Clean It Up
UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: Tom Kelly on September 07, 2012, 12:52:19 pm
-
Hi guys,
Andrew has an article in this month's Tomorrow's Cleaning, and it's all about the current state of Working at Height.
It's a very interesting read for those who are involved!
Let me know what you think!
http://content.yudu.com/A1ycbp/TCSept2012/resources/70.htm (http://content.yudu.com/A1ycbp/TCSept2012/resources/70.htm)
-
67%
-
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q572/Gramthy/67.png)
The future is not co-operating!!!!
-
It's loading fine on Google Chrome?
Try a different browser?!
-
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q572/Gramthy/67.png)
The future is not co-operating!!!!
It stops there for a bit and then will load; be patient and you will be rewarded.
-
Which poles does he recommend and why?
-
So are ladders banned? ;D
-
Employees pushing a 40ft pole up and down all day without proper education of the long term health implications should be banned!
-
Tom,
Andrew is right, but how far it will ever get to domestic work is another story. H&S Executive only seem to get involved after a commercial accident, as this is where they can apportion blame and issue large fines for breech of the regulations - or regulations by extension of another regulation.
There is no regulation regarding us needing a certificate of competency to use a water fed pole. But the Puwer regulations cover the competency of employers, employees and soletraders with regard to the handling of equipment, so it applies. If you are a small window cleaning business with a couple of employees, your 'inhouse' training won't suffice. You interprete the regs one way and find you didn't interprete them correctly after an accident - just like the rule changes of Formula1.
Ladders aren't banned but ...................................................................... Why don't they ban the use of ladders like they have in Holland then we would all know where we stand? But what would the Sky fitters and BT do? A different reg for them? After all BT argued with H&S that their engineers were competent enough to decide whether using a ladder on that job was safe or not and H&S conceded apparently.
How do we know whether we are competent users of WFP. Get someone who is (or who has been authorised to be), test you and then issue a certificate. Now we need to do the same thing with a ladder. Now we need to do the same thing with regard the handling of heavy objects (ie our hose reels) and get another certificate. Then we find out that our certificate is only valid for a period of time, unlike your O Level or GCSE exam results which last a life time. So you need to be re-certificated). What happens if we get a certificate of competency to use a ladder and then fail to renew it when it expires in 3 years time. What then? Is this a criminal situation like driving a car without a driver's licence?
How many sole-trader window cleaners are there? How would they police it? Can the economy of the UK afford it - they want to de regulate building regs to get the economy going so any further regulation is going in the wrong direction.
Personally, I think this has gone too far. Yes, if a window cleaner continues to use ladders he takes the risk and pays the price if he falls. The provision is there for a safer method - I think the choice should be up to each individual TBH.
How does a gardening service get on. You need a certificate to use a spade, and then another to use a pick axe because you need to cone a safe distance off incase the pick axe head flies off.
How does it start and how does it end?
We are in the process of doing the Impact43 course, and have found it a valuable course for us to attend. We have started doing risk assessments on paper, and not on the day. We are also in the process of writing a method statement out as well.
My signage is being redone to include trip hazard (which I already had) and objects falling from height warning on the same board.
Spruce
-
what a load of boring rubbish.
-
what a load of boring rubbish. +1 ;D
-
Surprises me how people working out of vans trail hisses across public pavements?
Okay if you're parked on the actual property but I see one chap in particular who even runs his hoses across a road!
So, is it considered 'good practice' ergo 'safe' to trail hoses on pavements?
-
Surprises me how people working out of vans trail hisses across public pavements?
Okay if you're parked on the actual property but I see one chap in particular who even runs his hoses across a road!
So, is it considered 'good practice' ergo 'safe' to trail hoses on pavements?
thats me lol
-
Tom,
Andrew is right, but how far it will ever get to domestic work is another story. H&S Executive only seem to get involved after a commercial accident, as this is where they can apportion blame and issue large fines for breech of the regulations - or regulations by extension of another regulation.
There is no regulation regarding us needing a certificate of competency to use a water fed pole. But the Puwer regulations cover the competency of employers, employees and soletraders with regard to the handling of equipment, so it applies. If you are a small window cleaning business with a couple of employees, your 'inhouse' training won't suffice. You interprete the regs one way and find you didn't interprete them correctly after an accident - just like the rule changes of Formula1.
this guy talks sense
-
Andrew is doing a great job in keeping us and others imformed on better ways to help prevent acidents.
I only read on here recently about the poor bloke that fell of his ladder and is now in a wheel chair.
We need more people like andy around.
-
I trail the hose down pavements and across the road, as long as its not too busy. How else can you do compact work without moving the van all the time?
-
what a load of boring rubbish.
If this is your attitude then you are nothing but a cowboy window cleaner.
It is just this type of attitude that causes accidents that result in lives wrecked as on the video posted by Nathaniel.
I understand frustration over 'Elf n Safety. But we need to bring respect and professionalism into
our business.
Amen to Andrew
-
what a load of boring rubbish.
If this is your attitude then you are nothing but a cowboy window cleaner.
It is just this type of attitude that causes accidents that result in lives wrecked as on the video posted by Nathaniel.
I understand frustration over 'Elf n Safety. But we need to bring respect and professionalism into
our business.
Amen to Andrew
+1
-
Andrew is doing a great job in keeping us and others imformed on better ways to help prevent acidents.
I only read on here recently about the poor bloke that fell of his ladder and is now in a wheel chair.
We need more people like andy around.
Here here
-
Is Andrew a deity now?
-
andrew shoud be knighter for services to window cleaning sir andrew ;D ;D ;D
-
andrew shoud be knighter for services to window cleaning sir andrew ;D ;D ;D
OOO...No No No.............
Alex Gardener is tops for that ;D ;D ;) ;)
-
If you guys have any questions about the article, Andrew is in the office today!
I'll pass them on for you! :)
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriers etc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked me.
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriertc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked m
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
Whilst I am fully behind training and professionalism in our trade.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
I have argued with David and Andrew that we need to simplify the laws
And it could easily be seen that Impact 43 are wafting the flames in order to create training courses?
David
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriertc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked m
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
Whilst I am fully behind training and professionalism in our trade.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
I have argued with David and Andrew that we need to simplify the laws
And it could easily be seen that Impact 43 are wafting the flames in order to create training courses?
David
Indeed. Do you actually think that Impact give a toss about your health & safety? ;D ;D
Why simplify it, we wouldn't be scared into making them a shed load of money then would we? :-*
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriers etc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked me.
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
Hi Nick
Thanks for your post
This is a useful ref for “reasonably practicable”; http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm
basically a judge uses the scales of justice, in one side place cost time and trouble against the outcome lets say dropping a pole on a member of public, injury death, whats it worth?
Your spot on about the risk calculation, Try this page http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/faq.htm
I could spend ages covering and answering this issue and in fact we cover this during workshop 1of our City and Guilds level 1 and level 2 certificate, Workshop 1 is a full day workshop and we go into great detail, I would like to think everyone attending comes away with good information, and hopefully would answer, challenge some of the points, but at the end the legal needs will be clear.
I am also going to try and cover this in a seminar at the Cleaning Show in March and will be happy for an open debate, we plan to film this and then I want to approach the HSE and a good legal firm and challenge for a clear HSE approved guideline.
Thanks
Andy
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriers etc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked me.
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
Hi Nick
Thanks for your post
This is a useful ref for “reasonably practicable”; http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm
basically a judge uses the scales of justice, in one side place cost time and trouble against the outcome lets say dropping a pole on a member of public, injury death, whats it worth?
Your spot on about the risk calculation, Try this page http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/faq.htm
I could spend ages covering and answering this issue and in fact we cover this during workshop 1of our City and Guilds level 1 and level 2 certificate, Workshop 1 is a full day workshop and we go into great detail, I would like to think everyone attending comes away with good information, and hopefully would answer, challenge some of the points, but at the end the legal needs will be clear.
I am also going to try and cover this in a seminar at the Cleaning Show in March and will be happy for an open debate, we plan to film this and then I want to approach the HSE and a good legal firm and challenge for a clear HSE approved guideline.
Thanks
Andy
Hi Andrew, do you know of any instances where a wfp has been dropped on a member of the public whilst in use
-
Interesting article, BUT...
I disagree with this:
"I've recently been looking at water-fed pole work, and I estimate that over 90% of it does not comply with UK statutory law"
Sorry but that is just rubbish. You go on to say that this is because of the hazard of falling objects:
"Regulation 10 of the working at height legislation covers falling objects, and makes it clear that in order to fully comply with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape or barriers.
There should also be clear signs indicating that work at height is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
Partly true, but you omit the part where the regulations say that these measures should be taken if they are "reasonably racticable". IE in proportion with the risk, as assessed in a risk assessment. A window cleaner cleaning windows over a pavement for 20 minutes would not be expected to erect barriers and demarcate a safety zone, because its simply not reasonably practicable, and the risk of the pole falling is so small that it would not be justified.
The regs actually say that you have to take "suitable and suffient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object."
Common sense would say that holding onto a pole (ie not leaving it unattended while extended) would be suitable and sufficient to reasonably prevent it falling on someone. Marking out barriers etc, is way beyond that. Personally I'd be more than happy to justify this to a H&S inspector if one asked me.
If you're saying that the risk of falling poles does justify such extravagant measures for the short time threy'd be needed, you'd have to back it up with statistics showing how many injuries had been caused by falling poles, which of course you can't because no such statistics exist. (which itself is a true indication of just how small a risk this is).
Personally I've never heard of anyone being injured by a falling pole.
Hi Nick
Thanks for your post
This is a useful ref for “reasonably practicable”; http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm
basically a judge uses the scales of justice, in one side place cost time and trouble against the outcome lets say dropping a pole on a member of public, injury death, whats it worth?
Your spot on about the risk calculation, Try this page http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/faq.htm
I could spend ages covering and answering this issue and in fact we cover this during workshop 1of our City and Guilds level 1 and level 2 certificate, Workshop 1 is a full day workshop and we go into great detail, I would like to think everyone attending comes away with good information, and hopefully would answer, challenge some of the points, but at the end the legal needs will be clear.
I am also going to try and cover this in a seminar at the Cleaning Show in March and will be happy for an open debate, we plan to film this and then I want to approach the HSE and a good legal firm and challenge for a clear HSE approved guideline.
Thanks
Andy
Hi Andrew, do you know of any instances where a wfp has been dropped on a member of the public whilst in use
No ......and I am pleased to answer that
I am interested why you also did not ask about how many reports of window cleaners dropping poles, or near misses?
Over the last Three years I have been shocked how many window cleaners have advised me they have dropped poles, often at height and several advising that it was an un reported near miss, when it does, there will be knee jerk re-actions, corporate business's will react, shut down use.
It was the same with the suspended access cradle fatalities at St Magnus house, up to that point could I have reamed off cradle accident fatalities in the UK , No.
We had in the UK good statistics ....however after that accident 40% of cradle work in the City of London using cradles was stopped, it took nearly a year to build confidence of duty holders to re-instate the use, it also affected cradles all round the UK, Insurance rates went through the roof
I start a course in Liverpool on Wednesday, Preston Thursday
The courses are full, but I would welcome your attendance, then after you have attended the Three workshops, come on the forum and write a full review, warts and all
Regards
Andy
-
We were called into a local school this afternoon with regard to cleaning solar panels on the roof they were planning to instal which is very low pitched. We were asked how we would clean these panels and what safety equipment we would need to use.
It turns out that installing a fall arrest system and its annual safety check and certification (£450.00) will make the installation of these solar panels a questionable long term investment.
What I can't understand is why the safety arrest cable has to be checked annually (which I don't have a problem with) for £450.00 but the banisters around the stair cases and the mezzanine floor do not have to have an annual safety check and be certified secure.
Sorry, I meant to add. We can inspect our own ladders and issue a clean bill of health or condemn them as dangerous. We do this with all our equipment. Yet we aren’t able to self certify that the fall arrest system is good enough to work from.