Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Keifa

Loler

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Calamity Wayne said:

I used to work at a large company where the in-house Loler inspections were done by the same person responsible for ordering the kit. and his background wasn't in arboriculture, so his experience only came from doing the Loler course. He was responsible for dozens of kit. I was in the office talking to him the one day whilst he was inspecting my kit and all he was doing was checking serial numbers matched the records, he never checked the condition. So to me it's not a good idea. If anything did happen all the paperwork was in place, so the company knew they were compliant enough should something happen. Also the degree of wear is subjective and is only a visual check. Someone who is responsible for checking and replacing kit is unlikely to bin things unless its really bad. when does a furred rope become a frayed rope, become a dangerous rope? We've probably all spiked our climb line at some point. Unless the person using the kit also gets to put their say on whether they are happy with the condition as it is signed off, I'd say no. But for a company of any size that's unrealistic. You need to trust you Loler inspector, but also I've used inspectors who condemn kit too easily.

It turns out its not a perfect world!

I too have been here, Lloyds used to send the same inspector in every time to LOLER our kit, if it wasn't up to scratch it was binned. The company then went over to in house inspections, which to be fair in the patch I worked was still fine, the lad who tested our kit was a retained fireman that understood the importance of having kit fit for the job. He was in charge of the budget for safety gear and could quite easily have passed Kit that was border line. He was also my standby/call out "mate", the stories he told me about other in house inspectors in the same position as him were frightening. We had a clutch fail on a man riding winch one day with a lad down the hole and gas monitor in alarm, we couldn't get the clutch to engage, couldn't get him up, couldn't lower him down so that he could self rescue, we eventually got the winch working and got him out. One manager said to me, "bring the winch in, I'll get it looked at"

"Too late fella, I've put the disk cutter through it, it's in the skip, buy another".

 

I've no problem with having in house inspectors, but not the same people who hold the purse strings for the kit they are inspecting.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst, on the face of it, there is a (financial) 'conflict of interest' in the employer undertaking the equipment inspections ("thorough examinations,) assuming he/she is competent and qualified so to do, they are also the 'duty holder' with the ultimate responsibility for H&S in the business.

I don't believe either the LOLER Regs. themselves, nor the associated ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) refers to the 'competent person' (CP) requirements, it is the associated guidance that does (still better to be adhered to of course.)

As far as the ArbAC Scheme is concerned, where the employer is said 'CP' we require a process of appeal (to an independent 3rd party) to be put in place and, generally, advise they check their insurer is happy with the arrangement.

Cheers,

Paul 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input everybody. I have decided not to work for the company in question as the owner admitted to me that he is behind on the inspections as he knows he is going to have to condemn a lot of kit as he has no record of its history and it will cost a lot of money. I dont actually have a problem with in house inspections as long as it is done properly and up to date.

Thanks again.

K.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/08/2019 at 21:58, Steve Bullman said:

Yep I agree, conflict of interest. No law against it though 

The worrying thing is that he has admitted to not keeping up with the loler inspections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/08/2019 at 22:49, TIMON said:

Great question. It depends on the circumstances I think.
If it is someone employed by the owner of the firm, in-house, trained up to provide regular and thorough inspections, and the employer genuinely has the well-being and safety of his work force at heart then I don’t see anything wrong with that at all. It may be that the employer would want to have the peace of mind that he trusts the guy to make sure all the kit being used is safe.

The guidance states that the examiner must be able to demonstrate that he can perform his duties without ‘fear or favour’.

If it is the owner himself doing the inspections, operating on a tight budget, under financial pressure etc.. then obviously that isn’t a good situation.
 

He is behind on inspections so am not accepting employment with his firm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is behind on inspections so am not accepting employment with his firm.


I think that the fact he was honest and open with you was a plus..
Maybe you could be a real asset to his business and help him turn things around..
You know, see it as an opportunity to make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TIMON said:

 


I think that the fact he was honest and open with you was a plus..
Maybe you could be a real asset to his business and help him turn things around..
You know, see it as an opportunity to make a difference.

 

hadn't thought of that! haven't turned him down yet maybe i'll think about it for a while longer. thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hadn't thought of that! haven't turned him down yet maybe i'll think about it for a while longer. thanks.


It’s got to be worth a closer look, just on the strength of the guy being straight with you.
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2019 at 08:48, Calamity Wayne said:

I used to work at a large company where the in-house Loler inspections were done by the same person responsible for ordering the kit. and his background wasn't in arboriculture, so his experience only came from doing the Loler course. He was responsible for dozens of kit. I was in the office talking to him the one day whilst he was inspecting my kit and all he was doing was checking serial numbers matched the records, he never checked the condition. So to me it's not a good idea. If anything did happen all the paperwork was in place, so the company knew they were compliant enough should something happen. Also the degree of wear is subjective and is only a visual check. Someone who is responsible for checking and replacing kit is unlikely to bin things unless its really bad. when does a furred rope become a frayed rope, become a dangerous rope? We've probably all spiked our climb line at some point. Unless the person using the kit also gets to put their say on whether they are happy with the condition as it is signed off, I'd say no. But for a company of any size that's unrealistic. You need to trust you Loler inspector, but also I've used inspectors who condemn kit too easily.

It turns out its not a perfect world!

Surely your daily checks would highlight/condemn any kit you knew was suspect, irrespective of the 6 monthly inspection? 

If loads of kit fails during the 6 monthly inspections it would suggest daily checks aren’t being carried out correctly/at all to me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

Surely your daily checks would highlight/condemn any kit you knew was suspect, irrespective of the 6 monthly inspection? 

If loads of kit fails during the 6 monthly inspections it would suggest daily checks aren’t being carried out correctly/at all to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.