Sellers responsibility for future use of modified equipment

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Happened across this in the HSE prosecutions newsletter.  Whilst not directly linked to arb in this instance, thought it might be of interest to anyone involved in the sale of used plant and machinery.

 

It would seem that, if the seller of machinery has modified it, or bought it with non-spec post manufacture mods and then sells it on, they could be liable for accidents incurred by future users.  

 

Maybe worth a read:

 

Landscape service company fined for selling unsafe machinery which was involved in the death of a worker - HSE Media Centre

PRESS.HSE.GOV.UK

---

Landscape service company Mayfair Developments Group Ltd has been fined for selling modified machinery which...

 

[Stubby]

9 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Happened across this in the HSE prosecutions newsletter.  Whilst not directly linked to arb in this instance, thought it might be of interest to anyone involved in the sale of used plant and machinery.

 

It would seem that, if the seller of machinery has modified it, or bought it with non-spec post manufacture mods and then sells it on, they could be liable for accidents incurred by future users.  

 

Maybe worth a read:

 

Landscape service company fined for selling unsafe machinery which was involved in the death of a worker - HSE Media Centre

PRESS.HSE.GOV.UK

---

Landscape service company Mayfair Developments Group Ltd has been fined for selling modified machinery which...

 

No worries . Gonna keep all my ported saws Kev . ?

[spudulike]

It sounds like the previous owner or owners modified the kit so the safety devices were inoperable so it was probably easier to use but more dangerous to operate.

Personally I would say that the current owner should have realised the equipment was not safe and the original owner shouldn't have taken off the devices to make the machine safe.

As far as my porting goes...for the record, I also service the chain brake and the chain catcher - the catchers are commonly missing and also the machines rev WITHIN the manufacturers specification AND I only port saws on the OWNERS request.

Not pissed.....well, not in that sense anyway

[Dan Maynard]

I don't think this like porting, the previous owners had removed safety features which the manufacturer designed in and then sold it on without saying so.

For a saw that would be like removing the chain brake to stop it getting clogged with sawdust, and selling the saw without saying anything about it. I think the not declaring it is key, if they had sold it as needing refurbishment or for scrap that would be fine.

I think anyone who has modified a log splitter for one hand use should definitely take note before they sell it on.

It is right the company shouldn't have put the equipment to use either, anyone competent would know the guards were missing.

[spudulike]

Yup, I fully agree. I had a 20 year career in manufacturing and had hydraulic/ flywheel presses, large print and robotic machines under my management. we HAD to check all guards on a shift basis, train the staff to do and sign to say the equipment was checked.

In this case it is a mix of the seller not stating the equipment needed the guards fixing and the new owners just putting it to work with no form of risk analysis or repair put in place.