Approved Contractor - review

[tommer9]

I thought its 2 anchors when cutting.

 

same here.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

and here

[Paul Jenks]

I concur. The small, routine jobs are where most incidents arise as there is less attention to H&S. If H&S is to become cultural then it has to be applied across the board.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, I agree with tony - Surely there is a need for a RA on every worksite inc domestic gardens, if a team is taking the time to undertake a "verbal" RA then a written form would be as straight forward, and give the facility for the groundstaff to have the infomation in black and white should an incident arise.

 

Hi all,

 

Firstly I recognise that (many) more subsequent postings have gone but I'm afraid time is (extra) pressing this week and hence I'm jumping into Tony and Simon's responses collectively and hoping that answers some of the others.

 

Firstly the AC scheme has to recognise that if you employ/engage (by 'engage' I mean to include subbies/freelancers working for the company on a 'regular' basis, yet to be agreed with HSE&CHAS, but probably '3 or more days per week over a typical 12 week period...or summat like that, AND 'YES' I know what you're thinking, another potentail 'loophole', but other accreditations schemes recognise this threshold) then the HASWA 74 & Management Regs do not require you to have 'written' policy and risk assessments respectively. That is NOT to say you don't have to have a 'strategy' (policy) in place for managing H&S nor undertake an assessment of risks on a site, of course you do BUT, crucially, you are not obliged to have written evidence of this. It recognises that, with so few employees, the 'boss' is usually 'on the job', so to speak, and hence is constantly observing, communicating, explaining, monitoring etc. etc. his/her staff and hence the control of risks is deemed adequate/sufficient.

 

Further, in association with the RA procedures, there is still a requirement for adequate emergency procedures to be in place and this will usually be documented generically, to some extent, and then discussed and agreed by all on site prior to commencement of the job. In other words we will still expect to see this most importnat aspect has been adequately considered. In terms of location etc. this will form part of the generic approach and will usually make reference to the job sheet for an address and post code.

 

Lastly the need to spend more time on the worksite audit discussing various aspects of H&S compliance etc. with the 'crew' will inevitably be greater in order to establish that a positive, and infomred, H&S culture prevails. This then must be evdienced by the parctices and operations observed, afterall that's the primary aim of the 'written' policy and RA.

 

And lastly, lastly, as has been clearly pointed out on this forum, and the AA online consultation, and at several training and other AA events, this is normal 'modus operandi' for many (many) small firms who are looking/considering some form of affilaition with an industry body to get ahead of the crowd, so to speak, and we need to / must recognise this

and take account of it.

 

FINALLY this is absolutely NOT a lowering or diluting of the standards, it's about (eventualy) recognising that the "one size fits all" approach is no longer sustainable if we (the AA) wish to move the scheme forward and achieve greater industry representation and therby increased recogntioin for all concerned.

 

SORRY...we also need to recgnise that many, mnay contractors principaly service the domestic sector when the paperwork requirements imposed really is bureacratic and unnecessary 'red tape', they're looking for a reliable contractor who can do a good job safely...and of course at the right price. BUT some unquantifiable research undertaken by myself (talking to people enquirng about engaging ACs and why they're more expensive) indicates that a client will pay a proportionate amount more for the reassurances and safegaurds involved in being 'backed up' by an industry body.

 

IF contractors wish to service or expand into the LA/commercial sector, even if 'less than 5', and wish to be assessed as a '5 or more' firm, i.e. to include the requirement for written documentation etc. across the board, then they can still do so, albeit it will cost more and take longer (back to the 2 assessors for one day scenario) BUT they will then be registered on the CHAS database as such AND listed in AA promotional material as such so client at that level will recognise this.

 

There, that's about it in a nutshell (a 'coconut' shell!)

 

Hoping this to be of interest and to allay and fears/concerns.

 

Again, 'sorry' I have had time to read al other postings at this stage BUT please, please prompt me directly if I've missed something.

 

Many thanks all...cheers!

Paul