Lombardy Fell Incident

[aspenarb]

57 minutes ago, beechwood said:

 

In my personal opinion I don’t think £24k plus costs is harsh.

I think they got off lightly, bearing in mind the list of failings and the financial size of a company like Bartlett’s.

I’m glad nobody was hurt but it could have so easily seriously injured or killed a bystander/member of the Barlett’s team.

Good on the HSE for going to town on them.
I hope this will be a positive thing for our industry, the threat of a large fine is a big incentive to all of us not to cut corners.

Would be very interesting to read the whole judgement but don’t know if that’s available.

Await to see what the AA does, not holding my breath.

Regards Neil

 

 

Neil I would have less of a problem with fines like that if the guys were sent out to execute the works in that particular way. In the companies defense I cannot believe for one moment that Bartlett`s sent those guys out there in an open public space next to a busy junction to pull that tree over with a rope tied to the back of a truck . Even if they were sent out to do it  the  onus of responsibility should fall on the operatives because they could of quite easily refused to do it . This one has gone wrong and even if the guys did get the sack for this they will probably find employment within the hour leaving the whole shitfest for the company to deal with, from where I am sat this was probably meant to be a dismantle that the  guys took upon themselves to fell.

 

Bob

[AHPP]

 

In my personal opinion I don’t think £24k plus costs is harsh.

 

I think they got off lightly, bearing in mind the list of failings and the financial size of a company like Bartlett’s.

 

I’m glad nobody was hurt but it could have so easily seriously injured or killed a bystander/member of the Barlett’s team.

 

Good on the HSE for going to town on them.

I hope this will be a positive thing for our industry, the threat of a large fine is a big incentive to all of us not to cut corners.

 

Would be very interesting to read the whole judgement but don’t know if that’s available.

 

Await to see what the AA does, not holding my breath.

 

Regards Neil

 

In my personal opinion, it’s £24k too much. It’s £24k that will go to the government. Some of it, the HSE will waste on printing glossy leaflets telling builders to wear a warm coat (or similar bollocks). The remainder will go to making laws like those which make employers liable for employees’ mistakes, letting idiots with saws drop their boss in the shit or limited liability corporation protection that lets bosses hire idiots safe in the knowledge they keep their house if an idiot harms someone/something. The common law rights wrongs where they occur, costs little and doesn’t have all the bad side effects of government. Don’t reach for the government to solve every problem. They’re shit at it (and in this case have actually done the opposite). Hundreds of years of legislation didn’t stop a tree going sideways. Fear of getting sued keeps people sensible, unless vicarious liability and/or limited liability are in place of course, in which case, yeah, fuck it, just cut it at the bottom.

[TIMON]

Did pics of the hinge ever emerge?

I had a 60 ft Connie fell go astray by about 50 degrees due to a strong gust of side wind, (thankfully except for a fence panel no damage or injury)
Looking at the gob and hinge you would never have known.
Lesson learned.

[Stephen Blair]

Steve I don’t think there was a hinge mate!

[tree-fancier123]

wrote a rambling post about the driver not accelerating hard to keep up with the tree falling, on looking back this aspect was discussed already in some detail in the 34 page thread

Edited December 9, 2017 by tree-fancier123

[beechwood]

 
Neil I would have less of a problem with fines like that if the guys were sent out to execute the works in that particular way. In the companies defense I cannot believe for one moment that Bartlett`s sent those guys out there in an open public space next to a busy junction to pull that tree over with a rope tied to the back of a truck . Even if they were sent out to do it  the  onus of responsibility should fall on the operatives because they could of quite easily refused to do it . This one has gone wrong and even if the guys did get the sack for this they will probably find employment within the hour leaving the whole shitfest for the company to deal with, from where I am sat this was probably meant to be a dismantle that the  guys took upon themselves to fell.
 
Bob

Bob

I take your point.
It can feel like the HSE just chase the employer without holding the employees to account but we do have a responsibility as employers.
But I fear you are probably partially right and they have left Bartlett’s to pick up the pieces for their cock up.

However I’m sure if Bartlett’s had sent the team out with instructions on how to set up the site, to section fell the tree and with staff qualified to do the work, that then they wouldn’t have been fined so heavily if at all.

Obviously I’m speculating based on the brief HSE description because I haven’t read the court transcript, so I could be wrong.

What I do know is that over the past few years I’ve had guys approaching me for work who are under qualified for what they claim to be able to do.
When I say they need more qualifications they respond saying they don’t need them to work for x, y and z.
I regularly hear x, y and z are cheaper than you and I think of course they are as they are cutting corners!

My hope is that this kind of prosecution will lead to more companies realising if they need to employ fully qualified staff and have good work procedures in place or they are risking a £25k fine if things go wrong.
Surely this will promote higher standards, help weed out the idiots and is in the long term better for the whole industry.

Of course it might just be a unachievable pipe dream but I live in hope.

Regards Neil

[carlos]

in  my mind the only mistake that was made was to undertake a fell on that tree, all the legal stuff about training, supervision, certification etc is just how the prosecution system works.

id say most days and jobs there is something not being done by the book no matter how small its only when the poo hits the fan does come to light.

[WesD]

How many on here would have felled it?

 

The AA’s response will be interesting, they are in a hard place now and their outcome will set a moral compass for them going forwards with their accreditation and how seriously the take themselves. 

 

Do they carry on as is taking their money with the spin they have been punished enough? What message would that send and would it devalue their accreditation?

 

Do they put them in some sort of special measures increase visits etc and work with them?

 

Do they suspend their accreditation for a time period to let them regather and recover before re assessing them to regain accreditation after a time out so to speak?

 

AA may have other options ideas but their take and reaction on this will speak some volumes to the industry and could potentially shape their future for better or worse.

 

The AA I would say are now under a metaphorical spotlight and in a difficult spot. 

[skyhuck]

10 minutes ago, carlos said:

in  my mind the only mistake that was made was to undertake a fell on that tree, all the legal stuff about training, supervision, certification etc is just how the prosecution system works.

id say most days and jobs there is something not being done by the book no matter how small its only when the poo hits the fan does come to light.

So you think no tree should be felled, unless there is nothing within falling distance in all directions?

 

 

[WesD]

5 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

So you think no tree should be felled, unless there is nothing within falling distance in all directions?

 

 

He says undertake a fell on that tree, I took that as he wouldn’t fell Lombardy Pops.

 

Would you have felled it?