Principal Designer role

[Steptoe]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

That's not the case, as stated clearly in the excerpt already quoted.  If I contract with someone to undertake a part of our build, then they are, in law, the "responsible person".  They have the expertise and understanding that makes them a competent person in terms of their duty of care to their client.  A domestic client, can not, and is not, expected to have expertise in any particular trade, let alone all of them.  A case against a domestic client would never get as far as court.

But, that by default makes you PC, and if you don't have the expertise and/or knowledge to carry out this then you outsource it,

CDM2015 is pretty clear cut on this, i don't know why it's even being argued about.

You either engage a PC or you take the role on yourself, with all the required responsibility, what's so hard to understand,?

 

 

EDIT : yes, I've been to court with a similar incident just last year where a householder was responsible for not ensuring the electrics were 'dead' before a groundworkers cut through a cable, even though their were electricians on site, it wasn't part of their RA as they weren't doing anything with the existing outbuildings, so it fell on the client, ie: householder

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Steptoe

[PeterW]

7 minutes ago, Steptoe said:

But, that by default makes you PC, and if you don't have the expertise and/or knowledge to carry out this then you outsource it,

 

How does it make you PC by default ..?? It does if you're a commercial client but reading that excerpt it states it falls to the contractor. 

 

And your quoted case would have more likely been brought under the household duty of care in public liability rather than under CDM unless someone was having a particularly bad day ..! Was it civil or criminal ..??

[B52s]

2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

That's not the case, as stated clearly in the excerpt already quoted.  If I contract with someone to undertake a part of our build, then they are, in law, the "responsible person".  They have the expertise and understanding that makes them a competent person in terms of their duty of care to their client.  A domestic client, can not, and is not, expected to have expertise in any particular trade, let alone all of them.  A case against a domestic client would never get as far as court.

 

I think we are kind of saying the same thing.

 

The scenarios I have described are correct relative to CDM2015.  The only weakness in CDM2015 is that it places no responsibility on domestic clients to ensure they have the skills, knowledge and experience to undertake the duties I outlined above.  I believe this recognised anomaly can only be clarified by a court of law resulting from an accident investigation (which I do feel will come in the fullness of time).  Whether this could result in criminal convictions against a self-builder, I am not so sure.

 

CDM2015 does imply that a domestic client would not be held accountable. However, I feel this is directed towards "non technical" homeowners who have building works designed and installed by an architect and local builder.  In this situation, it is (under most circumstances) obvious that the homeowner had no CDM involvement.

 

On the other hand, self-builders clearly have far more competence and input than the "traditional" domestic client and therefore I feel this would be taken into account in terms of foreseeable and wholly preventable accidents.  In this situation, it is not obvious that the self-builder had no CDM involvement.

 

So, I suppose I do tentatively agree with you in principle that a self-builder might not face criminal conviction under CDM.  However, ignoring the spirit of CDM brings considerable risk and is certainly not for the faint hearted.

Edited April 13, 2017 by B52s
typo

[Steptoe]

35 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

How does it make you PC by default ..?? It does if you're a commercial client but reading that excerpt it states it falls to the contractor. 

 

And your quoted case would have more likely been brought under the household duty of care in public liability rather than under CDM unless someone was having a particularly bad day ..! Was it civil or criminal ..??

By being a self builder undertaking the role of contracting the various trades by yourself it is a given that you have assumed competence of a degree to manage the works, thereby you are appointing yourself competent.

I really fail to see how any self builder can contemplate spending 50 100 200 £K and more even and fail to see the advantage of spending 5 or 10K in obtaining professional services for certain stuff beyond their knowledge, it's part of the reason  i try and distance myself from domestic works, most domestic think they know better until they get into a hole, only then do they want to pay for professional help for things they can't materially see.

It was an HSE case actually, householder settled out of court, but still got a massive fine for allowing works to carry on with no professional competence.

 

 

[Steptoe]

43 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

How does it make you PC by default ..?? It does if you're a commercial client but reading that excerpt it states it falls to the contractor. 

 

And your quoted case would have more likely been brought under the household duty of care in public liability rather than under CDM unless someone was having a particularly bad day ..! Was it civil or criminal ..??

The contractor is you, unless you have specifically appointed a principle contractor, that's the whole point,

Most self builders don't do that, as they want to contract each trade individually. 

[Construction Channel]

well i am thoroughly lost, 

 

what exactly is this CDM thing? and why are we all suddenly deciding to talk about it?

 

Is this just another branch of HSE i have got to choose to ignore??

[Ian]

2 hours ago, Construction Channel said:

well i am thoroughly lost, 

 

what exactly is this CDM thing? and why are we all suddenly deciding to talk about it?

 

Is this just another branch of HSE i have got to choose to ignore??

@Construction Channel

CDM = Construction Design & Management Regulations. 

Its health & safety legislation specifically for construction that was first introduced in the U.K. way back In 1994 and then amended in 2015.

 

The purpose of it was to make the construction and maintenance of buildings (and other related structures) safer. It's had a major effect on the way that safety is approached and nobody I know in construction would want to go back to the dark ages of what it was like on building sites pre 1994.

 

My first job after qualifying as an architect in 1987 was to design a large industrial building. The steel workers erecting the frame did so 10m up without any safety netting or safety harnesses and when the roofers were installing the large metal roof panels it was a windy day and one blew away, travelled over all 6 lanes of the M62 and landed on the far side. Looking back it was a miracle nobody was killed on that site but pre-1994 and CDM that's what it was like on building sites. Likewise architects like myself and other designers (structural and M&E) would commonly design buildings without seriously considering how they could be safely and easily maintained.

 

These days as an architect on every project that I am involved with I've got to formally consider safety (i.e. written risk assessments and method statements) and show how my design approach has eliminated risk for the construction and maintenance of the building.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Ian

[Triassic]

1. The self builder acts as their own project manager, employing individual trades at different times. In this instance the self builder steps out of the DIY arena, because they are taking control of construction work. Where a self builder controls the way in which construction work is carried out, by a person at work, they must comply with all the matters outlined in Part 4 of CDM 2015 This requirement is set out in Regulation 16 of CDM 2015, (which effectively replaces Reg 26 in CDM 2007). This is not a new requirement. In this scenario the self builder will in effect become a contractor. In this case HSE will expect self builders to demonstrate sufficient health and safety capability to meet the requirements of Part 4 of CDM 2015. Individual contractors will be expected to be able to advise the self builder on any specialist matters within their own work activities. HSE’s expectation of a self builder in this position will be one of coordination and management, not of direct supervision of contractors on site. The self builder is entitled to expect contractors to plan, manage and monitor their own work in compliance with CDM 2015. 

https://www.citb.co.uk/documents/cdm regs/cdm 2015 - qa 3 self build projects.pdf

[Jeremy Harris]

Thank you @Triassic, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

 

Nothing has changed as far as the majority of self-builders are concerned.  What disappoints me is that this new version of CDM is being "marketed" to self-builders by some consultants, and some are being asked to pay for something they don't need to worry about, as long as they use common sense.

 

Not many self-builders "control the way construction work is carried out", in fact I think it's probably a tiny percentage.  We were pretty hands-on, but not once did I actually control the way any contractor worked, if anything, contractors controlled the way I worked, on occasion.

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris

[ToughButterCup]

4 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

[...]

What disappoints me is that this new version of CDM is being "marketed" to self-builders by some consultants, and some are being asked to pay for something they don't need to worry about, as long as they use common sense.

[...]

 

And that 'sense'  is in short supply often enough in my direct experience for me to realise that the building sector has brought the H+S hammer down hard on it's own head. 

[Jeremy Harris]

24 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

And that 'sense'  is in short supply often enough in my direct experience for me to realise that the building sector has brought the H+S hammer down hard on it's own head. 

 

I agree.  The one issue I had, time and time again, was people altering the scaffolding.  This is forbidden, as it is the scaffolder's responsibility to erect and check that a scaffold is safe, and they certify it as such.  I think I had the scaffolders back on site three or four times to put the scaffolding back as it should have been and make it safe.  Given that working on unsafe scaffolding is a well-known significant risk, I'm surprised that few seem to worry about "just moving a few poles or planks".  These alterations to a bit of key safety equipment weren't my responsibility, as in each case the contractor concerned was supervising their own work, as agreed in the contract. 

 

The worst offenders, by far, were a company I employed to erect a short fence on top of the retaining wall.  Their quote included them providing, and being responsible for, their own access equipment, yet when I reviewed the security camera footage it was clear that they had partially disassembled the scaffolding and re-built it to give them better access to the wall.  What was worse was that I found half a dozen "spare" scaffold clamps on site, where the original scaffolding hadn't been properly reassembled.  Thankfully the scaffolders took this in their stride, as if it were something they saw every day, and quickly came back to put things right before the next set of contractors arrived on site.

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris
typo

[B52s]

1 hour ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

And that 'sense'  is in short supply often enough in my direct experience for me to realise that the building sector has brought the H+S hammer down hard on it's own head. 

 

Well said recoveringacademic.

 

Historical evidence clearly indicates that previous self-regulation of design, construction and management has failed to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons in or about buildings and others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings.

 

The message for all involved in construction projects (commercial and domestic) has got to be; embrace CDM2015 and make a real difference.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by B52s
typo

[Jeremy Harris]

16 minutes ago, B52s said:

 

Well said recoveringacademic.

 

Historical evidence clearly indicated that previous self-regulation of design, construction and management has failed to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons in or about buildings and others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings.

 

The message for all involved in construction projects (commercial and domestic) has got to be; embrace CDM2015 and make a real difference.

 

 

 

As long as a self-builder remains a "domestic client" they cannot normally be prosecuted, as they would not, in law, be judged competent to over see the work of contractors.  The moment a self-builder tries to directly "control the way construction work is carried out" they are making themselves liable to be considered to be the "responsible person", with an enhanced duty of care as a consequence.

 

I would very strongly advise any self-builder to avoid getting into this invidious position.  I've had the misfortune to be a witness in a double manslaughter case where a volunteer elected to be trained to provide a service, without reward, and then found themselves charged with manslaughter.  It was not at all pleasant.

 

If self-builders always contract on the basis that they are a domestic client, and refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with CDM, making it clear to those they contract to do work that the contractor is responsible for managing their own safety, then they are, in law, pretty much guaranteeing that they have no enhanced duty of care. 

 

For example, it is exceptionally risky for any self-builder to decide to get training that could cause a court to decide that they had a level of competency above that expected from a normal domestic client.  By doing this, they could, perhaps unwittingly, place themselves in the firing line.  This isn't at all new, it's been the case for as long as I can remember, and pre-dates even the original 1974 H&S@W act.

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris
typo

[B52s]

5 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

As long as a self-builder remains a "domestic client" they cannot normally be prosecuted, as they would not, in law, be judged competent to over see the work of contractors.  The moment a self-builder tries to directly "control the way construction work is carried out" they are making themselves liable to be considered to be the "responsible person", with an enhanced duty of care as a consequence.

 

....If self-builders always contract on the basis that they are a domestic client, and refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with CDM, making it clear to those they contract to do work that the contractor is responsible for managing their own safety, then they are, in law, pretty much guaranteeing that they have no enhanced duty of care. 

 

 

That makes sense.

However, self-builders insist on falling into the "honey trap" by engaging contractors during the construction phase.  If a principal contractor has not been appointed, this - by default, makes the self-builder the principal contractor and therefore he/she assumes the full CDM duties that this position demands.

 

If self-builders do not have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to fulfill this role (fully in accordance with CDM2015) then he/she has a duty of care not to undertake these duties themselves (i.e. due to not possessing the required competence) and therefore has no option other than to appoint a principal contractor who can demonstrate that they possess the required CDM competence.

 

During the pre-construction phase it is entirely foreseeable that multiple contractors will be engaged during the construction phase and therefore a principal contractor should be engaged prior to the commencement of construction.  It is of absolutely no relevance to when trade contractors are engaged or indeed how many trades will be on site at any given time.  CDM2015 demands that a principal contractor is required when it is envisaged that more than one contractor will be engaged to undertake the works, end of.

[Jeremy Harris]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree that self-builders fall into any sort of trap.  The law is clear, and has been for decades, and CDM2015 hasn't changed anything from CDM2007, as far as self-build is concerned.

 

I gave examples earlier of the way we contracted for our build.  This was before CDM2015, and so under CDM2007, but nothing has changed at all in respect of our responsibilities.  Take the very first parts of our build as an example.  A structural engineer designed and specified the major part of the ground works.  He took full responsibility for that design.  The ground works contractor had a firm price contract that included the breakdown of responsibilities, and he took full responsibility for the site, at his own request (as he had heavy equipment on site).  I was most certainly not competent to "control the way construction work was carried out", and nor did I wish to be.  I could only go on site with the contractors permission, in fact, because he controlled it.  The contractor worked to the design and specifications that the structural engineer had produced, and I had no control over that, either.  Had there been an accident during that phase there is no way whatsoever that I would have carried any liability.

 

Once the ground works were completed, the site was handed to another contractor to drill the water borehole.  Again, that contractor had full responsibility for the site and there is no way that I could be deemed to be in control of what they were doing.  Apart from anything else, the responsibilities were clearly defined in the contract, as a part of the contractors standard terms and conditions.

 

Once that work was completed, I again passed control to the next contractor on site, to build the foundations and supply and erect the house, again with a written contract that was clear as to where responsibilities lie.  Once more I could not have been deemed to be "in control" at all, I was very definitely a domestic client.

 

The same applies to the follow-on trades, they all controlled and managed their own work, working to a specification that they had agreed in writing. At no time did I ever "control the way construction work was carried out" once a contract had been placed.  I certainly did bear responsibility for all the work I did on my own, but that comes within the definition of DIY and is well outside the scope of CDM.

 

I'm not in any way knocking CDM, for the building industry it is a key way to ensure that work is controlled and managed safely.  I in my last job before I retired I managed a programme that included a £96M construction project, and the main contractor (SRM) had a very well-structured safety management system, with rigorous control of all work and access on site.  What I am saying is that self-builders seem to be being misinformed, perhaps by people trying to sell their services, as to what does and does not apply to them.  The key point is that CDM2015 has not changed anything material for self-builders; things remain as they have been under CDM2007, despite all the stories circulating to the contrary.

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris
typo

[B52s]

11 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Sorry, but I strongly disagree that self-builders fall into any sort of trap.  The law is clear, and has been for decades, and CDM2015 hasn't changed anything from CDM2007, as far as self-build is concerned.

 

Quote from p33 heading under clause 146; CDM2007 ACoP: "The principal contractor (notifiable projects only)".

 

Under CDM2007, a principal contractor only required to be appointed if the project was commercial in nature and also notifiable to the HSE.  Under CDM2015, the trigger point for principal contractor appointment is based on the number of contractors envisaged to be required during commercial or domestic construction projects.  This is a fundamental shift in regulation (and emphasis) which has far reaching consequences for those involved in design, construction and management.

 

I think it is in anyone's best interest not to discuss legislation that has subsequently been withdrawn and superseded by current legislation.  We are where we are, lets grasp the proverbial nettle and deal with reducing the number of accidents on domestic building projects by fully embracing CDM2015.

[Mr Punter]

 

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

The ground works contractor had a firm price contract that included the breakdown of responsibilities, and he took full responsibility for the site, at his own request (as he had heavy equipment on site).  I was most certainly not competent to "control the way construction work was carried out", and nor did I wish to be.  I could only go on site with the contractors permission, in fact, because he controlled it.  The contractor worked to the design and specifications that the structural engineer had produced, and I had no control over that, either.  Had there been an accident during that phase there is no way whatsoever that I would have carried any liability.

 

Once the ground works were completed, the site was handed to another contractor to drill the water borehole.  Again, that contractor had full responsibility for the site and there is no way that I could be deemed to be in control of what they were doing.  Apart from anything else, the responsibilities were clearly defined in the contract, as a part of the contractors standard terms and conditions.

 

Once that work was completed, I again passed control to the next contractor on site, to build the foundations and supply and erect the house, again with a written contract that was clear as to where responsibilities lie.  Once more I could not have been deemed to be "in control" at all, I was very definitely a domestic client.

 

The same applies to the follow-on trades, they all controlled and managed their own work, working to a specification that they had agreed in writing. At no time did I ever "control the way construction work was carried out" once a contract had been placed.  I certainly did bear responsibility for all the work I did on my own, but that comes within the definition of DIY and is well outside the scope of CDM.

 

There is a large distinction between (1) a domestic client, where works are being carried out on their house by others, (2) a DIY self builder. and (3) a self builder employing multiple trades directly and concurrently.

 

In (1), typically the client will appoint a builder / roofer / plumber / kitchen company to undertake some work on your house and it will be for them to organise everything - welfare, scaffold, materials etc.  The role of PC will pass to them.

 

In (2) if the work is being undertaken by you it will fall outside CDM2015.

 

In (3) you will probably fall within CDM2015.

 

For example, you will most probably have, scaffolding erected for other trades, where you appoint the scaffold contractor.  They will not take responsibility for the entire site while their scaffold is in place but it will be up to you to ensure that the scaffold is regularly inspected and safe.  You will probably have several other trades on site at the same time, who also will not assume the role of principal contractor.  You should also make available welfare facilities, provide site inductions, fire evacuation procedures, site security, check contractor insurances, RAMS etc.  In other words you are acting as Principle Contractor.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Mr Punter
typo to change meaning

[ToughButterCup]

For those wanting to do a bit of background reading, this website (endorse by '...the government...' ) is slightly useful. But it's what the HSE offers us.

 

From my (ex) professional perspective, the site is dreadful. It commits all the usability, readability and some of the coding bad and malpractice (plagiarism) that I worked for years to eradicate. In short, someone has shoe-horned  a paper-based resource into the Internet and called it a website. Lazy, lazy, lazy. 

 

What we as a sector need is some bespoke online H+S support. Well designed, encouraging, full of practical help and perhaps laced with a bit of appropriate humour. Stuff that causes a smile-in-the-mind, not a belly laugh. A resource  that encourages deep learning, and thus practical commitment .

You do that by structuring and simplifying : not by handing highly-committed people a cat's cradle of copied and pasted information wrapped in an old fish and chips newspaper. 

 

But that takes effort on the part of the HSE and I really don't see that at any level for our sector.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

If someone can point me to the specific clause in CDM2015 that creates an additional responsibility for a self-builder over and above the requirements of CDM2007 then I would like to see it.  As far as I can see nothing has changed for self-builders.  What has changed for those commissioning construction works (but not domestic clients) is the change from having to have a CDM Coordinator to other, better defined roles, plus the client (specifically not a domestic client) now being accountable (which does not necessarily mean being fully responsible) for HS&W during the project.  This does not in any way remove the long-standing responsibilities that other individuals have for HS&W.

 

Frankly, the level of misinformation about CDM2015 is worrying, particularly some of the scaremongering that seems to be going on.  I strongly suspect that those who've jumped on this latest "consultancy gravy train" are probably helping to muddy the waters a bit.

 

The bottom line is that the criminal law with regard to liability in the event of an accident has not changed, and that it is extremely unlikely that a self-builder would be considered to be anything other than a "domestic client".  I've seen enough accident and incident evidence, and seen the outcome of enough liability cases, to have a pretty good feel for the way the law works in reality, particularly with regard to the degree of responsibility that may be applied when determining culpability.  Sadly, the best way to avoid being held overly responsible may well be to avoid any form of formal training.  I wish this were not the case, but the fact is that people who can be shown to have undertaken formal training in a particular subject are assumed by the courts to bear a greater degree of responsibility for any incident related to that subject than those that have not.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

[...]

Frankly, the level of misinformation about CDM2015 is worrying, particularly some of the scaremongering that seems to be going on.  I strongly suspect that those who've jumped on this latest "consultancy gravy train" are probably helping to muddy the waters a bit.

[...]

 

Two simple sentences that sum up the pressing need for well-presented accurate, simply expressed online materials.

 

They need to be accessible, (device agnostic) authoritative (authored by people who understand that online content and presentation needs a sophisticated, thoughtful approach), readable (people hate reading for detail online) and engaging. That last characteristic is what costs the money.  That's why it won't happen.

[Jeremy Harris]

To better put all this in perspective, it's worth looking at the process of evolution that has resulted in the latest incarnation of CDM.  CDM came about long before the EU invented the Construction Sites Directive that led to CDM2007, and goes back much further, to a previous EU creation, the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive.  CDM1994 arose out of that, and has been around since 1995; the big construction project I mentioned was still working to this, plus the C(HS&W) regs.  CDM2015 isn't, as such, wholly new regulation, it's an evolutionary change to regulations that have been in place for over 20 years.

 

What has changed with each evolution of this particular regulatory change is that the scope has broadened.  Arguably the step change from CDM2007 to CDM 2015 is, perhaps, greater than that from the change from CDM1994 to CDM2007, in terms of this breadth of application.  One could read CDM2015 and draw the conclusion that it is extremely onerous and places a substantial additional cost burden on clients, which it does, without question.  However, it needs to be read within the context of the general application of health, safety, welfare and environment legislation in general, more specifically the number of additional prosecutions that might arise, as they are a reasonable measure of effectiveness.

 

Clients have always held responsibility for the systematic application of H&S, since long before CDM2015.  This was recognised in the past and one of the roles of the now defunct Project Coordinator was to inform and help the client to understand their responsibilities.  A problem arises in terms of definitions; under what circumstances does a "domestic client" become a "client"? 

 

CDM2015 is not absolutely clear, but it does have some guidance as to what might be reasonable, and, as with all law, reasonable is not mentioned and is therefore undefined; it's the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" test.  What we do know is that the HSE rarely pursues a criminal case against the client, and never has against a domestic client, as far as I know. 

 

If a self-builder uses (that sometimes rare commodity) common sense, and can show that he/she has acted reasonably in considering how HSW&E risks can be mitigated, then there is a near-zero probability of them being prosecuted.  The very fact that there are very few construction-related notifiable accidents on self-builds indicates that self-build is probably a safer environment than general construction.  My own view is that I suspect the biggest problems are in the medium sized construction sector, small to medium sized projects, undertaken by companies of a modest size that don't have a strong safety culture.  Both self-builders and the very large construction companies probably think about, and manage, H&S more than most.

 

I should add that CDM2015 was not in force for our build, so I worked under CDM2007.  I also chose to ignore the exemption for domestic clients under that regulation, and treated the management of HSW&E as if I were the client, coordinator and designer.  At no time did even I see that I could possibly be the principal contractor, as I clearly didn't have the expertise or degree of control over day to day activity, plus the main contractors I employed all made it clear that they were the principal contractor for the duration of their work.  There was never a clash, because, like a lot of self-builds, we never had more than one main contractor working at any one time, so the responsibilities were sequential.

 

It has been said that if a self-builder was to follow the letter of CDM2015, making no allowance for common sense, and not putting these regulations into the context of the wider regulatory framework, then it is probable that their overall project cost would increase by between 10% and 20%.  For many, this would make a project non-viable; I know it would have for us, as we only just scraped in with a cost slightly lower than the market value as it was.  10% more and the house would have cost more than it was worth and we'd not have built it.

 

 

[B52s]

Commercial client prosecution under CDM2015:

DIY retail brand Leyland SDM (LSDM) has been handed a £450,000 fine after four workers fell more than 3.5m during a warehouse refurbishment.  

The company had failed to recognise its roles as client and the principal contractor under the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations 2015.

Two of the four men suffered leg fractures; a third sustained a broken collar bone, while the fourth sustained severe bruising of the chest, which required him to wear a body vest. 

Had LSDM properly managed the working at height and lifting risks, and also provided the right level of trained personnel and supervision to carry out the work safely, the incident would not have happened.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard on 22 February 2017 that LSDM was renovating a warehouse in Wembley in northwest London when the incident happened on 27 April 2016.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that LSDM had recently purchased the building and was in the process of converting the space into its new head office. The company’s six-strong build team had constructed a new two-storey structure within the warehouse space on a mezzanine floor but had taken no precautions to prevent anyone from falling. The upper level was over 3.5 m off the mezzanine.

HSE inspector Jack Wilby advised that when the build team started the conversion there was no scaffolding, and evidence from the regulator’s investigation showed people working next to areas with significant falls. When the scaffold was finally erected, it didn’t extend all the way around the structure, so the team installed a tower scaffold to help erect the internal structure.

 “All the statements say that the tower scaffold was not wide and tall enough to use, there were missing parts and it was not in a good enough condition to be used,” said Wilby. “They then went and got an existing racking system in the warehouse [blue upright and orange horizontals] and erected it on the floor.”

Wooden panels were installed across the racking to provide working platforms. However, the HSE found that they were not set up correctly and were missing supports. In addition, the edge protection on the top of the racking was inadequate and would not have prevented a fall to the mezzanine floor.

Just before the incident, four members of the team manoeuvred the ventilation unit on to the tower scaffold while one worker was positioned on the top of the new structure, ready to receive the unit so that it could be fitted in the space under the warehouse roof.  

“The statements were not clear on who was organising and running the work,” says Wilby. “However, when they moved on to the racking, four of them went to lift the ventilation unit and the wooden platform gave way.”

The HSE identified a number of failings. LSDM did not realise that it was both the client and the principal contractor under the CDM 2015. As a result, it did not have a construction phase plan. Also, it did not plan the lifts and the work at height. The team “was left to work it out themselves”. 

The company also failed to have the right level of trained personnel and supervision in place to carry out the refurbishment work safely and effectively.

LSDM of Fourth Way, Wembley in London pleaded guilty to breaching regs 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and reg 4(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

District Judge Quentin Purdy determined that the culpability was high. The seriousness of the harm risked was within level B and the likelihood of the harm arising was medium (harm category 2).

Wilby advised: “Following the incident, they agreed to stop all work and brought consultants in to arrange for the racking to be dismantled safely using a mobile elevating work platform (MEWP). Also, as the CDM client and principal contractor, they also produce a construction phase plan.”

[Jeremy Harris]

But this is a self-build forum!!!

 

Everything here relates to non-commercial, non-business, construction, this forum is a not-for-profit, no advertising or commercial promotion allowed, self-build forum.

 

No one would argue against there being many prosecutions for poor practice in the commercial sector, after all, it's the very thing that created all the legislation!  The point I was making and which has been snowstormed by the above completely inapplicable quote relates to self-builders, and I did make that very clear.

 

How about listing all the HSE prosecutions against self-build clients, as that is all that matters here?

Edited April 14, 2017 by JSHarris

[PeterW]

1 hour ago, B52s said:

HSE inspector Jack Wilby advised that when the build team started the conversion there was no scaffolding, and evidence from the regulator’s investigation showed people working next to areas with significant falls. When the scaffold was finally erected, it didn’t extend all the way around the structure, so the team installed a tower scaffold to help erect the internal structure.

 

So that's negligence and standard cause for  prosecution under HSAWA as the team were employees of the company - no get out on that one, its general HSAWA stuff.

 

1 hour ago, B52s said:

LSDM of Fourth Way, Wembley in London pleaded guilty to breaching regs 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005

 

So that confirms they were prosecuted under WAHR and not under CDM 2015 so its not a CDM 2015 prosecution at all. The actual notation on the prosecution outcome from the HSE was this :

 

Leyland SDM (LSDM) Limited has been fined after four workers fell more than three and a half metres whilst carrying a ventilation unit.

Westminster Magistrates Court heard how LSDM had been in the process of redeveloping a warehouse in Wembley. However, when four workers tried to move a ventilation unit into position, the working platform became overloaded and gave way. Neither the work at height nor the lifting operations were planned properly. Two of the four injured men suffered leg fractures, while a broken collar bone were among the other injuries caused by the incident.

 

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the company failed to manage the risks when working at height and carrying out the lifting operation. The company also failed to have the right level of trained personnel and supervision in place to carry out these tasks safely and effectively.

 

LSDM of Fourth Way, Wembley pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Regulation 4 (1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 they have been fined £450,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1038.

 

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Jack Wilby said: “The safety failings by this company are severe and it is lucky that the injuries were not more severe. This incident highlights the importance of planning work, in this case both for lifting operations and working from height, to ensure it is carried out safely.”

 

I've managed to dig into the legislation that makes interesting reading as its not as clear as the HSE website makes out !! Below are clauses 5 & 7 which relate to this discussion, and a very interesting definition.... [Full Legislation is here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/introduction/made ]

 

Firstly ...

 

“domestic client” means a client for whom a project is being carried out which is not in the course or furtherance of a business of that client;

 

That defines self builders are as domestic clients unless they are building to sell.

 

So onto the PD and PC appointments....

 

Appointment of the principal designer and the principal contractor

5.—(1) Where there is more than one contractor, or if it is reasonably foreseeable that more than one contractor will be working on a project at any time, the client must appoint in writing—

(a)a designer with control over the pre-construction phase as principal designer; and

(b)a contractor as principal contractor.

(2) The appointments must be made as soon as is practicable, and, in any event, before the construction phase begins.

(3) If the client fails to appoint a principal designer, the client must fulfil the duties of the principal designer in regulation 11 and 12.

(4) If the client fails to appoint a principal contractor, the client must fulfil the duties of the principal contractor in regulations 12 to 14

 

Application to domestic clients

7.—(1) Where the client is a domestic client the duties in regulations 4(1) to (7) and 6 must be carried out by—

(a)the contractor for a project where there is only one contractor;

(b)the principal contractor for a project where there is more than one contractor; or

(c)the principal designer where there is a written agreement that the principal designer will fulfil those duties.

(2) If a domestic client fails to make the appointments required by regulation 5—

(a)the designer in control of the pre-construction phase of the project is the principal designer;

(b)the contractor in control of the construction phase of the project is the principal contractor.

(3) Regulation 5(3) and (4) does not apply to a domestic client.

 

So.... The architect is on the hook for the Principal Designer in law as regulation 5(3) does not apply to a domestic client and therefore if a domestic client does not appoint a principal designer then the architect has no choice if they undertook any work (ie design / planning ) as they are defaulted into that position in legislation.

 

The law does not allow you to divest yourself of a legal responsibility under statute, so unfortunately an architect cannot decline being PD as they are noted in the statute as taking that role.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

An excellent analysis and summary, Peter, and one that strengthens my view that there is a significant amount of scaremongering going on, to try and intimidate people into believing they have to spend more money with "experts" in order to build their own home.

 

I can't find a single prosecution brought against a self-builder, and that, to me, indicates that what we have here is a solution that's trying to create a problem, in order for someone to profit from it.