Cost cutting measures / safety

[SRE]

As above.

I thought that if the customer was hiring contractors to do work then they basically became the site manager with said responsibilities etc. etc..

That was my original thought but apparently it's a little known fact that the customer also has a duty of care. I agree really, I don't know how many jobs we've knocked back because we wouldn't do it without scaffolding - which was what the customer wanted us to do knowing full well that we'd put staff at risk. This consultant works with loads of LA's and also in the media, she knows her stuff. How anyone can price a life at £400/£500 I do not know!

 

[Gavin A]

to a degree.

There'd be a reasonableness test applied, so for example, if they'd hired an MCS certified company, which included scaffolding in the quote, and they went out to work leaving the company the key and instructions to get on with the work as agreed, then the householder would almost certainly have no liability at all in that situation if the company then didn't use any scaffolding.

If the customer was in, saw there was no scaffolding and raised it with the firm but was reassured they were using harnesses etc instead, but they weren't, then the customer's liability would probably be pretty minimal.

This would change significantly if the customer were the one that insisted the firm didn't quote for scaffolding, as they'd supply it, and on the day they didn't supply the scaffolding, or supplied unsafe scaf etc in which case there would probably be fairly joint liability.

How much liability was apportioned to the customer also would depend on how knowledgable they could reasonably be expected to be on H&S law - so an H&S consultant would be at least as liable, as probably would someone in the building trade, but someone who'd got zero professional knowledge of the building trade or H&S would be proportionately less liable / not at all.

TBH most customers could probably reasonably claim they'd done all they could by employing an MCS certified company, as MCS certification is supposed to mean the company has been checked, has health and safety policies in place etc. and should therefore be held liable for any breaches of those policies.

IMO - note I am not a lawyer.

 

[Earthstore]

I am not a lawyer either, but I can not see how the customer would be liable if any company breaks health and safety rules, surly the buck would stop at the owner of the company for not making sure his employees are protected.

Where would it stop, would the police prosecute the customer if the contractors van was not insured, would the customer be fined by REAL because the install did not comply, would the council pursue the customer if the contractor got a parking ticket?

If the customer wanted to walk about on his own roof without scaffold, he can, but as soon as employees are involved that is when the rules apply, they are for their protection, so as stated the buck stops at the companies owner.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

I believe I got that info from H&S pulp we were shown at college. Basically the documentation was suggesting that a "layperson" should employ a "site foreman" to ensure that all the H&S / risk assessments etc. were in place and abided by. Thus clearing them of culpability.

Like yer average Joe is gonna fork out 500+ sobs p.w. to a Blakey in a hard hat, high viz coat and clipboard slowing down his new build house!! (Obviously commercial sites wouldn't function without a Blakey! )

 

[Earthstore]

I believe I got that info from H&S pulp we were shown at college. Basically the documentation was suggesting that a "layperson" should employ a "site foreman" to ensure that all the H&S / risk assessments etc. were in place and abided by. Thus clearing them of culpability.

Surly the "layperson" has employed the "site foreman" by contracting with a company to do the whole job, the customer has not employed the services of several different trades separately, so therefore could not be culpable.

By the way, I am still not a lawyer...

 

[Vegelen]

Subcontracting work to a 3rd party doesn't make a homeowner blame less should an accident occur on your property.
Make sure you carry suitable insurance to protect yourself from being sued should an individual have an accident whilst doing work on your home.
Ask your home insurance provider, what cover is provided in your policy to reduce liabilities should a tradesman have an accident whilst working on your property.
Also ask the company you intend to employ on a job, what liability insurance they carry to cover their own employees.
Being dilligent prior to the fact, will help you avoid hassle after the fact and it will save you a lot of money and hassle.

 

[SRE]

Just a bit of a follow up - HSE have been all over our area for the last few days. One of the key things that they have fined for this time is scaffolding not tethered to a domestic house. Contractor and sub-contractor have both been fined this week for not complying with this.

Has anyone else come across this - I have since discovered that none of our scaffolding is tethered, indeed I've seen few round our area that are. Obviously we'll be making sure it's done now but has everyone else been tethering their scaffolding - is it just me that's missed this???

 

[saint]

Thethered to the house how exactly?

 

[SRE]

My question exactly - apparently you can either tether through the windows (not sure how) or the more conventional way is to drill a 20mm hole at the top of the house, fix an eye onto it and fix it via that. Obviously you'd need to do it on either side and in the middle on longer runs but HSE are definitely looking at this for domestic as well as commercial jobs.

No doubt Worcester will be able to give us a better overview than mine

 

[TedM]

I think the way of tethering through a window would be with a putlog (short scaffold pole) going through the open window and fixed to another inside going across the window. You would obviously need to protect the inside wall decoration from being damaged. The homeowner is not going to be keen on this option in the middle of winter.

 

[moggy1968]

I wouldn't be keen on someone drilling 3 20mm holes in my house either!
utter dangly bits! If you have proper outriggers the scaffold doesn't need tethering IMHO.
None of ours have ever been tethered, presumably because the scaffolders didn't think it necessary, and they're the pros, not me, which comes to the point above, if I employ a professional firm to do a job because I'm not qualified to do it I don't expect to be fined if they cock it up, I expect them to be fined.

 

[jason121]

This is normally done when near a public highway, in case the scaffold falls onto path or road.
Have to apply for license from council around £50

 

[Gavin A]

I'm not a scaffoldder, but was under the impression that full tethering was only needed if there were no full height braces coming out to brace the top to 4-6m or so out from the scaffolding.

I'd certainly be wanting to see the HSE guy's scaffolding tickets before accepting anything they said about scaffolding as being gospel.

if what you're saying is right, then 99%+ of scaffolding in this country is wrong.

Those braces will do a hell of a lot more to support the scaffolding than a tie which is essentially relying on the pointing around a single brick to be effective - which is probably why nobody with any sense would rely on this as their standard working method.

ata - thanks moggy, outriggers was the word I was searching for.

 

[moggy1968]

no problem, could you help me out with the correct word for dangly bits, it seems to have slipped my memory:wink_smile:

 

[Earthstore]

I have only ever seen one that should have been tethered, it was erected on a narrow pavement with no room for outriggers, the term "was erected" because when I saw it it was laid across the road and the painter was in hospital.
Apart from that one I can not see any need or advantage in tethering.

Me thinks this HSE chap would be no good for PV as he talks from where the sun don't shine...