Principal Designer role

[ToughButterCup]

5 minutes ago, divorcingjack said:

[...]

Does anyone know where you can buy those really annoying extra-sticky stickers that you can put on car windows? They are an absolute arse to get off.

 

I hope this post doesn't push us too far off topic, but......

Some of these are a bit over the top, but suitably adapted might do well in your context.... 

Have you considered a couple of these chained to some heavy counterweights?

[Jeremy Harris]

Care is needed over controlling parking, particularly if the parked cars are on the highway.  Until the house is complete you don't have a legal right to access (the assumed right of access is an old common law provision, and isn't in any statute).  Even if people are parking on, or partially on, your land then there is only a limited number of things you can do to stop it, and none include criminal damage!

 

As such, I'd steer well clear of anything that could get you into trouble, like sticking extra sticky tape on windscreens, or doing anything that could be construed as vandalism, tempting as it may be.

 

If you have persistent offenders you may be able to request that the local authority impose a temporary parking restriction.  That then has the backing of the law behind it, and makes your case a lot stronger when it comes to stopping people from parking, or having them penalised if they do.  The downside is that the local authority may be reluctant to do this, and may well charge you a fair bit if they will do it.

[divorcingjack]

Definitely tempted by some of the ideas in that video, @recoveringacademic. We have our land fenced off with HERAS, but people are parking right tight up against it, which means that we can't get vehicles into the site. We bought a pair of garages that back onto the site and demolished them to allow us vehicle access, but a number of times we haven't been able to get skips/trailers in and out because of others parking there. 

 

The land is privately owned, by all the people that own garages - the rogue parkers are nearly always students that live nearby or tradesmen. Or visiting golfers. I left a sweary note for that one - a Mercedes AMG and BMW M5 parked at 90 degrees to each other, completely blocking our entrance. One of the drivers doors was actually touching the massive "ACTIVE BUILDING SITE! DO NOT PARK HERE" sign. Pricks. We had words when they got back. 

 

The local police have been very good at tracking down the owners and giving them a talking to, so far, but it's a right ball-ache when you've got a delivery of 20 tonnes of hardcore sitting waiting because some tight git refuses to pay 70p for parking. 

[PeterW]

If its privately owned then legally if you are one of the owners then you can - assuming you have the correct signage - employ a clamping company...

 

Perfectly legal and gets the message over very quickly !!!!

[divorcingjack]

Tempting.. but not in Scotland, I'm afraid! We think we'll just paint the garage footprint in massive letters saying "Stop parking here you knobs". 

[ToughButterCup]

1 minute ago, divorcingjack said:

[...]

the rogue parkers are nearly always students that live nearby

[...]

 

As a lecturer and Hall Warden (for mercifully only one year), I had to deal with this sort of issue all the time. I don't think there's a university town anywhere in the UK which doesn't suffer from the same issue.

First I'd heed @JSHarris advice, and then when you've finally flipped (Pete (above)  took the words out of my mouth)... ClampIt And Co are the waytogo

[Ferdinand]

12 minutes ago, PeterW said:

If its privately owned then legally if you are one of the owners then you can - assuming you have the correct signage - employ a clamping company...

 

Perfectly legal and gets the message over very quickly !!!!

In England aiui clamping on private land without being one of a small number of organisations e.g. Police is a criminal offence.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q528.htm

 

One of my favourite imagined protests is to park a car on an MP's drive then go into London for the day, knowing that they can do very little about it.

 

Ferdinand

 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

One way is to buy a low insurance no tax banger and park it across your entrance whenever you are not there.

 

There are a huge number of cars from 2001 to March this year on which have no road tax or £30 per annum.

 

I think I am right that one of the reasons that Mr Osbo changed the car tax was that about half were no longer paying any.

 

Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

Animal rights protesters did this to us several years ago.  They pitched up at the crack of dawn and parked a scruffy Transit on our drive.  Eventually the police turned up, but refused to get involved, as the vehicle was on our property.  It was a damned nuisance, as the van was decorated with the usual sort of extremist stuff, plus it stopped us getting out and doing the shopping.  Eventually the van was removed,  but not without a lot of abuse from it's owners, complete with a loudhailer to "spread their message" to all who'd listen.  Given that a lot of our neighbours were military, or former military, their message rather had the opposite result to that they had intended. 

 

There was a flurry of letters in the local paper the following week, with several stating their intent to go out shooting the following weekend, just to make a point about the protestors.................

Edited April 18, 2017 by JSHarris

[Jeremy Harris]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

One way is to buy a low insurance no tax banger and park it across your entrance whenever you are not there.

 

There are a huge number of cars from 2001 to March this year on which have no road tax or £30 per annum.

 

I think I am right that one of the reasons that Mr Osbo changed the car tax was that about half were no longer paying any.

 

Ferdinand

 

It's at least 6 or 7 years since I've had to pay car tax, and three years since my wife has.  I think I paid £15 a year for the three years or so before that.  If I had to pay to tax a car now it would come as a bit of a shock!

[Stones]

2 hours ago, PeterW said:

If its privately owned then legally if you are one of the owners then you can - assuming you have the correct signage - employ a clamping company...

 

Perfectly legal and gets the message over very quickly !!!!

 

In Scotland, if you were to clamp a vehicle, you would probably end up being charged with extortion.  There are stated cases for those interested.  The only people who do clamp are the DVLA, clamping vehicles that have not paid their VEL.

[mvincentd]

20 hours ago, recoveringacademic said:

I intend to spend a good chunk of time over the next few days re-presenting the content of this thread in a more easily digestible format.

Thank you, that's generous.

 

It's difficult to only write a little on this messy and far from clear cut subject without further muddying the waters....and even more difficult not to end up challenging what appears to be some very determined viewpoints based on messed up thinking....so good luck.

 

Rather than 're-presenting the content of this thread' might it be better and easier to draw a line under it and just revisit the core question afresh - as a self-builder what do I do about CDM and the PD, PC roles?

 

(I'm no expert and can offer nothing with authority.  My own experience is inconclusive as I had to argue with and ultimately bypass 2 H&S professionals before finding one that was willing to interpret CDM in what I felt was a pragmatic, consistent and rational way....so consulting experts also has its problems.)

 

 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

I think it is legal to block someone in on your own land.

 

eg dig a hole with your digger between them and the exit.

[Nickfromwales]

17 hours ago, divorcingjack said:

Tempting.. but not in Scotland, I'm afraid! We think we'll just paint the garage footprint in massive letters saying "Stop parking here you knobs". 

No, there is a better way . 

My local mechanic got fed up of people literally parking across his roller shutter doors, the only access to his business. 

He put two big signs up, on either side saying words to the effect of :-

" Strictly no parking. Please be advised that vehicle vandalism occurs here. Smashed windows, dented panels, nails left under wheels on purpose, so park here at your own risk" etc. 

Works a treat. The fear of something happening is usually more productive than it actually being done, as people can get angry if not warned and "something" happens, but they can only be remorseful if it happens AFTER they accept the "risk". 

[divorcingjack]

3 hours ago, Nickfromwales said:

No, there is a better way . 

My local mechanic got fed up of people literally parking across his roller shutter doors, the only access to his business. 

He put two big signs up, on either side saying words to the effect of :-

" Strictly no parking. Please be advised that vehicle vandalism occurs here. Smashed windows, dented panels, nails left under wheels on purpose, so park here at your own risk" etc. 

Works a treat. The fear of something happening is usually more productive than it actually being done, as people can get angry if not warned and "something" happens, but they can only be remorseful if it happens AFTER they accept the "risk". 

 

That is brilliant. Signs will be in production shortly. 

[Triassic]

Just pile/stack the deliveries around the offending car. 

[B52s]

On 4/14/2017 at 08:03, Triassic said:

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 [employed trades] 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 [employed trades] on site. The self builder is entitled to expect contractors [employed trades] 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

 

I feel its worth highlighting the specific text above, and would offer a slight adjustment to the term "contractors", which I feel should read "employed trades" [posturing the same language used in the first sentence] in order to remove dubiety in terms of what is actually being conveyed in the above guidance, communicated by CITB.

 

It is my understanding that the intention is to indicate that the self builder can, once formed as a business, take on the role of contractor. As a contractor, the self builder can then undertake the construction works with assistance of trades persons directly employed by the contractor at different stages in the build.  Under this arrangement, there are no sub-contractors and therefore no CDM obligation to appoint a principal contractor or principal designer.

 

In order for the self builder to meet with the requirements of Part 4 of CDM 2015, there is an absolute requirement for the self builder to become a business, because as stated previously on this thread, CDM2015 can only be enforced against commercial organisations.  This is because CDM2015, as you will probably be aware, is enacted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

 

So in basic CDM speak, and in the eyes of the law (in terms of strict liability), the construction works can be undertaken by one contractor.  Under this arrangement, all trades (undertaking works at different times) are required, under employment law, to be employees of one contractor.  Remembering of course that all employees [defined as workers under CDM] also have a duty to work in compliance with CDM2015.

[Steptoe]

1 hour ago, B52s said:

 

I feel its worth highlighting the specific text above, and would offer a slight adjustment to the term "contractors", which I feel should read "employed trades" [posturing the same language used in the first sentence] in order to remove dubiety in terms of what is actually being conveyed in the above guidance, communicated by CITB.

 

It is my understanding that the intention is to indicate that the self builder can, once formed as a business, take on the role of contractor. As a contractor, the self builder can then undertake the construction works with assistance of trades persons directly employed by the contractor at different stages in the build.  Under this arrangement, there are no sub-contractors and therefore no CDM obligation to appoint a principal contractor or principal designer.

 

In order for the self builder to meet with the requirements of Part 4 of CDM 2015, there is an absolute requirement for the self builder to become a business, because as stated previously on this thread, CDM2015 can only be enforced against commercial organisations.  This is because CDM2015, as you will probably be aware, is enacted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

 

So in basic CDM speak, and in the eyes of the law (in terms of strict liability), the construction works can be undertaken by one contractor.  Under this arrangement, all trades (undertaking works at different times) are required, under employment law, to be employees of one contractor.  Remembering of course that all employees [defined as workers under CDM] also have a duty to work in compliance with CDM2015.

There is a slight flaw in that argument,

If the business does not own the building, then they have been contracted by the client to build it,

Then each other contractor is , by default, a sub contractor,

I really fail to understand why its such a difficult thing to understand, or why its such a must avoid thing,! 

[Jeremy Harris]

8 hours ago, B52s said:

In order for the self builder to meet with the requirements of Part 4 of CDM 2015, there is an absolute requirement for the self builder to become a business, because as stated previously on this thread, CDM2015 can only be enforced against commercial organisations.  This is because CDM2015, as you will probably be aware, is enacted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

 

So in basic CDM speak, and in the eyes of the law (in terms of strict liability), the construction works can be undertaken by one contractor.  Under this arrangement, all trades (undertaking works at different times) are required, under employment law, to be employees of one contractor.  Remembering of course that all employees [defined as workers under CDM] also have a duty to work in compliance with CDM2015.

 

There is no way that a bit of H&S law can force a domestic client to register as a business, it's clearly nonsense, and apart from anything else would conflict with the way VAT is zero rated to self builders, under the self-build VAT reclaim scheme.

 

Self-builders are not normally businesses, in fact the issue has been discussed many times as to whether there is any merit in becoming a business in order to build your own home, and the answer is that there very definitely isn't; the costs associated with becoming a business, administering it, and then closing it on completion of the build are so high as to make it a pointless exercise.

[PeterW]

8 hours ago, B52s said:

In order for the self builder to meet with the requirements of Part 4 of CDM 2015, there is an absolute requirement for the self builder to become a business, because as stated previously on this thread, CDM2015 can only be enforced against commercial organisations.  This is because CDM2015, as you will probably be aware, is enacted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

 

That legally cannot happen for 2 reasons :

 

1. If a self builder became a business then they would breach the VAT requirements of HMRC for the self build VAT reclaim scheme  - you would become a VAT registered business

2. Incorporating of a business under the Companies Act would require the self builder to create a company that would create and purchase assets (ie the house) which would attract stamp duty and other fees which would be wholly impractical and cost prohibitive. 

 

To be a project manager you do not need to direct the trades - that is the distinction. I would hazard a guess that the CITB guidance has never been challenged ...!

Edited April 20, 2017 by PeterW
Crossed with JSH

[PeterW]

I think what is starting to really annoy me is the way that organisations such as CITB and others are selectively quoting legislation and that changes its interpretation. 

 

For example, CITB guidance states this : 

 

4. 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. 

 

However the legislation states this :

 

Application of Part 4

16.—(1) This Part applies only to a construction site

(2) A contractor carrying out construction work must comply with the requirements of this Part so far as they affect the contractor or any worker under the control of the contractor or relate to matters within the contractor’s control. 

(3) A domestic client who controls the way in which any construction work is carried out by a person at work must comply with the requirements of this Part so far as they relate to matters within the client’s control.

 

Note the bold in the last paragraph. 

 

That is fundamentally different to what is written in that guidance note ..!!!!

 

[Jeremy Harris]

It annoys me as well, as it seems clear that there is a degree of attempted exploitation going on, by those with an interest in extracting money from self-builders..................

 

The bottom line, in law, is that a court will try to interpret the law as the legislators intended, not as companies trying to extract money from potential clients may interpret it.  It is clear that the legislation intends to exclude domestic clients from this particular law.  That is the starting point for any judicial decision that might arise.  There is the further question as to whether a domestic client inadvertently takes on some of the responsibilities that are described in CDM2015 (or indeed in any previous incarnations of CDM back to 1994).  If such a case was to go to court (and no self builder ever has in the 22 years that we've had CDM) then the judgement would hinge on the level of competence of the domestic client, and whether or not they had the level of understanding, skill and experience to reasonably assume a level of responsibility over and above that normally expected of a domestic client.  The test for "reasonable" would be the standard one of "the man on the Clapham omnibus".

 

My experience over the years is that the courts are extremely good at determining the difference between a competent person pretending to be otherwise and a person who unwittingly finds themselves accused of negligence.  I've never, once, seen a case where an ordinary person, with no special degree of competence, has been found liable for something they were unaware of.  I have seen plenty of cases where people with specific skills, training and qualifications have been found liable because they had an enhanced duty of care.

Edited April 20, 2017 by JSHarris

[PeterW]

I find it even more amusing now I've woken up (several coffees) to find the CITB Guidance Contradicts itself !!!

 

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

 

Read the first paragraph...

 

Q1. How does CDM 2015 apply to Self Build projects?

 

A. There are a number of potential scenarios. In all these scenarios the self builder is a ‘domestic client’ if the structure they are building will be a residential home they will live in, and is not constructed as part of a business. If the self builder is carrying out the work for a business purpose, or to sell the property directly, then the self builder is not a domestic client and the whole of CDM 2015 applies.

 

The document then goes on to list four scenarios ... The first 3 clearly state that a self builder is exempt, yet scenario 4 says they are not !!!! 

 

Talk about confuse the reader !!!!

[B52s]

29 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Application of Part 4

16.—(1) This Part applies only to a construction site

(2) A contractor carrying out construction work must comply with the requirements of this Part so far as they affect the contractor or any worker under the control of the contractor or relate to matters within the contractor’s control. 

(3) A domestic client who controls the way in which any construction work is carried out by a person at work must comply with the requirements of this Part so far as they relate to matters within the client’s control.

 

Note the bold in the last paragraph. 

 

That is fundamentally different to what is written in that guidance note ..!!!!

 

 

Yes, and now refer back to Regulation 7(1)(a): Where the client is a domestic client, the duties in relation to managing projects in regulations 4(1) to (7) must be carried out by the contractor [i.e. the newly formed company created by the self builder].  In this situation, matters within the domestic client's control would be restricted to; for example asking the contractor to confirm they have arrangements in place to ensure the construction site is compliant with Part 4 of CDM2015.  Perhaps asking the contractor to demonstrate their competence relative to construction site setup and traffic management could be another matter within the client's control.

[PeterW]

1 minute ago, B52s said:

[i.e. the newly formed company created by the self builder]

 

Sorry, that is never going to happen !! Its not a requirement under any existing legislation and would create an administrative nightmare and HMRC would have a fit..!!