[Moderator David@stives]

Ian

The course is impossible to fail, that is one thing I do agree with.

[keyser soze]

to be fair this topic has gone off topic to what it started and has turned into a slateing of andrew and impact 43, at the start of the topic it was discussed about increasing random visits to businesses by HSE officials and the handing out of fines for mis compliance it has now turned into what is acceptable practice and what isnt, in defence of Andrew he has run a cleaning business in the past and has been on the recieving end of a safety investigation so he has a very good insight into how HSE operate, on his course he shows the HSE legislation and how it may be interpreted, this is where i think the problem starts in that i and many others interprit these in a different way than Andrew or the HSE may do so arguments arise, whether any choose to do the course or not is upto them but the course is certainly a starting point to understanding what is expected of us in the workplace and how the HSE work, but getting back to the main topic is the concern of how strict these HSE visits are going to be and are they just a means of raising money i know for a fact that even after attending the impact 43 course and even if you put into practice all the areas andrew covered you would still not be compliant with the regs and could be open to a fine, Andrew may disagree with this last statement but i have come to realise me and Andrew disagree on a lot of things but i still value his opinion.
 The truth is we all want to work safe and most of us would be horified if we where to cause ourselves or anybody else any major injury, Andrew is running a business but he is also running a service in helping us understand HSE regs and work safer i like many others have the opinion these regs have gone to far in some areas ie risk of falling poles and working of low flat roofs  but we have to face it on many sites these regulations will be interpreted the way andrew says and firms will be made to work this way or loose the contract, i know personally on many jobs i wont follow these regs fully even though i kmow i am working safely but i also know if an accident happened i would be accountable for the actions i took by the HSE and solicitors chaseing a claim, i am also certain i could walk into any business going even Andrews and point to a mis compliance of some regulation so i guess we will just have to wait and see how many of these HSE visits happen, how strict the process is and finally what sort of fines they hand out untill then i think it is good to have discussions on these topics to try and come to an industry standard of practice that we all can follow where common sense prevails.
 i better go and put my hard hat on now ready for the barage of abuse
[/quote


like what he said

[Dave Willis]

There are some things health and safety haven't even noticed - at the moment there is no limit to the height of pole you wish to use and any numpty can lash together a few fishing poles and be a hero. Anyone can bungy chord a 1000l tank in the van if they so wish. We can all still use ladders if we like. We can use 240v guttervacs if we so wish and run them in the rain if we feel like it.
HSE is an arse.

Quality post by Trevor Perry by the way.

[Window Washers]

There are some things health and safety haven't even noticed - at the moment there is no limit to the height of pole you wish to use and any numpty can lash together a few fishing poles and be a hero. Anyone can bungy chord a 1000l tank in the van if they so wish. We can all still use ladders if we like. We can use 240v guttervacs if we so wish and run them in the rain if we feel like it.
HSE is an arse.

this is covered in the course. It's shocking what some have in the back of their vans, but it seems many don't know the danger of what they are doing till it is explained

[Neil Gornall]

Wow it looks like I opened a can of worms with this topic   Apart from the slating of Andrew Willis its good that so many views come across.
I would not have put Andrews name in the title if I had thought it would turn into (as Mr Cameron said recently) a witch hunt. I asked Andrews opinion as I do think he "knows his onions"
like him or not, agree with his courses or not I don't think anyone can argue that his intentions are good and he has helped a lot of people, myself included. And why would he not wish to earn a living from that? he would be a fool not to.
Maybe the certificate I received at the end was useless (not even sure where it is) but what was not useless are the things I learned about working more safely and within the law.
If the HSE do start spot checks then perhaps a little of what I learned and have put into practice will help. if I don't implement it, then its my own fault. If I didn't bother to learn my responsibility in the first place, then I have no excuse.
I think people are to quick to judge Andrew if they have not done his course. It seems those who have done it generally speak highly of him. Surely that speaks volumes!

It will be interesting to see what happens when the first window cleaning company is chosen by the HSE and if it sets them on a path to look at others.
Who will it be?  You perhaps?  

 

[Dave Willis]

I'm not against Andrew - I don't know the guy. I am wound up by a couple of statements he made though only to be told to join the course when asked for an explanation.

[James Leet]

Mr Willis is no more protected than any other user - FACT

I Notice he has ignored this post Dave

[Window Washers]

Mr Willis is no more protected than any other user - FACT

I Notice he has ignored this post Dave

james he may have a life away from ciu

[Alex Wingrove]

to be fair this topic has gone off topic to what it started and has turned into a slateing of andrew and impact 43, at the start of the topic it was discussed about increasing random visits to businesses by HSE officials and the handing out of fines for mis compliance it has now turned into what is acceptable practice and what isnt, in defence of Andrew he has run a cleaning business in the past and has been on the recieving end of a safety investigation so he has a very good insight into how HSE operate, on his course he shows the HSE legislation and how it may be interpreted, this is where i think the problem starts in that i and many others interprit these in a different way than Andrew or the HSE may do so arguments arise, whether any choose to do the course or not is upto them but the course is certainly a starting point to understanding what is expected of us in the workplace and how the HSE work, but getting back to the main topic is the concern of how strict these HSE visits are going to be and are they just a means of raising money i know for a fact that even after attending the impact 43 course and even if you put into practice all the areas andrew covered you would still not be compliant with the regs and could be open to a fine, Andrew may disagree with this last statement but i have come to realise me and Andrew disagree on a lot of things but i still value his opinion.
 The truth is we all want to work safe and most of us would be horified if we where to cause ourselves or anybody else any major injury, Andrew is running a business but he is also running a service in helping us understand HSE regs and work safer i like many others have the opinion these regs have gone to far in some areas ie risk of falling poles and working of low flat roofs  but we have to face it on many sites these regulations will be interpreted the way andrew says and firms will be made to work this way or loose the contract, i know personally on many jobs i wont follow these regs fully even though i kmow i am working safely but i also know if an accident happened i would be accountable for the actions i took by the HSE and solicitors chaseing a claim, i am also certain i could walk into any business going even Andrews and point to a mis compliance of some regulation so i guess we will just have to wait and see how many of these HSE visits happen, how strict the process is and finally what sort of fines they hand out untill then i think it is good to have discussions on these topics to try and come to an industry standard of practice that we all can follow where common sense prevails.
 i better go and put my hard hat on now ready for the barage of abuse

I wanted to read all of what you said, but it is quite difficult with out paragraphs.

[Moderator David@stives]

James

Beleive it or not, everyone is treated equally, apart from suppliers who are treated less fairly by mods.

I see it as, if they come here to promote the goods, then they are opening themselves up for scrutiny, this does not mean that we will not step in if posters turn to personal attacks or go on a crusade

[Window Washers]

James

Beleive it or not, everyone is treated equally, apart from suppliers who are treated less fairly by mods.

I see it as, if they come here to promote the goods, then they are opening themselves up for scrutiny, this does not mean that we will not step in if posters turn to personal attacks or go on a crusade

well said

[James Leet]

Ian

The course is impossible to fail, that is one thing I do agree with.

Lots of Ignoring going on eh, even with people who are on here right now

[Andrew Willis]

LOL at Andrew willis.

Not that it is any of your concern, but I do have a training certificate for waterfed poles, from the BWCA when I did a course with them.  But even if I hadn't you are still dodging the question.

The point you were on about in your article wasn't ablout lack of training, it was about not courdoning off the area when using poles.

In case you forget, this is what you actually said:

"So what happens if a cleaner drops a pole onto a member of the public?  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 and barriers.  There should also be clear signs indicating that work is iin progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard.  Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."

Now, to put it bluntly, its my opinion that what you've said there is a load of rubbish, for the simple reason that doing so would not be "reasonably practicable", and the work at height regs always say that they apply as long as it is reasonably practicable.

So, let me ask you a straight question:
Do you stand by this?  Do you really believe that we should all be courdoning off an area when we use poles?

Yes or no?

(And "our training course deals with all that" is not an answer)

PS I especially liked the "in the next week" bit, kinda feisty when you get asked awkward questions aint ya?

Dry sense of humour
Answer is yes

[Andrew Willis]

For me, the amazing Andy Willis and his crew lost all credibility when he wrote in that article that people using waterfed pole, even in a private street, should courdon off the area below the pole in case it falls and hurts someone, and this was the law.

It clearly is NOT the law, and is just them scare mongering.  I think he said that he thought that because of this that 90% of waterfed polers were breaking the law.

If this is the level of regulation they are pushing for then they should disappear back to whatever it was they were doing before they realised they could claim a fat cheque from the government for every window cleaner they get to go on their course.

Nick Wareham
Thank you for your post
Please up load a copy of your training certificate for the use of water fed pole
Within the next week
I guess you are amongst many that don't have one
If thats the case then you don't comply with PUWER 1998If you have one accept my apologies
If not stop posting on these items

Im gonna chip in here and say that my own thoughts are the PUWER 1998 regulations are being used in the wrong context here.
Realistically the PUWER regulations make a lot of sense when concerned with portable power tools, static machinery, lifting equipment etc.
But to apply these regulations to the use of a "brush on a stick" instead of using common sense is quite silly in my opinion.

Crazy, It would be a great improvement for the HSE to classify equipment into types and exclude a lot of tools. As it stands ladders and Waterfed poles are included

[Andrew Willis]

Nice link soapy.

Now, once again andy, are you going to answer the question?

You said in your article that over 90% of window cleaning with waterfed pole was illegal because people don't courdon off the area to prevent the risk of falling poles.

Do you stand by this or not?  Do you think we should all be courdoning off the area when we use waterfed poles?

Its a very simple question.  It literally is a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

I don't recall saying that 90% was just because of that, it includes a number of points, training and 90% of windows cleaners who have come on the course prior to attending don't have training which is a need under PUWER you need to go to the front of the legislation for the definition of employer to employee also includes self employed and sole trader

[Andrew Willis]

This is all getting too complicated and unnecessarily so.
I'm probably breaking the law if I use a ladder.  I'm probably breaking the law if I don't cordon off 40 feet in every direction if I'm using a 40 foot pole (impossible/severely impractical on most jobs).  I'm probably breaking the law if my hose isn't yellow with red fluorescent spots.
I think I'll get a job cleaning toilets and quietly slit my wrists somewhere before some gauleiter from council health and safety sticks me in a gas oven because I believed in god until my teens.

L

[Andrew Willis]

LOL at Andrew willis.

Not that it is any of your concern, but I do have a training certificate for waterfed poles, from the BWCA when I did a course with them.  But even if I hadn't you are still dodging the question.

The point you were on about in your article wasn't ablout lack of training, it was about not courdoning off the area when using poles.

In case you forget, this is what you actually said:

"So what happens if a cleaner drops a pole onto a member of the public?  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 and barriers.  There should also be clear signs indicating that work is iin progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard.  Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."

Now, to put it bluntly, its my opinion that what you've said there is a load of rubbish, for the simple reason that doing so would not be "reasonably practicable", and the work at height regs always say that they apply as long as it is reasonably practicable.

So, let me ask you a straight question:
Do you stand by this?  Do you really believe that we should all be courdoning off an area when we use poles?

Yes or no?

(And "our training course deals with all that" is not an answer)

PS I especially liked the "in the next week" bit, kinda feisty when you get asked awkward questions aint ya?

Load it up then Nick lol
"reasonably practicable".
I cover this in the course......what is the known calculation that a judge uses on this?

Andy

Andrew.  I've always stuck up for you but if you're going to imply that most people are working illegally without giving definitive answers to reasonable questions then I believe that you shouldn't post the initial implication.
So I use an 18 foot pole in someone's front garden.  The garden is small and only 8 feet to the public footpath.  So I'm supposed to cordon off the 8 foot garden, likely 5 feet of footpath (1x 3 foot and 1 x 2 foot slab wide).  That's 13 feet of cordoning.  Therefore I have to cordon off 5 feet of road.  Before I can do so I must get a permit from the local council for partial road closure, giving them four weeks notice, so that their fat, bloated, pencil pushing committee can consider my application and charge me £75.99 for doing so. I must fill in a form telling them what colour toilet paper I use and whether or not any of my cousins are gay (thanks Donovan).  Additionally, I must also go into the neighbours' gardens either side and cordon those off too as they are less than 18 feet from the working area.

OK, so of course I'm not being serious.

Seriously Andrew.
You have complained about people posting negative things towards you in the past.  Most of the time I've sympathised with you.
However, you have now implied that most window cleaners are working illegally.  The H & S will be charging unfair rates to effectively fine or tax people.  Such things can make people feel pretty damned insecure.  But when you are asked more specific questions you appear to use those questions to promote your course(s).
Well, if someone posts negative things towards you concerning this, I reckon that you've invited it.  And I have been one of your more reasonable posters.
Either give more definitive answers or don't try making people feel insecure in the first place (pretty please).

Hi Paul,

Look as usual posters just taking information out of content, of not having correct information or understanding, law, can understand the problem as we bucket loads and it is complicated, which takes me back to the beginning.

All posters

If you would like to choose a central location to get together I will give up a day and thoroughly address this issue
No pay
No funding
My time free
if you want to give up yours,

[Andrew Willis]

Fact Mr willis makes money out of his courses

Fact Mr willis treats people on this forum like idiots

Fact Mr willis never answers a question when challenged

Fact Mr willis is protected by the mods

I rest my case

 

[Andrew Willis]

to be fair this topic has gone off topic to what it started and has turned into a slateing of andrew and impact 43, at the start of the topic it was discussed about increasing random visits to businesses by HSE officials and the handing out of fines for mis compliance it has now turned into what is acceptable practice and what isnt, in defence of Andrew he has run a cleaning business in the past and has been on the recieving end of a safety investigation so he has a very good insight into how HSE operate, on his course he shows the HSE legislation and how it may be interpreted, this is where i think the problem starts in that i and many others interprit these in a different way than Andrew or the HSE may do so arguments arise, whether any choose to do the course or not is upto them but the course is certainly a starting point to understanding what is expected of us in the workplace and how the HSE work, but getting back to the main topic is the concern of how strict these HSE visits are going to be and are they just a means of raising money i know for a fact that even after attending the impact 43 course and even if you put into practice all the areas andrew covered you would still not be compliant with the regs and could be open to a fine, Andrew may disagree with this last statement but i have come to realise me and Andrew disagree on a lot of things but i still value his opinion.
 The truth is we all want to work safe and most of us would be horified if we where to cause ourselves or anybody else any major injury, Andrew is running a business but he is also running a service in helping us understand HSE regs and work safer i like many others have the opinion these regs have gone to far in some areas ie risk of falling poles and working of low flat roofs  but we have to face it on many sites these regulations will be interpreted the way andrew says and firms will be made to work this way or loose the contract, i know personally on many jobs i wont follow these regs fully even though i kmow i am working safely but i also know if an accident happened i would be accountable for the actions i took by the HSE and solicitors chaseing a claim, i am also certain i could walk into any business going even Andrews and point to a mis compliance of some regulation so i guess we will just have to wait and see how many of these HSE visits happen, how strict the process is and finally what sort of fines they hand out untill then i think it is good to have discussions on these topics to try and come to an industry standard of practice that we all can follow where common sense prevails.
 i better go and put my hard hat on now ready for the barage of abuse

Nice post Trevor,

[Andrew Willis]

Ian

The course is impossible to fail, that is one thing I do agree with.

Dave, the course has changed so much from when you attended, I like to think its come on a long way. I am always keen to improve it more and with the likes of Trevor I am open to sit down and look at how we make it the best course around.