Working without certificates etc

[Wood wasp]

Why does it matter?

[Mat]

I say yes (but I suspect this will be a minority view).

 

Everything is legal unless it is illegal so if anyone says no, please could they explain in as much detail as possible why with sources.

 

edit: AA Paul has made a good start.

 

Wot paul says, plus I would wager the 'Occupiers' Liability Act 1957'.

 

The Act establishes a uniform duty towards all lawful visitors, thus abolishing the distinction between contractors, invitees and licensees. Section 2 provides that the occupier extend a "common duty of care" to all lawful visitors, although it keeps the low duty of care towards unlawful visitors such as trespassers. This duty is described as "a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

[rustcutter]

Does any one know whether a business or individual can purchase woodland (140 acres )and employ non certified guys without protective clothing to fell for profit? Is it legal?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I don't think it would be a problem it they went old school and only used axes and cross cut saws; certs. are for the chainsaw use are they not.

[ash1]

I don't think it would be a problem it they went old school and only used axes and cross cut saws; certs. are for the chainsaw use are they not.

This is with chainsaws.

[Bren.]

The more I think about it, the more I think the OP may be on a wind up.

Few too many christmas sherries?

[ash1]

The more I think about it, the more I think the OP may be on a wind up.

Few too many christmas sherries?

This is absolutely genuine. I don't drink.

[dgcunningham]

I think it comes down to being 'employed'. If its just a group of guys getting their 'kicks' with chainsaws in a woodland they own then maybe no problem, maybe misadventure if something goes wrong. If they are employed in any sense of the word, subby, freelance direct etc, the employer has a 'care of duty' to those they employ and I expect that part of that is trying to manage 'foreseeable risk' within a context of best practice.

 

Employing people to carry out an operation without training or PPE might be considered negligent to this 'duty of care'?

 

Also, I don't expect they have obtained a felling license for their operation?

[Ty Korrigan]

Oh I dunno...

There are several ex-pat 'tree surgeons' over here without a ticket to their name yet naming no names...

Ty

[dgcunningham]

Shut these guys down before the kill someone

 

[ash1]

I think it comes down to being 'employed'. If its just a group of guys getting their 'kicks' with chainsaws in a woodland they own then maybe no problem, maybe misadventure if something goes wrong. If they are employed in any sense of the word, subby, freelance direct etc, the employer has a 'care of duty' to those they employ and I expect that part of that is trying to manage 'foreseeable risk' within a context of best practice.

 

Employing people to carry out an operation without training or PPE might be considered negligent to this 'duty of care'?

 

Also, I don't expect they have obtained a felling license for their operation?

As I understand it, the timber is going for biomass.