Insurance bods out there.

[skyhuck]

You are typically dealing with brokers when you get your insurance & they won't speak on the underwriters behalf. It's a case by case basis, if it's a big pay-out expect them to have a harder look at things. If you have a car accident, for which you are liable, and you didn't have an MOT then your insurers must pay any third parties but are entitled to come back to you for the cost of the payout/s. The crux of this argument is "what are the stat obligations of a tree surgeon." This will be tested case by case but a judge did clarify that chainsaw operations (on some1 elses land) must be carried out by operators with the relevent CS units or be working towards them & is directly supervised by some-one holding the relevent unit, there are various other bits of law & BP that are as good as black & white and some that aint.

 

As for the EL & subbies jaz this has been tested 100's of times by the construction industry & as a rule of thumb must ALLWAYS be had. There are very, very few exceptions. The contractor must be a limited company for starters & much, much more. Thats not to say that when employing a contractor who holds their own PL/EL that yours will be claimed against it depends on the nature of the claim as to who is liable etc.

 

Can you please give one example of this actually happening??

 

I personally think that not only would you need not have a current MOT cert, BUT also the accident would need to be attributable to a defect in the vehicle that would have been found at MOT.

 

I could be wrong, but I really wish if people are going to give us expert information that they would back it up with some evidence, not just hearsay.

 

Also by not have an MOT you are committing an offense which would lead to prosecution. I would be very interest to hear of any one being found working with a cert being prosecuted.

[treequip]

 

I personally think that not only would you need not have a current MOT cert, BUT also the accident would need to be attributable to a defect in the vehicle that would have been found at MOT.

 

 

 

Also by not have an MOT you are committing an offense which would lead to prosecution. I would be very interest to hear of any one being found working with a cert being prosecuted.

 

If the policy schedule says that you must have a valid MOT and you don’t hold one they can refuse to pay you.

 

Here is one documented case for the lack of aerial rescue provision

 

HSE Prosecutions Area : Case Details

 

Andy

[ecolojim]

Interestingly again doesn't say a formally trained aerial rescue crew. All I'm saying is the one word makes the world of difference

 

Not saying it 'shouldn't' be the case that you need a formal proof of competency. A level playing field is a good thing, but I feel there is always a certain vagueness in what is legislation, what is recommended and what we can or can't be screwed with

[treequip]

Interestingly again doesn't say a formally trained aerial rescue crew. All I'm saying is the one word makes the world of difference

 

Not saying it 'shouldn't' be the case that you need a formal proof of competency. A level playing field is a good thing, but I feel there is always a certain vagueness in what is legislation, what is recommended and what we can or can't be screwed with

 

Jim

 

I wouldn’t read too much into that wording, it is a summary.

 

There is no requirement for a “crew” merely a person.

 

Andy

[Bolt]

I for one want to see this supposed 'LAW' referring to the 'CS' units specifically as you have claimed.

 

How can they legislate that you must hold certification from one particular board, when the HSE merely states 'trained and competent' which could well be determined by another, more senior and competent operative. I know first hand that the EA delivers its own IN HOUSE training and certification on certain pieces of equipment including wood chippers

 

If you find yourself in 'in the dock' because someone you 'put to work' injured themself using a woodchipper (a civil claim for compensation by the injured party I think ) The bloke in the wig, sitting at the front would probably spend his time considering if the operative was 'adequately trained and competent'. If the operative was given an inhouse training session and certificate by some old geezer that was simply a more 'senior and competent operative', then (considering an injury has occured), he would no doubt feel the training was lacking somewhat. How are you going to prove otherwise

[skyhuck]

Jim

 

I wouldn’t read too much into that wording, it is a summary.

 

 

Why post it then???

[ecolojim]

If you find yourself in 'in the dock' because someone you 'put to work' injured themself using a woodchipper (a civil claim for compensation by the injured party I think ) The bloke in the wig, sitting at the front would probably spend his time considering if the operative was 'adequately trained and competent'. If the operative was given an inhouse training session and certificate by some old geezer that was simply a more 'senior and competent operative', then (considering an injury has occured), he would no doubt feel the training was lacking somewhat. How are you going to prove otherwise

I can certainly agree with that, so all Im saying is, why not make that crystal clear from the start?

[Bolt]

With some equipment, like, for instance, MEWP's the situation is not too bad. You have choices such as NPTC, Lantra, IPAF, IIIITSARRR (or whatever they are called).

 

I wonder why NPTC have got the monopoly on nationally accreddited training when it comes to chainsaws.

 

It is very annoying, especially when you consider that certain types of chainsaw (and here, I particularly mean top-handled saws) there is NO NPTC assessment.

 

How can you prove adequate training there (which amazingly you are supposedly required before you can purchase a 'topper')? You couldn't make it up.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Bolt

[treequip]

Why post it then???

 

My comment to JIM was that the description of the prosecution is just that, a description and not chapter and verse.

 

If you click on the “breach involved in this case” you get the full details.

[skyhuck]

My comment to JIM was that the description of the prosecution is just that, a description and not chapter and verse.

 

If you click on the “breach involved in this case” you get the full details.

 

I did and it did not mention certs, it mentioned the working at hight regs, which I believe will state the need for a means of rescuing someone who is working at hight, not a specific cert.