Rupe

As long as you work well within the limits of what kit your using then of course its ok and can be very quick. We should call it lowering (like you have called it) and not rigging. Rigging is a different thing really. The main limitation of doing it your self is that your doing it from a point where you are in the tree, so if the wraps are on a peg next to you then that is where the load is so of course your only doing small stuff so no problem. Then of course rigging is where you distribute the load throughout the tree so you can do bigger stuff. I think doing the lowering your self is perfect for reductions and stuff where there is lots of stuff to lower from different points and you may well only have two people on site. Taking a tree down is different, because everything is eventually going so you can clear a lowering space and rig everything into that space and you would now more likely have three on site so rigging is way more efficient. The pulley on the piece being lowered is good. I use a sling and krab, and then just clip a bite of climbing line below my hitch into the krab. You can then lower using your climbing line, doubled, and never need to pull up the far end of your climbing line. This of course is for even smaller pieces than you might do with seperate line, and this should be seen more as guiding stuff to the ground rather than lowering, but the doubled line halfs the load so its ok for small stuff, often the load is no more than lowering a big saw down for fueling.

Paying your tax doesn't make you a bonefide sub contractor !! It makes a good self employed worker and yes there are plenty of those out there, but a bonafide subcontractor is a seperate tree surgery company doing the work seperately from the company that got the original contract. i.e as a sub contract. If you work with four other companies then your just self employed but I'm glad it's working well for you.

I had a guy on work experience recently and some knob from the college phoned me on my mobile on Sunday evening asking of he could come and see me one day with some forms to fill in!! I told I had no free time but had he heard of e mail. Never heard another thing!! I would have filled in the forms but I wasn't going out of my way to spend time in "a meeting". Also, my personal opinion is that the colleges should insure them if they are sending them on work experience. Not my problem if he does something stupid and gets a scratch. The lad they sent was ok though. But if your gf is asking you to help her brother out, independently of the college, then do it if you want. Also what is an "ent"?

Of course if the college won't let him do the work experience without xyz then the op must do xyz or say no to the work ex.

Yes I agree that the college might ask, but the OP has been asked by his gf not through the college, so he can give him work experience or not its up to him. No ones going to come along and say he shouldn't. He can write an RA if he wants but he doesn't have to, he can check his EL covers work experience if he wants but he doesn't have to. He knows he must not let the lad injure himself so as long as he makes sure that doesnt happen then all well, and if a RA helps him not have any incidences then all well and good do a risk assessment.

Yes, I know I was being a bit flippant, but CRB checks are done before allowing external adult to come into contact with monors that you are responsible for, you dont need to be checked before you allow minors to come and do work experience for you, thats crazy!! As said above if the college sent them out on WE then maybe they we get CRB checks done on the people they are being sent to just to make sure, because the college has that responsiblity over them. Same as they woudl check any tutors etc that worked for them. But this is your gf's brother for gods sake! Why do you need to be checked? And why would you go and have yourself checked? Surely you know if your dodgy so who are you protecting and from who? If yo have some wrong uns working with you then get them checked if you want and see how well that goes down!

What law would that be? Dont injure him, or else he will be injured. CRB ?? Are you worried you might fiddle with him or vice versa? YOu know you cant let him do anything other than drag and watch so whats the problem?

No, the tree officer would probably place a blanket TPO on the area because of the threat posed to the trees by the owner. The owner would then need a survey to show evidence of why they should be felled (in order to lift the TPO) and if there is no evidence then they have just spent money on a tree survey! So, TO's dont pronounce trees to be safe, they impose TPO and then request proof that they are not safe.

I presume colleges tell their pupils before they enroll that there arent actually any job in tree work these days? No? What a surprise!

If they have none then your neck is not in any noose anyway, dont worry about it. If a bunch of school kids get killed becasue of a job you are on then they will go out of business and you will have to find another job. Im being silly now of course. If anyone got hurt you would be gutted of course so make sure that never happens, but you cant have a seperate policy as a groundie working for a tree company that will ever do any good in that situation, so no you dont need your own policy. If they have none then dont work for them, but dont get your own to make up for their lack of insurance, thats not a good idea.

The insurance will say that if he used the word "subbie" or "sub contractor" but he is using those words in the wrong context. Its true that if he (the company) uses a sub contractor to carry out work on his behalf then he must ensure that subcontractor has his own policy. That is true. The problem is you are not a subby, but if he used that word then the insurance company are right in how they answered. The corrcet terminolgy is "bonafide sub contractor" and it means a seperate tree surgery company that is doing the work under "sub contract" to the main company who got the work from the client. Same as if you call the insurance company and tell them you are a sub contractor then they will sell you a policy. But you are (planning to be) a self employed groundie, and the nickname for that (which I hate) is subbie. But its not the same as a bona fide subcontractor by a miilion miles its not the same.

Good advice!! I think a large propertion of companies are misinformed about insurance and a huge number of self employed people are also misinformed. Trouble is though it sounds as though this company are mis informed about what a self emplyed person is and what a subby is etc. so might be tricky informing them of anything. Of course the company dont actually need any PI insurance if they choose not to. Any liabilty to a third person (the public) would fall on the customer to sort out so if they hire a company without PL then thats up to them. Thats all PL is for, its to protect the customers liability for what might happen to the public while the tree work is bieng carried out. It is not for (is partly) for actuall damage caused to the customers property. That is such a minor thing that the insurance cost for that would be £10 a year! It is for the much wider "liability" to the much wider "public". and that is why we have policies of 5 or 10million cover. And in case you hadnt grasped that thats why its called "public liability". Im writing this for everyone not the original poster, I'm not having a go, you asked a legitimate question. But this is why I get so frustrated with poeple who think they need PL in case they break a greenhouse! And then groundies think they need a seperate policy in case they break the greenhouse. That is not what the cover is really for.

The plot thickens??!!! Have they got public liability insurance?

Please remember that this is public liabilty insurance you are talking about. If they have it then that covers their liability to a third party, and it doesnt matter if they had a self employed person with them that day, its the tree comapany that is covered and that include you. You do not need seperate insurance.

If your climbing the tree then you need to be on it, so above the lean. If you want to footlock or body thrust in free space then you can do that from below the lean but at some point you will have to climb back over to the "above" side. If your falling (swinging) off the top side and keep finding yourself on the underside then you need to work on your balance as that shoul not be happening if you dont want it to.

You cant sub contract out the groundie aspect of tree work!!! That is not sub contracting, you do not need insurance. Sounds like you are being asked to go self employed to work for one company? Is that right?

I guess I was being a bit philiosphical about it, but we all work hard and deserve a holiday, its a shame to think of holidays as a loss of earnings when they are in fact a reward for earnings. Its a tricky subject though, try telling a customer that the reason there job was 500 and only took 4 hrs was so that you could afford to go skiing for two weeks over christmas. See how many cups of tea you get then! Not that I have been stupid enough to say anything like that!!

So who's offering you this work? I dont fully understand? If its another company offering you work as a groundie then you do not need insurance, and they are wrong in telling you that you do. You cannot get insurance for just yourself a as groundie working for (or with) another company. Of course the insurance company will sell you a policy, if you phone me up I'll take 400 quid off you, but you wont actually be insured for anything, and as a groundie you are not taking any liablity for the work being carried out.

Yes, and what is it that you think public liability is for? Are you working as a groundie for other tree companies? Or getting you own work in? What I am getting at is, do you need insurance?

What is it that you think the insurance is going to be covering you for?

You should never think of a holidya as a "loss" of anything.

Yes, I am well aware of all of those things, your just looking at it from a negative point of view. IF you go on holiday and you can afford to do so (even taking into account all those things you mention) then those costs must be being covered by something? Assuming that something is all the hard work you have done throughout the year then that means you are earning enough to go on holiday, so for every job you do some is going towards your holiday so thats holiday pay. Holidays dont cost self employed people more than employed people, thats just a negative veiw point. The employed get paid less each week so that they still get some when on holiday. The rest of us selp employed people get paid more on the days we work and nothing when on holiday but if we can afford a holiday then its paid for out what we earn so its no different. Of course if a self employed person cant afford a holiday then thats a shame, but many employed people cant afford one either.

A good example to show that we do all get holiday pay! If your self employed and you go on a holiday (as long as your paying for it) then that means every job you do that year contributes towards it (and paying the bills while your away) so thats holiday pay. Yippee, its all about the holidays really. Just had my weeks skiing, hopefully go to greece again in the summer but planning a bigger ski holiday next year, hopefully two weeks driving there and back and maybe switching resorts after the first week.

Thats two pictures of the same house?

You could do it youself or not bother with it at all its your choice. But as you say if the insurance requires it then you do it how they want it.