Training to do LOLER assessments

[Andrew McEwan]

28 minutes ago, Craig Johnson said:

As long as you are up to date I can't see how they can have an issue, unless it's just another excuse not to pay

 

Suspect insurance companies will refer to this from HSE, interpreted to suit.

 

"Although the competent person may often be employed by another organisation, this is not necessary, provided they are sufficiently independent and impartial to ensure that in-house examinations are made without fear or favour. However, this should not be the same person who undertakes routine maintenance of the equipment - as they would then be responsible for assessing their own maintenance work. "

[LynherTraining]

31 minutes ago, Craig Johnson said:

As long as you are up to date I can't see how they can have an issue, unless it's just another excuse not to pay

 

Thats why its best to check with your insurer so that they are aware this is the case. In the situation of kit failure; Its a bit like a chef claiming for food poisoning on his insurance when he's the one who cooked the food. Always best to check with your insurer.

[felixthelogchopper]

Just to set everybody's mind at rest, I was asking for a friend.

[Craig Johnson]

if you take its as written, then Every time you go to a new site and tie your climbing kit it needs a thorough examination by a competent person not using it!

[TIMON]

As long as you can demonstrate that you can perform your LOLER inspections ‘without fear or favour’ it is permissible to inspect your own kit.

[Mark Wileman]

Seems to be not many people running LOLER examination training courses/assessments these days.

[Martyn Honey]

Thats why its best to check with your insurer so that they are aware this is the case. In the situation of kit failure; Its a bit like a chef claiming for food poisoning on his insurance when he's the one who cooked the food. Always best to check with your insurer.

I actually have clients who are qualified LOLER Inspectors. Who now employ me to do there LOLER’s for that reason. So definitely check with your insurance.

Martyn

[TIMON]

Martyn, I’d be interested to hear on what grounds the insurance companies are refusing to cover a fully qualified and competent person to perform a task he is qualified to do. (?!)
(Not trying to do you out of any business, mind)

[Martyn Honey]

Martyn, I’d be interested to hear on what grounds the insurance companies are refusing to cover a fully qualified and competent person to perform a task he is qualified to do. (?!)
(Not trying to do you out of any business, mind)

I think mainly it is ‘belt and braces’. They don’t want to give the insurance companies any excuses to not pay out.
Also one client has about 15 employees and with the business to run, does not have the time to carry out the Inspections. It use to take him all weekend!

[TIMON]

I think mainly it is ‘belt and braces’. They don’t want to give the insurance companies any excuses to not pay out.
Also one client has about 15 employees and with the business to run, does not have the time to carry out the Inspections. It use to take him all weekend!

Personally, I think a verbal and written agreement and understanding between the in-house inspector and the person within the firm accountable for finances, that all equipment needs to be checked and if necessary, replaced regardless of financial constraints, should suffice. I understand the time constraints factor though.
Giving insurance companies the ‘leeway’ to re-interpret the guidelines seems like a slippery slope to me. They get away with enough as it is.