Rupe

Good work. Makes me feel a lot better about my polished turd of a truck!! My top tip would be to remove the rear lights and stick them on under the tipper so they don't get damaged when tippign logs off. Again! (looks like its had a new rear light board fitted probably for this very reason.

Thats the total opposite of what I was saying. If the customer thinks its easy and a dumb lumberjack could do it then let them get a dumb lumberjack. If you want to try and convince them its really hard, just to make yourself feel better then good for you. What I was trying to say is that that is a waste of time. Just agree with them thats its easy and get on with it. There is nothing more to it than scrambling up a tree and slicing some branches. If you use fancy words to confuse someone then that is poor communication, and will make you look dumb if you are unable to explain things in a straightforward manner. The real skill (when necessary) is to not use ANY fancy words, but explain things that make sense in one easy go. You have about 1minute to explain each job. What I was saying above is that I DON'T try and educate or embelish our work in any way. Please read my post again if you think you missed something. One of the things I said was So as far as our industry is concerned, yes I think we have a way over inflated sense of our own importance, they are only trees and we are only service providers. I think getting all the kit out to try and prove how important we are illustrates my point quite well!!

Old skool is even better.

You don't need to outline the precise way, all you have to say is that you will stick to best practice, thats it, thats all they need to hear. So if you change the plan during the day you stick stick to best practice. The office bods that ask for this stuff don't know what it is, just tell them its all to best practice. I'm only sayign this cos I learned to do safety paperwork from my clients, and clients of the company I used to work for. We had no idea waht a method statement was, but ended up with opportunites to work for Carrillion, Costains, Mcalpine etc. All I did was ASK, and the advice I got back was great, I then gave them what they asked for and we got the contracts. Simples. And I do the same now. As I said in an earlier thread we are just commissioning a server based SSRA that each operative fills in seperately and the software cross checks the individual hazard analysis and highlights any discrepancies. This ensures each operative knows all the hazards and importantly the controls. Thats great, but thats Risk assessment. Different thing to method statement. Its just a statement that you will tstick to the methods you have been trained in, for whatever activtiy you might be doing. if a client wants excessive paperwork they can pay for it -I don't mind And they wont mind using someone else who offers the paperwork inclusive. Just set all the paperwork up on a PDF and e mial them it, it costs nothing.

Hostel was hilarious!

Fair enough, I think I do that too but give that information on the daily risk assessment, where i tick felling, climbing, burning etc etc. Ultimalty we all do whats asked of us. MY generic MS if for tree pruning and felling, so takes into account most eventualities for those methods. There would be another for Stump grinding, and for mewps etc if required. I guess my MS is very basic, but its the whole package that needs to be complete, so as long as the required information is containe dwith the RA, the MS and the H&S policy, along with certs, and everythign else then it should be ok. Personally my MS would just be Get spikes out of bag, start work finish work. go home.

Site specific RA's for sure, but the method is always the same. Industry best practice!

The generic should be the same for every job, cos its, well, "generic". Yes once they have it on file that shoudl do. My complete package is 70 pages, I email that so they can save it or print it and they only get it once! The only thing you do for every job is a RA, and even then you can tick all the generic bits that apply and just fill in any site specific stuff, which is often nothing.

Yep, and thats exactly what you can do for your client. doing a rubbish repair (or bad/unsafe tree work) is still your perogative, depending on how you want your business to progress. We all know you do good work, and thats why you get asked to quote for stuff, they just want soem specifics about the job to shove in the filing sytem with all the other crap. It won't change what you actually do for them, but your future work will change if you do badly, and the tv repairman will only do a bad repair for you once. I have a nice generic method statement you can have if you want.

Yes, but you would want to know that the tv repair man follows the best up do date methods and practices, even if you don't know what they are.

You could say that you will remove the tree in accordance with industry best practice as out lined in AFAG 1,2,3,4, (whichever are relevant) and then send them copies or links to these leaflets and leave it at that. Thats all thay want, is to know its to best standards, they won't have a clue what a good or bad method would be....

Thats correct. 2x2x2 is 8, and the .4 makes another 1.6 to be added on....to make 9.6 Chhance are you wont be able to fill it to the top of to the very front so it might not actually take that much wood.

There is a system that we call Rads. Its a 3:1 advantage sytem with fail safe. We usually use a 2:1 system for climbing. The rads system would need a rope, one pulley, a gri gri (or other failsafe descendign device) and a couple of karabiners. So not too expensive, and much cheaper than block and tackles, and safer, and easier to set up. Rope is tied round the tree a few feet above your highest point required. Down to ground and through gri gri, then back upto pulley at roughly the same place as the top anchor, through the pulley and back down to the ground. You clip the gri gri to your harness and pull the tail of the rope and you go up. Let go and you stay put. Pull the handle on the gri gri and you go down. The gri gri is not fully failsafe actually. If you panic and keep pulling the handle you will continue to go down, there are other devices that eliminate this. The rope will need to be three times longer than the the distance from ground to top anchor position. Hope that helps.

Glad thats cleared it all up. Well said!

I think it sounds great. Good for you, its great to do the job you love, thats why are all in this industry and chatting about it all night on arbtalk. Originally you said you were sub contractors........thats where I figured things did not sound right. If you are contractors, and have the correct PL then you should be ok, but contractors need people to work with them. One of you should employ the other, do one risk assessment and have one insurance policy, otherwise the insurance company is getting £600 too much and won't pay out if they realise how you are working. If one of you injures the other then you are not covered by PL. If one of you fells a tree when the other says its safe to do, which one is taking responsibilty? Who's insurance pays? I agree the practical training of the CS32 will be very useful. Say hi to Chris White from me and get some advice from him, he's a good chap. For the record it sounds like a great set up and a good opportunity that you have. Its only insurance companies (and some employers) that I have issues with, never they guys doing the work that they choose to do. Rupe.

Sounds like you are sorted, but the excesses are so high that no one ever cliams for minor damage anyway. Insurance company wins. You have to do a lot of damage to ever need to claim on PL.

Sure, its just one point (the hourly rate thing) but it all adds up wrong IMO. But, when you are "subbing" at your hourly rate, he (the landscaper) is the main contractor and must have insurance that includes the use of subcontractors, only then will your seperate insurance be valid. Put another way. If his clients windows get broken form debris from your chipper, the client will not claim from you as you are not working for them. The client will claim fromt he landscaper, he puts in a claim on his insurance and states that he was using a subcontractor to carry out the seperate task of chipping. If his insurance covers this then they will pay out and recover the money from your insurance. If his insurance does not cover the use of sub contractors then there will be no pay out, he would have to cliam directly from your insurance but as he is not the damged party this will be difficult. The client might try and recover the damges from your insurance but this will proably fail too. So unless everything is watertight the result is that the insuracne comapany keep all your money and they win. Of course, being an upstanding person you would have already replaced the broken windows your self by this time, and the insurance is not relavent, but hopefully you get my point. The key is the definition of sub contracting and what that is, not what a person "thinks" it is, or wants it to be.

Thats correct, they are employed by the hour. The only thing wrong is that they are payign insurance times two! When you are employed (including self employed) by the hour or by the job, you do not need your own insurance. If you are a subcontractor, working independantly of a main contractor then you should have sub contractors insurance and the main contractors insurance must include the use of sub contractors. If you are self employed (hourly or whatever) and you phone an insurance company and say you are a subcontractor or "subbie" they WILL take the money off you. That does not make you insured and it does not make the public protected.

Its all good if you are happy with it. My advice would be that one of you should employ the other (even as self employed) and only have one insurance policy that includes employers liability. Then give the estate fixed price quotes for sections of work and get away from the hourly rate. I assure you the your PL will not cover in the instance you are explaining. They will say that you are not subcontracting if you are on an hourly rate, and if one of you injures the other PL would cover that anyway. If you are not being exploited then thats great and happy days all round. I expect you to both be on £30.00 - £40.00 an hour then in order to cover all your costs in which case great, but as said before if it all went wrong and was investigated the estate would be negligent. They have a duty of care over their employees and you would be regarded as employees if you are on hourly rate, three days a week. There are just too many contradictions, colleagues that are seperate subcontractors, with independant PL insurance working together on hourly rate etc etc. Why would you have two risk assessments? Who wants the risk assessments anyway? If you are subcontractors then who is the main contractor? With regard to your original question about legalities of felling larger trees, its all irrelevant as far as the PL goes. The public (or any third party) are not going to be covered by either of your insurance policies so you might as well fell as big as you want, you might as well do tree climbing stuff as well as the public are still not protected, and the estate will be at fault for allowign the work to be carried out on their land without adequate insurance. If you felled a 20cm tree on a car and it crashed your insurance would not pay out, simple as that. The estate would be negligent, and I would assume they know this and/or the forestor formeman know this. I guess you two are cheaper than the estate hiring a forestry contractor? In an ideal world you could be employed by a forestry contractor to go and work on that estate. But its not an ideal world (unless you are an insurance salesman). Good luck with it all though, make some good money, don't have accidents and do some more courses as soon as you can.

Because you are not sub contractors. Your employered, the hourly rate thing confirms it. Its good that you are happy, but there is no way that you should be insuring your work when working in this manner. Of course the insurance company will take your money (both lots of it) the estate are then implyign that you are responsible for each opthers, and the publics, safety. This is not the case. Unfortunatly this sounds like exploitation of the work force. I think you need to get soem proffessional advice. I will try and explain further if i can, but got to got to work now.

Brillo pads for shining it up mate!!

You have a foreman forester!! It gets better, its all his responsibility then! Sound like you have a good understanding of how it works and if you are happy with the arrangement then far beit for me to undermine that. I do however still thank that you should not worry about "legalities" do what you feel comfortable with, and if not get further training until you are comfortable. The insurance is never going to pay out if one of you hits the other with a tree and the estate or foreman forester will be found to be negligent not you. Tell me one thing, are you on a pre aggreed hourly rate both of you?

Intruding into is not the same as too high.

I just read that again. If you are both self employed thats fine, but which one gets handed the work? One of you should maybe employ the other, and have one insurance policy, that might be better. Which of you has the most experience/tickets?

Utter Madness!! Two insurance policies that are a waste of money! You can't both sub contract and be colleagues. You either do two seperate jobs or you don't. If you look out for each other then you are working for each other, not seperatly. The laws of felling different size trees are the last thing you need to worry about. In order to fulfill any best practice guidlines (not laws) you need someone working with you when operating chainsaw. Your "colleague" can't be working with you if he's on a seperate contract? That would imply he's on a different job. What a mess!!