A very important client invited us to a Health and Seminar held on their premises this week. Two hours long.
Accident figures for workers 2004/05
Top of the list? You guessed:
Falls from height. Fatal: 53. Major injury: 3783. Over 3 day injury: 8908.
the WAH directive April 2005: Applies to all work at height where there is a risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury.
The responsibility rests with both the Contractor/Client/Employer and the Employed/Self employed/Contracted to control the risks.
All the above mentioned, including residential householders are Duty holders.
Duty holders must avoid work at height where they can.
Use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where they cannot avoid working at height.
If an alternative to using a ladder can be found, then it should be used.
If it is proven that all other possibilities have been considered inaccessible, a ladder may be used, but, secured/supported by an assistant.
Therefore ladders may only be used where, according to Schedule 6, the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk(which must be proven), the short duration of use, existing features on site which cannot be altered.
All Companies are gradually being informed/as is the public in general, that valued judgements must be made.
In the case of Companies: Approved contractors only should be used.
The Contracted must provide clear risk assessments, method statements, and appropriate liability insurance.
The work should be monitored to ensure safe working practise, and Approval reviewed periodically.
Court proceedings:
Any case may be held either at the Magistrates Court or if the Crown Prosecution Service deems it appropriate at Crown Court.
If dealt with at Magistrates Court A breach could result in a fine of up to £20,000.
If dealt with at Crown Court, the fine is unlimited.
A case you may have read about:
"A" organised "B" to carry out some work at height on his premises.
"A" failed to inform "B" of the risks involved, and failed to ask for a risk assessment and method statement.
Someone fell.
"B" was prosecuted under the H&S act and fined £3,000.
"A" was also prosecuted for the same offences and fined £130,000.
Both parties were also ordered to pay costs £38,000.
Our particular Client is now enforcing these regulations strictly, as will every commercial organisation be required.
If you only work on residential, you may think, it doesn't apply. But according to the H&S Advisors conducting the seminar, the regulations stand in principle for all work at height. Both parties are liable and have a responsibility.
I shall be stepping up my approach to health and safety. Move with the times.
I may even tell you who the client in question is, at some stage.
