investigation go into detail even if it might seem ridiculous ? i.e. what weather was like that day, could it have been icy ? was there any provisions required for you to grit area - any lose slabs that could be a trip hazard. The reason I say this is I am sure you can have up to 4 years to make a claim for an accident and if you were in court then it?s the lawyer would question your recollection of things from 4 years ago an if you have no records of investigation then it is a bit tougher for you to prove things so the more you record the better(all the things above are advice that the H&S dept for the company I work for have advised me to do in the past) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Have to hope she and / or hubbie are not Hearts fans and members of JKB eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 If she is self employed she is responsible for assessing her activities and producing risk assessments and method statements i.e. How many bags it is safe for her to carry at one time. As the client/employer you would be expected to point out any hazards on your property during her induction. Don't want to rain on your parade here, but while the quote above is correct, as the person "in control of the premises" you still have a legal obligation and responsibility for Health & Safety as well. You still must be able to provide your Risk Assessment(s) and Method Statement(s) for the work being carried out by, your contractor and/or for your management of your contractor. You will probably have to provide documents to show your Health & Safety policy, including how you induct contractors onto site, and how you can demonstrate their competence to carry out their duties correctly. Just because the individual is self employed, it does not get you out of having ultimate responsibility (under the Health & Safety at Work Act) for the safety of employees, contractors, and members of the public, who may be on the premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I would also say that weather can be deemed an outside influence. If the weather was fine when you left, but it got colder in the evening, you could not be reasonably expected to have the car park gritted for ice that wasn't there... Again it all comes back to what is in your documentation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I dont actually think she is and is purely looking for an excuse to quit as I pulled her up for the dust that was all over the place (I manage a private dental practice) so she wasnt impressed by no means. However I need to cover the bases here. Just sent you a PM but you cant accept anymore messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Just sent you a PM but you cant accept anymore messages. It's health and safety. He might trip and fall if he's carrying too many bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Just sent you a PM but you cant accept anymore messages. Will it self destruct in 5 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You need to report the situation to your insurers. If the cleaner makes a claim (probably via solicitor) send any correpondence into the insurers. Don't get involved in any dialogue. #14 is good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Don't want to rain on your parade here, but while the quote above is correct, as the person "in control of the premises" you still have a legal obligation and responsibility for Health & Safety as well. You still must be able to provide your Risk Assessment(s) and Method Statement(s) for the work being carried out by, your contractor and/or for your management of your contractor. You will probably have to provide documents to show your Health & Safety policy, including how you induct contractors onto site, and how you can demonstrate their competence to carry out their duties correctly. Just because the individual is self employed, it does not get you out of having ultimate responsibility (under the Health & Safety at Work Act) for the safety of employees, contractors, and members of the public, who may be on the premises. Agreed that the client / employer is responsible for overall health and safety. A good induction should cover this. However, I would always ask a sub contractor to provide their own RAs and MSs for the activities being undertaken by them as they should know what is required to complete their duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Additional point here, in light of the (all) good advice above. If she hasn't reported herself it via the accident book, or made you aware of it personally then there is a case for "it did not happen". What's to say she didn't do it elsewhere and is trying to get some compo? Aside from that, even if all method statements, etc are not available then she also has a duty of cre to herself that she is conducting work in a safe manner. Unless you have specifically told her a) take all these bags out in a winner, or given her such a tight timescale that she had to do them all at once. If neither of these are true then she is partly responsible for her own actions. HTH graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What type of sub-contractor is she? Does she work for a bona-fide firm/cleaning company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 [quote name='trotter' timestamp='1297408556' post= Aside from that, even if all method statements, etc are not available then she also has a duty of cre to herself that she is conducting work in a safe manner. Unless you have specifically told her a) take all these bags out in a winner, or given her such a tight timescale that she had to do them all at once. If neither of these are true then she is partly responsible for her own actions. Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posts. You have sub contracted the overall work of raking out the rubbish, it is up to her to do decide how to do this safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posts. You have sub contracted the overall work of raking out the rubbish, it is up to her to do decide how to do this safely. Its not necessarily that straightforward See for example Lane v Shire roofing Wooley v Robertson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What a lunatic society. Method statements and risk assessments for putting rubbish out. Something that we all do from our own homes. Anyone written a risk assessment or method statement for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What a lunatic society. Method statements and risk assessments for putting rubbish out. Something that we all do from our own homes. Anyone written a risk assessment or method statement for that? Does seem daft but as soon as you are doing something for work then health and safety laws apply, even changing a light bulb etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What a lunatic society. Method statements and risk assessments for putting rubbish out. Something that we all do from our own homes. Anyone written a risk assessment or method statement for that? Its disgusting. Employers seem to be held accountable for their employees stupidity at times. The big winners are the solicitirs who often end up with more than the "injured" party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What a lunatic society. Method statements and risk assessments for putting rubbish out. Something that we all do from our own homes. Anyone written a risk assessment or method statement for that? As a chemical engineer, I deal with the topic of process safety all the time, and this statement reminds me of a question I was posed at a conference a few years ago. "Imagine the following scenario...Your designer comes to you with an idea for a new plant. It involves the splash-filling (creates static sparks) of an extremely volatile liquid (easily creates flammable vapours) into an unpurged (means there could be air inside) tank. There is no automatic control of the process and it will be carried out frequently by an operator who has had no formal training on the systems." Now, your first reaction would be to start shouting at the designer for proposing something ridiculously dangerous. But that's before you think about the description above and realise that it describes the very act of filling your car with petrol at the petrol station!! This is the one thing that Joe Bloggs on the street doesn't seem to get. The difference between 'true' and 'perceived' hazard and risk. graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swavkav Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I have a cleaner at my work who self employed. Her hubby cam ein to see me and told that last night she was carrying loads of rubbish bags out to the bins and slipped in the carpark, badly bruised her leg and is now in a neck brace. Although she was in hospital at first was discharged the day after and is now at home for 5 - 6 weeks. As a result she has now resigned. Not fussed about losing her as she was gash anyway and we spoke about performance a few weeks ago so think this was her excuse to quit but as she / hubby has told me that she had an accident in my staff car park I need to take this seriously. He did say that she was carrying numerous bags at the time and there was adequate lighting in the car park. No trip hazards etc my main question is, can she sue? I realise that I need to report accidents at work for my self employed staff and have 10 days to do so and have to speak to her abou this but need to cover the bases so to speak. Thanks in advance. Dorothy a few Simple questions, 1,how many bags was she trying to take to the bins at 1 time? 2, was this accident near the end of her shift? if the answer to question 2 is yes, then it could be argued that she chose to over burden herself with the bags(bags when full are bulky) as it was near the end of her shift then inturn not taking her own or anybody elses H & S in to account so she could finish a few mins early. so inturn she breeched the H & S work place act. thats the route i would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Risk assessment and method statement should be on your premises. Normally the contractor will do this and you check it off, but you can also do this. I'm pretty sure you need to report this straight away if she went to hospital. The accident should be documented in some form of accident book. If this is all present and correct then you should be okay. If not then don't try and fudge the issue as you will only get on the HSEs goat. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it as it sounds like your first accident so treat this as a serious learning episode and ask the inspector for guidance. Do not try and put any documentation in place after the event if you're not sure of the procedures as this will only make matters worse. Phone the HSE straight away and ask for their advice regarding reporting the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 What a lunatic society. Method statements and risk assessments for putting rubbish out. Something that we all do from our own homes. Anyone written a risk assessment or method statement for that? We all carry out dozens of "risk assessments" every day (driving to work, cooking a meal, crossing a road) without even realising it. All the legislation requires is that you can demonstrate that as an employer, you assessed any risk to your employees and/or members of the public. I don't think that's unreasonable. In the UK on average someone dies at work every second day, and each year 1/4 million people are injured seriously enough for it to be reportable. Is the "lunatic society" not one that just accepts these people being killed and injured at their work, rather than one that tries to do something about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Its disgusting. Employers seem to be held accountable for their employees stupidity at times. Employers can only be held liable if they have been negligent. If the employer is not negligent, they cannot be held liable. Employees also have a "duty of care" (to themselves and others) under Health & Safety at Work legislation. Don't believe all the "Daily Mail style" hype the media love to report about "health & safety gone mad" most of it is misunderstood (or misreported) sensationalist tabloid male cow poo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 We all carry out dozens of "risk assessments" every day (driving to work, cooking a meal, crossing a road) without even realising it. All the legislation requires is that you can demonstrate that as an employer, you assessed any risk to your employees and/or members of the public. I don't think that's unreasonable. In the UK on average someone dies at work every second day, and each year 1/4 million people are injured seriously enough for it to be reportable. Is the "lunatic society" not one that just accepts these people being killed and injured at their work, rather than one that tries to do something about it? You can never legislate for human error and stupidity. While I agree mostly with health and safety, I do think it has got way above its station and self importance. Its not got as much to do with the government caring as it has to do with insurance companies looking for a way out of paying because they've found companies not complying with all these new procedures that come out year in year out. New procedures constantly but accidents and fatalities remain the same.............says it all really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 We all carry out dozens of "risk assessments" every day (driving to work, cooking a meal, crossing a road) without even realising it. All the legislation requires is that you can demonstrate that as an employer, you assessed any risk to your employees and/or members of the public. I don't think that's unreasonable. In the UK on average someone dies at work every second day, and each year 1/4 million people are injured seriously enough for it to be reportable. Is the "lunatic society" not one that just accepts these people being killed and injured at their work, rather than one that tries to do something about it? I think that requiring a fig leaf written risk assessment to prevent legal liability for someone slipping when putting out rubbish is a sign of a lunatic society. Nobody objects to proper risk assessment and procedural improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Employers can only be held liable if they have been negligent. If the employer is not negligent, they cannot be held liable. Employees also have a "duty of care" (to themselves and others) under Health & Safety at Work legislation. Don't believe all the "Daily Mail style" hype the media love to report about "health & safety gone mad" most of it is misunderstood (or misreported) sensationalist tabloid male cow poo! I dont read newspaers. There is a very heavy burden on employers and believe me i've seen claims paid where the employee has been stupid or reckless. I had one yesterday at around ?50k in total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You can never legislate for human error and stupidity. While I agree mostly with health and safety, I do think it has got way above its station and self importance. Its not got as much to do with the government caring as it has to do with insurance companies looking for a way out of paying because they've found companies not complying with all these new procedures that come out year in year out. New procedures constantly but accidents and fatalities remain the same.............says it all really But that misses the point. You don't have to legislate for human error, or for stupidity, and while changes to H&S legislation are made, the actual number of "procedures" has been reduced quite dramatically. Don't confuse what the law asks of you, with what an insurance company may ask of you. Many employers (and probably some insurance companies) make things way more burocratic and complicated that they need to be by law. I bet you can't find one other piece of legislation that says that you only need to do as much as is reasonable and practical to comply with the law? Most of the fatalities and injuries are due to employers (and sometimes employees) not complying with the legislation. The legislation itself is not to blame. It is in the best interests of employees, AND of responsible employers, to ensure that the negligent and irresponsible employers are weeded out. That way the number of accidents will continue to reduce, and the severity of the accidents will also continue to reduce. Then fewer families will have to be told that a loved one will not be coming home, as they've been killed at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You can never legislate for human error and stupidity. While I agree mostly with health and safety, I do think it has got way above its station and self importance. Its not got as much to do with the government caring as it has to do with insurance companies looking for a way out of paying because they've found companies not complying with all these new procedures that come out year in year out. New procedures constantly but accidents and fatalities remain the same.............says it all really That isn't even close to being accurate. Its the insurers who foot the bill for these claims whether or not they are spurious (i.e. defence and investigation costs)and whether or not the policyholder has breached health & safety procedures. If anything the insurers are criticised for being overly keen to pay these claims and not reject them. They don't want to end up in court and incur all the costs that involves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 That isn't even close to being accurate. Its the insurers who foot the bill for these claims whether or not they are spurious (i.e. defence and investigation costs)and whether or not the policyholder has breached health & safety procedures. If anything the insurers are criticised for being overly keen to pay these claims and not reject them. They don't want to end up in court and incur all the costs that involves No mate, the insurance companies are behind this big time. I worked as a manager for some large building companies and I'll tell you from experience that your insurance premiums are reduced on a scale depending on what health and safety procedures you adopt. Even though they lead to major frustration for the tradesmen because they make it more and more difficult for a tradesman to perform his tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 But that misses the point. You don't have to legislate for human error, or for stupidity, and while changes to H&S legislation are made, the actual number of "procedures" has been reduced quite dramatically. Don't confuse what the law asks of you, with what an insurance company may ask of you. Many employers (and probably some insurance companies) make things way more burocratic and complicated that they need to be by law. I bet you can't find one other piece of legislation that says that you only need to do as much as is reasonable and practical to comply with the law? Most of the fatalities and injuries are due to employers (and sometimes employees) not complying with the legislation. The legislation itself is not to blame. It is in the best interests of employees, AND of responsible employers, to ensure that the negligent and irresponsible employers are weeded out. That way the number of accidents will continue to reduce, and the severity of the accidents will also continue to reduce. Then fewer families will have to be told that a loved one will not be coming home, as they've been killed at work. Fatalities and accidents on building sites have not reduced for years. They mostly come down to human error so whether or not a company adopts legislation, human error and stupidity prevails. In my experience, if you treat folk like idiots then they become idiots and that is what I see as the biggest culprit just now. I'm all for risk assessments and method statements but when tradesmen have to dress up as medieval knights to go to work it's just plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No mate, the insurance companies are behind this big time. I worked as a manager for some large building companies and I'll tell you from experience that your insurance premiums are reduced on a scale depending on what health and safety procedures you adopt. Even though they lead to major frustration for the tradesmen because they make it more and more difficult for a tradesman to perform his tasks. The insurers are not behind this. If they were, the H&S rules would be less onerous meaning they are not obliged to pay out as much. Your point above is different to saying that the insurers will wriggle out of claims if they can for H&S breaches. The insurers find it very difficult to get out of paying liability claims - these are often the very claims the policyholders don't want paid e.g. the chancer with whiplash or the guy who is on site for 2 days and then is unabel to work because of an accident. What you are saying above is more or less accurate in that you are more likely to have a favourable premium if your Health & Safety is up to stratch. Not quite as simplistic as that, but correct in broad terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The insurers are not behind this. If they were, the H&S rules would be less onerous meaning they are not obliged to pay out as much. Your point above is different to saying that the insurers will wriggle out of claims if they can for H&S breaches. The insurers find it very difficult to get out of paying liability claims - these are often the very claims the policyholders don't want paid e.g. the chancer with whiplash or the guy who is on site for 2 days and then is unabel to work because of an accident. What you are saying above is more or less accurate in that you are more likely to have a favourable premium if your Health & Safety is up to stratch. Not quite as simplistic as that, but correct in broad terms Okay then Insurance companies do not hold any meetings with the HSE regarding legislation and the fact that you need a risk assessment and a method statement in the file to put out a bag of rubbish is not onerous. oh aye thats after you've sat through a four hour induction. Do you know the amount of paperwork involved in someone going to change a lightbulb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Okay then Insurance companies do not hold any meetings with the HSE regarding legislation and the fact that you need a risk assessment and a method statement in the file to put out a bag of rubbish is not onerous. oh aye thats after you've sat through a four hour induction. Do you know the amount of paperwork involved in someone going to change a lightbulb? As a trained Risk Assessor it would probably take me about half an hour tops, to carry out and write up a Risk Assessment to change a light bulb, and it would be no more than a page or two of A4. Once done, the RA would cover anyone changing any light bulb in the future, and only ever need done again if there was a fundamental change in circumstances. The process does not have to be complex and/or burocratic. Unfortunately, many employers (and possibly some insurance companies) just don't have the necessary level of understanding, and tie themselves and their staff in (unnecessary) knots. Your earlier point about PPE (very valid) sums this up perfectly. A properly done Risk Assessment and Method Statement should try to stop something falling on someone's head. Making them wear a Hard Hat will never achieve that! Having someone dressed as a medieval knight (love the description!) tends to be a cop out. In Health & Safety terms the wearing of PPE should be a last resort, not the first choice. I fully agree with you that, unfortunately, that's not what happens, but that's not the fault of the legislation, it's the fault of the person / people who don't understand it, misinterpret it, and come out with nonsense "instructions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 As a trained Risk Assessor it would probably take me about half an hour tops, to carry out and write up a Risk Assessment to change a light bulb, and it would be no more than a page or two of A4. Once done, the RA would cover anyone changing any light bulb in the future, and only ever need done again if there was a fundamental change in circumstances. The process does not have to be complex and/or burocratic. Unfortunately, many employers (and possibly some insurance companies) just don't have the necessary level of understanding, and tie themselves and their staff in (unnecessary) knots. Your earlier point about PPE (very valid) sums this up perfectly. A properly done Risk Assessment and Method Statement should try to stop something falling on someone's head. Making them wear a Hard Hat will never achieve that! Having someone dressed as a medieval knight (love the description!) tends to be a cop out. In Health & Safety terms the wearing of PPE should be a last resort, not the first choice. I fully agree with you that, unfortunately, that's not what happens, but that's not the fault of the legislation, it's the fault of the person / people who don't understand it, misinterpret it, and come out with nonsense "instructions". Unfortunately it doesn't start with the end user. It starts at design stage and the paperwork involved at that stage takes a bit longer than half an hour. Are you aware that many building sites in Edinburgh wont allow you to work in any capacity without high viz, boots, goggles, gloves, earmuffs and dust masks all to be worn at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Are you a Chamber of Commerce member? I know when I got rid of an employee last year they were brilliant for their free legal advice to members. Got a great straight talking, right to the point lawyer and paid nowt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 and you can't use a ladder anymore. wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Okay then Insurance companies do not hold any meetings with the HSE regarding legislation and the fact that you need a risk assessment and a method statement in the file to put out a bag of rubbish is not onerous. oh aye thats after you've sat through a four hour induction. Do you know the amount of paperwork involved in someone going to change a lightbulb? I'd be surprised if insurers did not hold meetings with HSE, considering its the insurers who pay the claims that arise from breach of these rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Unfortunately it doesn't start with the end user. It starts at design stage and the paperwork involved at that stage takes a bit longer than half an hour. Are you aware that many building sites in Edinburgh wont allow you to work in any capacity without high viz, boots, goggles, gloves, earmuffs and dust masks all to be worn at all times. If you're referring to CDM Regs, and completing F10's, then yes I agree that's a lot more onerous, and takes a lot longer, but only applies to larger jobs/sites. I am (sadly) aware that many sites now demand that you're fully decked out in PPE. I also agree with you that it's a piece of absolute nonsense. These restrictions take no account of risk, likelihood, or severity, and can in many cases do more harm than good. As I said before, I'd far rather they properly assessed the (real) risks, and introduce a method of working to minimise these risks. They should make sure nothing gets dropped on a workman, not just accept "shit happens" and give him a Hard Hat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 and you can't use a ladder anymore. wtf? Canny even send wee laddies up chimneys anymore either. Whatsthe world coming to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 and you can't use a ladder anymore. wtf? Not true - just another (anti)H&S myth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 you had to prove it couldn't be done with a scaffold last time i was on a site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,124
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.