[richywilts]

andrew shoud be knighter for services to window cleaning sir andrew 

[David Salkeld]

andrew shoud be knighter for services to window cleaning sir andrew 

OOO...No No No.............

Alex Gardener is tops for that   

[Tom Kelly]

If you guys have any questions about the article, Andrew is in the office today!

I'll pass them on for you!

[Nick Wareham]

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.

[David Salkeld]

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

[♠Winp®oClean♠]

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?

Why simplify it, we wouldn't be scared into making them a shed load of money then would we? 

[Andrew Willis]

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
 

[trevor perry]

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

[Andrew Willis]

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

[Spruce]

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.