Is it illegal to use a chainsaw on someone else's land without doing cs30/31

[Stubby]

That's a .243 deer rifle not an old Husqvarna .

[Sam Thompson]

What if you got a richochet from your .243 and accidently killed the farmer on the ladder with his top handle saw . ? ? ?

 

Eh?!:001_huh:

[Mark Bolam]

So does your Public liability cover you for using a chainsaw without certification.

If so let us know who your insurance company is it may help a lot of people who are just getting started.

 

My insurance company (well known, advertise on here) have never asked me about my tickets.

 

Maybe I would pay less if I tell them I've got tickets!

 

The whole area seems very grey and fuzzy to me.

[Guss109]

My insurance company (well known, advertise on here) have never asked me about my tickets.

 

Maybe I would pay less if I tell them I've got tickets!

 

The whole area seems very grey and fuzzy to me.

 

 

 

I'm the opposite I'm also insured through a company who advertise on here and I was asked what tickets I have. I've only got 30/31 but I'm still insured for climbing for free:confused1: so not sure if you would pay less

[likeitorlumpit]

My insurance wanted details of all employees tickets- chainsaw and others plus pass dates

Now if we have an accident I'm sure they will investigate whether we were telling the truth.

Thats for us - a company that has never had a public or employee claim in 30 years.

Touch wood

[WorcsWuss]

Straight from the HSE leaflet...

 

Training and competence

All chainsaw use

Chainsaws are potentially dangerous machines which can cause major injury if used by untrained people. Anyone who uses a chainsaw at work should (note it doesn't say 'MUST') have received adequate training and be competent in using a chainsaw for that type of work. The training should include:

Dangers arising from the chainsaw itself;

Dangers arising from the task for which the chainsaw is to be used; and

The precautions to control these dangers, including relevant legal requirements.

 

Chainsaws at work

Health and Safety

Executive

2 of 11 pages

 

Use of chainsaws in tree work

The Approved Code of Practice supporting regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98)6 sets a minimum standard for competence of people using chainsaws in tree work:

‘All workers who use a chainsaw should (note it doesn't say 'MUST') be competent to do so. Before using a chainsaw to carry out work on or in a tree, a worker should (note it doesn't say 'MUST') have received appropriate training and obtained a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award, unless they are undergoing such training and are adequately supervised. However, in the agricultural sector, this requirement only applies to first-time users of a chainsaw.’

This means everyone working with chainsaws on or in trees should (note it doesn't say 'MUST') hold such a certificate or award unless:

It is being done as part of agricultural operations (eg hedging, clearing fallen branches, pruning trees to maintain clearance for machines); and

The work is being done by the occupier or their employees; and

They have used a chainsaw before 5 December 1998.

In any case, operators using chainsaws for any task in agriculture or any other industry must (this MUST is important!) be competent under PUWER 98.

See AFAG leaflet 805 for guidance on the level of training and certification appropriate for tree work.7

Training provision

Training should be carried out by specialist instructors at organised training courses. Advice on suitable training courses (and competence assessment where appropriate) is available from your industry Sector Skills Council and sources listed under ‘Further advice’.

Where training is being consolidated through workplace-based experience, the trainee should be supervised by a person competent in the use of a chainsaw for the work being done by the trainee and who holds the relevant competence certificate or award.

It is recommended that all chainsaw operators have regular refresher/update training to ensure they work to industry best practice and maintain their levels of competence. The suggested intervals for such training are:

n occasional users – every two to three years;

n full-time users – every five years.

 

The important MUST throws chainsaw use into PUWER. What that basically says is that training only becomes a requirement under PUWER and PUWER only applies:

 

Do the Regulations apply to me?

If you are an employer or self-employed person and you provide equipment for use at work, or if you have control of the use of equipment, then the Regulations will apply to you.

They do not apply to equipment used by the public, for example compressed-air equipment used in a garage forecourt. However, such circumstances are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act).

While your employees do not have duties under PUWER, they do have general duties under the HSW Act and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR), for example to take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions, and to co-operate with others.

The Regulations cover places where the HSW Act applies – these include factories, offshore installations, offices, shops, hospitals, hotels, places of entertainment etc. PUWER also applies in common parts of shared buildings and temporary places of work such as construction sites. While the Regulations cover equipment used by people working from home, they do not apply to domestic work in a private household.

 

So yes, it's very murky, but unless you are an employer and are providing your staff with equipment which falls within PUWER, then you can quite legitimately operate with nothing more than PPE & a healthy obsession with not dying.

 

That's how I see it anyway [and I fill much of my work time with interpreting HSE guidelines into things which can be useful...]

And ref insurance, I queried this when I was getting quotes in. You can be insured for tree surgery without having tickets [not proof of having them, actually having completed any courses], I know because I specifically asked. And if some insurers offer that facility it can't be illegal can it? Accepted, it's better to insure trained people, you're less likely to have to pay out in theory, but it's not a legal requirement.

[likeitorlumpit]

Straight from the HSE leaflet...

 

 

 

The important MUST throws chainsaw use into PUWER. What that basically says is that training only becomes a requirement under PUWER and PUWER only applies:

 

 

 

So yes, it's very murky, but unless you are an employer and are providing your staff with equipment which falls within PUWER, then you can quite legitimately operate with nothing more than PPE & a healthy obsession with not dying.

 

That's how I see it anyway [and I fill much of my work time with interpreting HSE guidelines into things which can be useful...]

And ref insurance, I queried this when I was getting quotes in. You can be insured for tree surgery without having tickets [not proof of having them, actually having completed any courses], I know because I specifically asked. And if some insurers offer that facility it can't be illegal can it? Accepted, it's better to insure trained people, you're less likely to have to pay out in theory, but it's not a legal requirement.

 

do you not think they are just happy to take your money- just like they don't want to see evidence of your driving licence when insuring a car.

But when something goes wrong they might just say you were operating without due care

Just a thought

[WorcsWuss]

do you not think they are just happy to take your money- just like they don't want to see evidence of your driving licence when insuring a car.

But when something goes wrong they might just say you were operating without due care

Just a thought

 

The exact same question I asked . I could only take his word for it [and hope nothing goes wrong to have to test it out!]

[chaffey]

My insurance company (well known, advertise on here) have never asked me about my tickets.

 

Maybe I would pay less if I tell them I've got tickets!

 

The whole area seems very grey and fuzzy to me.

 

I am also insured through a company that advertises on here and they actually took a photocopy of my card as well as listing them on a form. Hope you don't pay too much for your PL insurance.

[WorcsWuss]

I am also insured through a company that advertises on here and they actually took a photocopy of my card as well as listing them on a form. Hope you don't pay too much for your PL insurance.

 

Some insurers certainly do require evidence that they're gambling on people who know what they're doing. Others take a bigger gamble on more people to balance the risk....

Don't forget that insurance isn't there to reimburse a little old lady when a professional makes a mistake. And those nice people we deal with are just brokers, it's the underwriters who call the shots, and nothing a broker says will really stand up in the face of the underwriters saying otherwise...

It's primarily statistical gambling for the purpose of making money. They only justify it by offering pay outs in certain circumstances.

I would be very surprised if your insurer, with photocopies of your tickets, didn't try just as hard to avoid paying out as one who took your money without the flimsy premise of 'only insuring qualified professionals'. I doubt they care very much, money's money, they just want to accumulate and hold onto as much of it as they can.

Who knows, perhaps they would try even harder, they may have less money in their pot!