Quote:
Originally Posted by sjr4x4
So anyone can set themselves up as a H&S expert?
I thought the whole idea of this bureaucratic red tape minefield was that it was supervised and monitored by people who at least knew what they were talking about 
We've had about 4 cold calls recently asking if our electrical appliances were PAT tested as per govt regulations, and our fire extinguisher was in date.
I normally answer that my cats get PAT tested most days, and I'll just throw a big bucket of water over the computers and hope for the best in my rubber boots  |
Indeed, no regulatory control per se. having so said it is not only morally irresponsible to set up in practice and consider oneself an expert, it clearly carries an enormous risk regarding prosecution. poor or simply ignorant/bad advice that leads to an accident or fails to include suitable and sufficient control measures will almost certainly see the individual prosecuted either by the HSE or a LA enforcement inspector...with a myriad of regulations to cite. If one dont do it-another certainly will.
Funny you should mention PAT. There are actually no specific PAT regulations, not a one. However it is HSWA 74 that comes in to play along with PUWER, MHSW regs and the The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 that all place a duty on the RP to ensure that what is used is safe to do so.
I am frequently told that one must PAT every year/month/week (yep, true) & whilst there are guides it comes down to that other old chestnut, a risk assessment. Using power tools on-site in all weathers every day will probably be monthly or 3-monthly. An office printer or other portable appliance could be two-yearly, three or even five yearly depending on use. I have on many an occasion reduced a clients annual spend of PAT from what was initially disproportionate to suitable and perfectly sufficient.
This I suppose works with many areas of H&S, scare tactics by some will often mean a client is spending money of completely unnecessary projects.
To end for now I'll just mention one client who had been advised by a 'consultant' to produce some risk assessments to satisfy the inspector should he/she ever call...(sigh). They ended up with five-hundred. The best being a RA for a broom. It follows;
Identify who is at risk...Fred the sweeper upper.
Anyone else at risk.....Yes, anyone if he got a splinter and jumped out into the path of a FLT
Hazard....handle
Risk....getting splinters
Current control measures....strap up splintery handle with gaffer tape to protect user from splinters.
Consequences & Likelihood from a quantitative prospective..Oh this is good
DEATH from blood poisoning
They had no idea what they needed to do. Clearly that one got screwed up and shredded along with around 475 others, leaving 25 quality assessments that would benefit those that they affected..not to satisfy an inspector if he called. By eliminating many of the so called control measures we were able to make the company not only safer, but far more profitable.
Oh the broom I hear you ask...how did I get round that handle then? Just bought a box of new handles for about a tenner for ol Fred and convinced them he didn't need any major training on how to change it.
Mike