is it the law or what ? (1 Viewer)

dangeruss

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
0
Location
Rutland
I have often wondered what would happen if you worked to sg4 and had a freak accident and hurt yourself badly, could you then sue the NASC if it was proved that you followed their guidance to the letter and yet were still hurt, or would they say it’s for "safety guidance" only thus swerving the rap ?

That being the case and it is for "safety guidance only" is it then fair that you could be in breach of the wahr for not using it and you had a fall ?

Does this also mean that the new tg 20 is another document you could simply ignore and say its for technical guidance only, its not the law , the same as bs5973 it was only a standard to work to it wasn't mandatory ?

If you read the HSE page below its full of the words Should, could,competent, but nothing saying you must,or its mandatory ,why is this,is it the law to follow this "guidance" or not ????

Design and inspection issues
Unless a scaffold is a basic configuration described in recognised guidance e.g. NASC Technical Guidance TG20 for tube and fitting scaffolds or manufacturers' guidance for system scaffolds, the scaffold should be designed by calculation, by a competent person, to ensure it will have adequate strength and stability.
All scaffolding should be erected, dismantled and altered in accordance with either NASC guidance document SG4 for tube and fitting scaffolds or the manufacturers' erection guide for system scaffolds.
For scaffolds that fall outside the scope of 'Basic Scaffolds' as described in bullet point 1, the design information should describe the sequence and methods to be adopted when erecting, dismantling and altering the scaffold, if this is not covered by published guidance as detailed in bullet point 2.
Any proposed modifications or alterations outside a generally recognised standard configuration should be designed by a competent person.
Handover certificates should refer to relevant drawings, permitted working platform loadings and any specific restrictions on use.
All scaffolding inspection should be carried out by a competent person whose combination of knowledge, training and experience is appropriate for the type and complexity of the scaffold he is inspecting. Competence may have been assessed under The Construction Industry Scaffolders Registration Scheme (CISRS) or an individual may be suitably experienced in scaffolding work and have received additional training under a recognised manufacturer/supplier scheme for the specific configuration he is inspecting.
A non-scaffolder who has attended a suitable scaffold inspection course and has the necessary background experience would be considered competent to inspect a basic scaffold (ie a site manager).
The scaffold inspection report should note any defects and corrective actions taken, even when those actions are taken promptly as this assists with the identification of any recurring problems.
To prevent use by unauthorised persons of incomplete scaffolds, relevant warning signs identifying the areas where access is not permitted should be displayed at the access points to these areas. In addition, access to the incomplete areas should be prevented by suitable physical means
 
S.G. = Safety Guidance

What it says on tin, I believe if you had an accident and ignoring safety guidance you claim for damages would be much reduced or not paid at all

If you tried to claim against NASC they would claim that they had done all that was "reasonable & Practical"in assessing the risks

In English law to claim damages you have to prove negligence on the part of the person/Company you are claiming against.
 
S.G. = Safety Guidance

What it says on tin, I believe if you had an accident and ignoring safety guidance you claim for damages would be much reduced or not paid at all

If you tried to claim against NASC they would claim that they had done all that was "reasonable & Practical"in assessing the risks

In English law to claim damages you have to prove negligence on the part of the person/Company you are claiming against.
I get where your going Rigger but my question was ,if you had followed the guidance to the letter and had a freak accident (WIND BLEW YOU OFF WHILST TUNNELING) who would be responsible , if it was compulsory that you followed sg4 and hurt your self and it was proved that you had followed it the NASC or Hse could be liable ? whereas if its just guidance then they wouldn't be,as it was for guidance only i.e. not mandatory. I am thinking that's why tunneling has to go as there is a definate risk there you could fall.Perhaps the new legislation will no longer be guidance it will be mandatory. I know its just little words but why not use the right words ?
guid·ance
   /ˈgaɪdns/ Show Spelled[gahyd-ns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act or function of guiding; leadership; direction.
2.
advice or counseling, esp. that provided for students choosing a course of study or preparing for a vocation.
3.
supervised care or assistance, esp. therapeutic help in the treatment of minor emotional disturbances.
4.
something that guides.
5.
the process by which the flight of a missile or rocket may be altered in speed and direction in response to controls situated either wholly in the projectile or partly at a base.


man·da·to·ry
   /ˈmændəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled [man-duh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ries.
–adjective
1.
authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory: It is mandatory that all students take two years of math.
2.
pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command.
3.
Law . permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified: a mandatory clause.
4.
having received a mandate, as a nation.

see what I meen.
 
Sorry I missed your main question, Dangeruss :embarrest:
"if you had followed the guidance to the letter and had a freak accident (WIND BLEW YOU OFF WHILST TUNNELING) who would be responsible"

If I was asked to defend against your claim I would take the position that all had been done that was "reasonable and practical" to ensure your safety,that it was have you have stated a "freak accident"or an "act of god"if it was a solitary strong gust of wind on a day that was not deemed to be windy.If it was a windy day I would bring into question wether you "should"have being working at height at all,taking into account that you are a "competent" scaffolder, did you bring the wind issue to the attention of your immediate line manager?,what other precautions did you take knowing it was windy ?,In short I would try to establish that it was yourself who were negligent in your actions or omissions of actions prior to the accident occuring

The questions and counter statements that can be raised are endless that's why a good solicitor will charge £200 per hour and a claim for a damages case can take years to resolve

If you read in detail, the H & S act 1974 and all other legislation that comes under its umbrelow the biggest part of the legislation is open to interpretation full of "should","best Practice","practical", "reasonable"
Ther are not a lot of "must", "Shall"or other absolute statutary duties

The hierarchy of Statue Law is

Acts of Parliment

Regulations U.K and Europeon

Approved Codes of Practice A.C.O.P.s

Guidance

Its a bloody minefield trying to get a definate answer on any specific question,try ringing the HSE and see what waffle they give you:D

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

Sorry I missed your main question, Dangeruss :embarrest:
"if you had followed the guidance to the letter and had a freak accident (WIND BLEW YOU OFF WHILST TUNNELING) who would be responsible"

If I was asked to defend against your claim I would take the position that all had been done that was "reasonable and practical" to ensure your safety,that it was have you have stated a "freak accident"or an "act of god"if it was a solitary strong gust of wind on a day that was not deemed to be windy.If it was a windy day I would bring into question wether you "should"have being working at height at all,taking into account that you are a "competent" scaffolder, did you bring the wind issue to the attention of your immediate line manager?,what other precautions did you take knowing it was windy ?,In short I would try to establish that it was yourself who were negligent in your actions or omissions of actions prior to the accident occuring

The questions and counter statements that can be raised are endless that's why a good solicitor will charge £200 per hour and a claim for a damages case can take years to resolve

If you read in detail, the H & S act 1974 and all other legislation that comes under its umbrelow the biggest part of the legislation is open to interpretation full of "should","best Practice","practical", "reasonable"
Ther are not a lot of "must", "Shall"or other absolute statutary duties

The hierarchy of Statue Law is

Acts of Parliment

Regulations U.K and Europeon

Approved Codes of Practice A.C.O.P.s

Guidance

Its a bloody minefield trying to get a definate answer on any specific question,try ringing the HSE and see what waffle they give you:D
 
Great!!!

This is what I have been saying for ages. What is law? What is guidance?

It is too complicated, that is why I have asked the HSE for , sorry for the pun , an idiots guide!!

What do we have to comlply to & what we have to follow as closley as possible. i.e. advanced rails, this has scared the **** out of everyone, but if you are able to put something in place like slide a rail on top of the hand rail in front of you then you don't need step ups or advanced rails. This is in the new regs, but not pushed forward!!

We need a voice I am serious with the SCCR. I do feel this is a chance to voice the working scaffolder not the corporate company on one hand & not the extreme of a union. The pervect middle man!!

Please check out the Commitee of Consulation rights for updates. I need support from all scaffolders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards Ragscaff:D
 
Rag scaff, I thought it was just me that thought all these rules and regulations and guidance's were just an excuse to extort a "few dollars more" out of the poor old scaffs. If we HAVE to work to sg4 lets call it mandatory, pass a law, be able to charge our customers a bit more to work safely, and prosecute all those who don't work to it, then there's no grey area, no play on words,no one can be in any doubt as to what it means .

I think that the HSE use all of these vauge words, and terms so they can't be held responsible if it all goes wrong, they wan't the NASC to put forward new ways to work, mainly so they don't have too, better for the NASC to get it wrong than the HSE.
 
I can't believe I am coming to the defence of the HSE!!!

It is not down to money etc directly or effort. It is down to the HSE being funded by the government.

They can only put man power to reportable incidents or major accidents.

The knowledge of most contractors is very poor, at the start of a contract every rule will be followed. Near the end they don't care.

HSE use the term reasonably practicable because it is our reasonability to work safely. We need to work to the guidance set.

The problem being now the guideline is set by non scaffolders & manufacturers.

Need to get back to the real world. The HSE has been misguided by the NASC.:evil:

Ragscaff
 
TG20:08 Guidance Only

Hi Dangeruss

I can understand how all you guys are getting fed up with the new guides coming out from the NASC.

None of the guides are laws as these have to be passed by either an Act of Parliament or other local authority bye-law.

Nobody has to work to TG20:08, but in the event of an accident a Judge can only look at what information is available to him such as a guidance document, as he is not an expert, or will rely on expert witness.

Unfortunately in your defence you have chosen to ignore the Guide then he may not be as considerate of your position.

TG20:08 and SG4 are to improve the safety of the industry, but must admit the interpretation by some is a bit strict and uniformed.

Thanks for the interesting thread

ChrisEng:)
 
Thats what I was trying to say but I am a scaffolder & it takes a while to get it across unless we are face to face then a 5ft comes in to play:nuts::laugh:

Ragscaff
 
So its the NASC seeing an oppertunity to make some cash then, jumping on the bandwagon and becoming self appointed experts , at a cost !
 
It's definately down to interpretation of the guidance. TG20:08 is the NASC's interpretation of the European standard BS EN12811-1:2003. We tend to take everything to the enth degree and apply a whole new set of rules etc to our industry, while our cousins over the pond (who should fall under the same European standard) well im sure we've all seen the state of most of the work while we're off on hols!!

No doubt Redviking also has a photo or two!!
 
Holiday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! two weeks working away is my holiday:sad::sad:

Ragscaff
 
Last edited:
Pity most my working days are out the county..

Mind you I work down there most weekends!!!:sad:


Ragscaff
 
It's definately down to interpretation of the guidance. TG20:08 is the NASC's interpretation of the European standard BS EN12811-1:2003. We tend to take everything to the enth degree and apply a whole new set of rules etc to our industry, while our cousins over the pond (who should fall under the same European standard) well im sure we've all seen the state of most of the work while we're off on hols!!

No doubt Redviking also has a photo or two!!
bet our friends abroad don't have the NASC to help them along .
 
BS5973 to be formally withdrawn by end of 2010

Just picked this up off twitter, BS5973 to be formally withdrawn by end of 2010. This is direct off the NASC website
 
Just picked this up off twitter, BS5973 to be formally withdrawn by end of 2010. This is direct off the NASC website
Interseting, but I like the bit at the bottom of the NASC page which says "Whilst every effort has been made to provide reliable and accurate information, we would welcome any corrections to information provided by the Writer which
may not be entirely accurate, therefore and for this reason, the NASC or indeed the Writer, cannot accept responsibility for any misinformation posted"


So to refresh, it would appear that TG20.08 is the standard by which all scaffolds are to be built by 2011, the NASC will sell you TG20.08 @ £146 for a non member, but it might not be entirely accurate so just in case it ins't , they are not responsible ! Incedentaly it also states this at the bottom of the sg4 page .
 
If TG20:08 is going to be the set standard, should or when will they be providing us with regular updates, as I have spotted an error :embarrest:
 
If TG20:08 is going to be the set standard, should or when will they be providing us with regular updates, as I have spotted an error :embarrest:

Dangeruss picked up with the quote on the NASC website "we would welcome any corrections to information provided", get the error correction into them and see what they do about it.

The question of updates is a fair point, when you shell out for the 'Guidance' do you automatically get the updates included in the original price or do you have to pay extra to obtain those???

Also, are copies of the 'Guidance' being made available to those that are to work to the guide, namely the scaffolders on the spanners???
 
Top Bottom