The cost of doing safety on the cheap !

[2wheels]

We had some solar panels fitted. The sub-contractors had scaffolding, but no safety rail. I was furious, having had a cousin who fell off scaffolding and broke his back (he recovered and was OK in the end).

I remember shouting at them that if they had an accident I would be responsible. Of course they just laughed at me.
I had a go at the supplier of the panels too and he seemed surprised that I was upset.

our house ones were put up by 2 guys using ladders. national firm who went bust.

 

[DrWazzock]

our house ones were put up by 2 guys using ladders. national firm who went bust.

Who'd have thought they'd go bust even when they'd saved all that money doing it on the cheap.

 

[Spud]

The HSE Inspector in the OP stated what should be done and this was further endorsed by @holwellcourtfarm

Don't employ cowboys, get ALL visitors and Contractors to sign a H &S agreement relevant to what they will be doing and if they don't comply, get them off your premises.

If a contractor/visitor/member of staff does something contrary to H&S criteria and you allow this to continue you are at fault. If you can prove you are unaware, you are not at fault.

So, if you see your contractor's tractor driver trying to clear the baler pick up while the PTO is still in gear and you do or say nothing, you will be liable when he gets injured.

How is an average farmer to know just what to put in a H&S agreement relevant to the task in hand? If we were as proficient at every angle as is required to prevent vultures looking for a quid from innocent farmers employing irresponsible contractors, we'd do the bloody job ourselves and save ourselves the hassle of complacent numpties ignoring rules.

Am I to get every contractor to sign reams of paper every time they come to do a job, or trust them to get on with the job safely? Hells bells if every farmer that employed a baling contractor knew what you've suggested, they'd never go near the contractor for fear of retribution. The OPERATOR (not his boss, or customer) needs to take responsibility for his own safety seriously, and not poke at a running machine. In any case, bar follow said operator down the field and hold his hand the whole time (might as well do the job ourselves if that's the case) what, practically and reasonably, is one expected to do?

This scapegoat rhetoric gets right on my wick!

 

[Forever Fendt]

Having fallen through a roof and had a 23 ft drop onto a hardcore base back in 1999 when it was normal for most farm building erectors to do the roof without nets obviously I now know the error of our ways back then and everything is fully netted now but its surprising how many customers say you would have half the roof on now with the time its taking to put nets up or are they really needed but funnily enough non have taken my offer up of doing it without nets as long as they or there son come up and help fit it without any protection ,On an average building the cost of safety netting would equal about the same as a solicitor would charge for3/4 hours work so I would say good value for money

 

[ollie989898]

Having fallen through a roof and had a 23 ft drop onto a hardcore base back in 1999 when it was normal for most farm building erectors to do the roof without nets obviously I now know the error of our ways back then and everything is fully netted now but its surprising how many customers say you would have half the roof on now with the time its taking to put nets up or are they really needed but funnily enough non have taken my offer up of doing it without nets as long as they or there son come up and help fit it without any protection ,On an average building the cost of safety netting would equal about the same as a solicitor would charge for3/4 hours work so I would say good value for money

Can you explain the need for nets, I've always assumed sheds were put up with people working in man baskets or from access platforms which is awkward but negates the need to be on top of the frame itself? I've never been involved in building work of that kind or watched it done.

Regarding falls, I've known cases where people have fallen less than 8 feet and hurt their spines/necks seriously.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Can you explain the need for nets, I've always assumed sheds were put up with people working in man baskets or from access platforms which is awkward but negates the need to be on top of the frame itself? I've never been involved in building work of that kind or watched it done.

Regarding falls, I've known cases where people have fallen less than 8 feet and hurt their spines/necks seriously.

that's why working at heights regulations look at the risk of injury rather than setting arbitrary heights for use.... above this height.

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

Ok, let's suppose you have used an approved contractor to build a building on a remote site you own. You have neither the expertise nor time to be policing them adequately. The contractor has agreed to carry out the work.

I don't see how a farmer, or anyone else can be held liable for someone failing to carry out work in a manner they had already agreed to???

I agree that a landowner/farmer or business has a duty to maintain the health and safety of people coming onto their site, for example, a contractors employee goes to use the office loo, doesn't notice a wet puddle on the floor, slips over and breaks his arm. Your insurance would pay out for this. But a contractor on site, ignoring the usual health and safety recommendations for the job in question, then falls 20 feet off a steel beam and dies, what the hell can the owner of the site do to prevent it??

As you can see from the original post, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law?

My point in raising this is that in our experience too many farmers go straight to the cheapest price and fail to scrutinise why it maybe cheaper!....... There is little difference in the costs of steel, cold rolled/ timber and cladding whoever you choose, but there is a big saving to be made if you don't include the cost to install nets and handrailing when you come to erect and that's where we loose out too often....frustrating but we wont offer on that basis!

Bit like in the current Archers storyline about building works/slave labour....its cheaper for a reason and we should all really understand why that is and compare all quotes like for like!

 

[ollie989898]

As you can see from the original post, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law?

My point in raising this is that in our experience too many farmers go straight to the cheapest price and fail to scrutinise why it maybe cheaper!....... There is little difference in the costs of steel, cold rolled/ timber and cladding whoever you choose, but there is a big saving to be made if you don't include the cost to install nets and handrailing when you come to erect and that's where we loose out too often....frustrating but we wont offer on that basis!

Bit like in the current Archers storyline about building works/slave labour....its cheaper for a reason and we should all really understand why that is and compare all quotes like for like!

I agree, but in my own case, (and in the case of many farmers I presume?)- I have zero knowledge of how buildings are erected or how work at height is done. None. Nadda. Never done it. How then can you expect me to held liable in legal terms for allowing unsafe practice on site? How would I know what constitutes 'unsafe practice'? This is a serious issue but a complex one. Farmers are farmers. They may have knowledge of X,Y or Z but they can't possibly know what is safe or not just from looking out of their window at some guys erecting a shed? Suppose work was being done at height but the guys were wearing harnesses? Are they right harnesses? Have they been tested? Have the guys been trained to wear and put them on properly? Is this equipment suitable for the application in question? Again, I would have zero knowledge of this or associated areas. Also, a guy is using a telehandler on site. I am aware of the safety considerations for a 7m telehandler in an agricultural capacity but a 12m construction machine I would be none the wiser as to what constitutes unsafe practice.

Someone has to take responsibility somewhere here?

 

[Dry Rot]

Surely, it is common sense for the land owner to be held responsible for the actions of the contractor he employs?

If the contractor then does something stupid and gets injured, the landowner will be fined under H&S legislation. He then, in turn, sues the contractor for breaching his (contractor's) contract with him (landowner) and gets his money back. The moral of the story is hat it makes sense to engage a competent contractor.

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

I agree, but in my own case, (and in the case of many farmers I presume?)- I have zero knowledge of how buildings are erected or how work at height is done. None. Nadda. Never done it. How then can you expect me to held liable in legal terms for allowing unsafe practice on site? How would I know what constitutes 'unsafe practice'? This is a serious issue but a complex one. Farmers are farmers. They may have knowledge of X,Y or Z but they can't possibly know what is safe or not just from looking out of their window at some guys erecting a shed? Suppose work was being done at height but the guys were wearing harnesses? Are they right harnesses? Have they been tested? Have the guys been trained to wear and put them on properly? Is this equipment suitable for the application in question? Again, I would have zero knowledge of this or associated areas. Also, a guy is using a telehandler on site. I am aware of the safety considerations for a 7m telehandler in an agricultural capacity but a 12m construction machine I would be none the wiser as to what constitutes unsafe practice.

Someone has to take responsibility somewhere here?

I would suggest that the responsibility for what happens on our properties/sites/farms is ours ultimately.

Guys walking around on steel at height with no obvious safety protection in place is still too common and you don't have to be a expert to know that is unsafe when you see it?
Surely if you are spending tens of thousands of £ on something you'd want to get into the detail of what you were getting....not just how cheap it was vs. the others?

Ask your self why when the vast majority of decent shed builders/suppliers use nets and handrails as standard do a sizeable number still not....its because they know it will reduce their price and farmers more often go for the cheapest price....ergo the practice continues, actively supported by farmers?

 

[ollie989898]

I would suggest that the responsibility for what happens on our properties/sites/farms is ours ultimately.

Guys walking around on steel at height with no obvious safety protection in place is still too common and you don't have to be a expert to know that is unsafe when you see it?
Surely if you are spending tens of thousands of £ on something you'd want to get into the detail of what you were getting....not just how cheap it was vs. the others?

Ask your self why when the vast majority of decent shed builders/suppliers use nets and handrails as standard do a sizeable number still not....its because they know it will reduce their price and farmers more often go for the cheapest price....ergo the practice continues, actively supported by farmers?

I don't want to get into a crusade about prices and business transactions, that is a separate issue. You appear to be suggesting is that the farmer needs to be watching people on site 24/7 in case they do something unsafe. I have no clue what is safe or not in the context of shed construction, walking around on the steel strikes me as being pretty daft but it is unsafe if folks have safety harnesses or nets? I couldn't tell you so it would be pointless for me to sit in a watch tower with a pair of binoculars watching a group of builders at work. A business would have liability insurance for this kind of thing and would comply with all the relevant HSE guidance for the particular field of work it is involved with, but would you expect a group of accountants to know if their window cleaner or the bloke cleaning their gutters was doing something unsafe or not?

 

[steveR]

Surely, it is common sense for the land owner to be held responsible for the actions of the contractor he employs?

If the contractor then does something stupid and gets injured, the landowner will be fined under H&S legislation. He then, in turn, sues the contractor for breaching his (contractor's) contract with him (landowner) and gets his money back. The moral of the story is hat it makes sense to engage a competent contractor.

Fat chance of the landowner recouping anything when Bodgit and Run Contracting Service Ltd, go bump...

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

I don't want to get into a crusade about prices and business transactions, that is a separate issue. You appear to be suggesting is that the farmer needs to be watching people on site 24/7 in case they do something unsafe. I have no clue what is safe or not in the context of shed construction, walking around on the steel strikes me as being pretty daft but it is unsafe if folks have safety harnesses or nets? I couldn't tell you so it would be pointless for me to sit in a watch tower with a pair of binoculars watching a group of builders at work. A business would have liability insurance for this kind of thing and would comply with all the relevant HSE guidance for the particular field of work it is involved with, but would you expect a group of accountants to know if their window cleaner or the bloke cleaning their gutters was doing something unsafe or not?

Sorry but I'm not suggesting you do anything you don't want to?

My OP was sharing an outcome to site owners of employing cavalier tradesmen.....which we still see too often!
You should not need to watch any responsible contractor...but you should always appoint one?

 

[Dry Rot]

Fat chance of the landowner recouping anything when Bodgit and Run Contracting Service Ltd, go bump...

It's always a good idea to check out the solvency of any company you do a deal with before they start work.

 

[ollie989898]

Sorry but I'm not suggesting you do anything you don't want to?

My OP was sharing an outcome to site owners of employing cavalier tradesmen.....which we still see too often!
You should not need to watch any responsible contractor...but you should always appoint one?

You aren't really providing any answers, when a business engages a contractor he expects them to do the work safely and properly, how in the heck will he know what constitutes unsafe practice just from the price being given?

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

photo taken by a passing bank manager...even he could see this is unsafe?

....we lost this local project as our price was too high!

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

You aren't really providing any answers, when a business engages a contractor he expects them to do the work safely and properly, how in the heck will he know what constitutes unsafe practice just from the price being given?

my OP was to inform, so folk can hopefully be better equipped to ask the right questions of their contractor.......so the answer is to ask what is included and then compare all on the same basis.
I would suggest make a list of questions and then ask the contractor to confirm what he is including.

Bit like buying insurance I guess...What is included for the cost and what isn't!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I agree, but in my own case, (and in the case of many farmers I presume?)- I have zero knowledge of how buildings are erected or how work at height is done. None. Nadda. Never done it. How then can you expect me to held liable in legal terms for allowing unsafe practice on site? How would I know what constitutes 'unsafe practice'? This is a serious issue but a complex one. Farmers are farmers. They may have knowledge of X,Y or Z but they can't possibly know what is safe or not just from looking out of their window at some guys erecting a shed? Suppose work was being done at height but the guys were wearing harnesses? Are they right harnesses? Have they been tested? Have the guys been trained to wear and put them on properly? Is this equipment suitable for the application in question? Again, I would have zero knowledge of this or associated areas. Also, a guy is using a telehandler on site. I am aware of the safety considerations for a 7m telehandler in an agricultural capacity but a 12m construction machine I would be none the wiser as to what constitutes unsafe practice.

Someone has to take responsibility somewhere here?

if the law allowed ignorance as a valid defence, everyone would employ someone who knew nothing about Health & Safety to monitor it (and thus save a fortune), however ignorance is not a defence, if you know nothing about it, you must employ someone who does (it is better practice to undertake H & S activities in house rather than using a consultant). Private house holders are allowed that get out, as it would be unfair to expect them to know everything, but if you are running a business, the buck stops with you. I am not sure if working from a man cage on a telehandler is a recognised system of work either.

I know someone who was renovating a property, and used a self employer plumber to fit the soil pipes, they did this off a domestic tower scaffold, fell off and were injured. The builder was found guilty, as he used a sub contractor without proper working at height systems/risk assessments. They were fined and had to complete Health & Safety training too.

 

[ollie989898]

if the law allowed ignorance as a valid defence, everyone would employ someone who knew nothing about Health & Safety to monitor it (and thus save a fortune), however ignorance is not a defence, if you know nothing about it, you must employ someone who does (it is better practice to undertake H & S activities in house rather than using a consultant). Private house holders are allowed that get out, as it would be unfair to expect them to know everything, but if you are running a business, the buck stops with you. I am not sure if working from a man cage on a telehandler is a recognised system of work either.

I know someone who was renovating a property, and used a self employer plumber to fit the soil pipes, they did this off a domestic tower scaffold, fell off and were injured. The builder was found guilty, as he used a sub contractor without proper working at height systems/risk assessments. They were fined and had to complete Health & Safety training too.

Ok, so I accept that as a business owner I would have no clue how safe work at height is done nor what constitutes safe practice and what does not. I agree that I would engage and pay a contractor to do the work. I've deliberately used a professional business with a history of doing the work and who appear to have the correct training and procedures in place (to my untrained eye at any rate). If the employees of that contractor then fail to follow the health and safety rules of their own employer, how is it my fault? Employees have to accept responsibility for following the health and safety practices outlined by their employer themselves, no?

In the example you gave, the builder was remiss, not the homeowner, I would agree with that.

 

[teslacoils]

Bottom line is you'd be an idiot to invest much more time or money in the UK, quite frankly.
All you do is open yourself up to becoming another sorry carcass for the vultures to pick over.
Stick it in ISA's and sit back.

Entirely this. Generation must not die, generation retire early with pensions that are unaffordable, generation graduate with degree in excuses not to work, and soon generation don't know how to work. Every penny I can siphon out of the farm is now being sent overseas. I have zero trust that ISAs are safe from the taxman. Will be more regulators than workers next.