Whats is the best way for insurers to assess scaffolding H&S?? (1 Viewer)

Anglia Insurance AIS

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
The below NASC thread has turned into more of a Health & Safety/insurance debate:-

(www.scaffoldersforum.com/scaffolders-forum/4589-nasc-why-join-continue-membership-3.html#post30346)

Following on from the issues raised here i'd like members thoughts on the best ways for insurance companies to assess the competence / H&S compliance of scaff firms. The aim here is to keep premiums as low as possible and rewards those who are making efforts to improve H&S.

In my experience you need a scaffolding auditor who is up to date with current guidance, i know of a company that works for 2 insurance brokers and they are specialists. Inbox me and i will give you the details of who to contact.It involves checking over the paperwork, competencies and a site visit. Some brokers do the paperwork themself and the specialist does the site visit as most brokers know nothing about scaffold.
 
The below NASC thread has turned into more of a Health & Safety/insurance debate:-

(www.scaffoldersforum.com/scaffolders-forum/4589-nasc-why-join-continue-membership-3.html#post30346)

Following on from the issues raised here i'd like members thoughts on the best ways for insurance companies to assess the competence / H&S compliance of scaff firms. The aim here is to keep premiums as low as possible and rewards those who are making efforts to improve H&S.

Surely as a specialist broker you will know how to assess a scaffold firms approach to H&S and risk management through meetings and discussions with them face to face, backed by the scaffold firms claims experience, length of trading and also association membership, which includes NASC plus others.
I agree that the insurance industry needs to get more atune to the scaffold practices, however the role of a broker is to understand the risk and communicate on a level playing field, not rely on the industry to tell us how to do our job.
 
Pioneer a new improved service provision by employing an auditor who specialises in the access industry. Undertake a pre-policy audit on all prospective AIS clients/contractors (charging a nominal fee, refundable on securing policy cover.) ensuring only the highest standards of contractor are taken to the market by AIS. Market the aformentioned process to insurance syndicates on the grounds of risks against future claims being reduced to the absolute minimum. Negotiate reduced rates of premiums for compliant contractors, reflective of their achieved status within the new audit regime. Put AIS at the pinnacle of brokers, whom the insurers wish to place its future business with, on the basis risk/probability frequencies. Set your own standards, audit criteria and systems. (This in essence is the business model followed by the NASC, but can be made bespoke to suit the specific conditions 7 considerations within the insurance industry.)

There are a lot of companies trying to get in on the scaffold industry as 9 years ago no one would touch them. Now is the time for someone to rise above the parapet.
 
Safety & Access have some very good consultants on board who may be ableto help :D
 
Safety & Access have some very good consultants on board who may be ableto help :D

dont happen to work for them by any chance do you.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

hahahha, its not a dig
 
MorganLaw,

Very naive Morgan, very unconstructive AND you’ve entirely missed the point of the thread.

You say that ‘as a specialist broker’ we should know how to assess a scaffold firms approach to H&S and risk management. This is where you totally miss the point.

Every broker (specialist or not) knows the questions which they think might assess a scaffold firms approach to H&S and risk management. But current methods are inadequate and do not address the key issues (which you have totally ignored/misses) of competence and compliance. How can current methods measure competence & compliance?

My grandad is 96 and has a drivers license, he can’t drive for toffee! He complies with the law but I would not insure him!

It’s all about proving practice not proving paperwork!
 
MorganLaw,

Very naive Morgan, very unconstructive AND you’ve entirely missed the point of the thread.

You say that ‘as a specialist broker’ we should know how to assess a scaffold firms approach to H&S and risk management. This is where you totally miss the point.

Every broker (specialist or not) knows the questions which they think might assess a scaffold firms approach to H&S and risk management. But current methods are inadequate and do not address the key issues (which you have totally ignored/misses) of competence and compliance. How can current methods measure competence & compliance?

My grandad is 96 and has a drivers license, he can’t drive for toffee! He complies with the law but I would not insure him!
It’s all about proving practice not proving paperwork!

I apologise if i have missed the main point and goal of the thread, this was not intended. I applaude new practices to approach Risk, H&S and insurance perception of the industry.

What i tried to point out, and trying to not promote our services, was this is WHAT we DO. You mention the analogy of a driver being 96 and unable to drive. However should you sit down with him and assess his risk to drive, time spent driving, accident history and even get in the car with him - present this to the DVLA and judge him 'fit for purpose' then why cant he drive.
With Scaffolders, rather than ask pre determined questions over a phone, we sit and discuss them. this gives us an overal picture of the firm. I agree that if we were to introduce an outside consultant this would certainly increase our knowledge and feedback to insurers, however with time constraints, access to sites/contractors and more difficult - getting money up front on the promise of cheaper insurance, this is more an ideal way or working compared to a realistic way.

time is money and money is time :sad:
 
I apologise if i have missed the main point and goal of the thread, this was not intended. I applaude new practices to approach Risk, H&S and insurance perception of the industry.

What i tried to point out, and trying to not promote our services, was this is WHAT we DO. You mention the analogy of a driver being 96 and unable to drive. However should you sit down with him and assess his risk to drive, time spent driving, accident history and even get in the car with him - present this to the DVLA and judge him 'fit for purpose' then why cant he drive.
:

to continue the analogy.. it it precisely this driving test that is difficult to perform for scaffolders. Brokers visit offices, not contract sites. In the context of the analogy this is equivilent to having a cup of tea (and maybe a biscuit) with my grandad - it has no bearing on his competency as a driver.

Finer has it nailed with his comments, but this approach is not new and does not work in practice for smaller clients.
 
to continue the analogy.. it it precisely this driving test that is difficult to perform for scaffolders. Brokers visit offices, not contract sites. In the context of the analogy this is equivilent to having a cup of tea (and maybe a biscuit) with my grandad - it has no bearing on his competency as a driver.

Finer has it nailed with his comments, but this approach is not new and does not work in practice for smaller clients.

We do! but as you know this can inflate the cost, which then makes us uncompetitive against the 'call centre' brokers that dont.

It raises the question, what is more important to the smaller firm. A price saving with insurance certificate to get on site, or an actual policy that stakes up when the ..... hits the fan.

As i have said before it needs to be an all out approach. associations need to be greater emphasised on ALL firms, large and small. give H&S advice and fair and equal opportunities to everyone.
The Scaffold firms need to be aware of recent changes to legislation and HSE requirements, without breaking the bank or cutting corners.
Insurers/brokers need to advise on H&S and risk, backed by policies that pay claims.
At the moment, all are money orientated and this affects our judgement/decisions.
 
Usually tout about through 3 or 4 brokers on renewals and over 15 years ive never renewed with the same broker or experienced inflated rates , have found renewals to vary tons over the last few years but theres quiet a few that are keen for the business , i allways make sure i find out who the main insurer is prior to renewing
 
You started this thread as a result of the original apparently descended into an "H&S debate".........but THAT is the exact point!! What you really ought to have done was start a new thread with the following title: - "As a Broker, how can I convince insurance syndicates that I am actually vetting the scaffolding contractors, I am putting before them, when quite clearly I am not!? (please do not respond with any suggestions that may require the spending of money, commitment of time, further training, extra workload, as in reality I want to do the absolute minimum for the maximum commision fee and not really interested in anything else!)

Sorry Finer but you seem to have us all wrong. The intention of this thread is to try and find new ways of assessing the risks that particular scaffoldering firms pose to insurance companies.

You seem to have followed morganlaw in turning this thread negative.

We are investing time and money in working with scaffs on the forum to build relationships, learn from them and try to give lower premiums where they are warranted. Being insurance brokers themselves Morganlaw knows all of the traditional methods of gathering information, as do we, but we are seeking new more reliable ways of proving H&S compliance and competence. We are using the forum to improve our current methods – asking for input from scaffs. Morganlaw are making unhelpful negative comments and can add nothing to this thread as they are not scaffolders.

It may be that there is no workable/economical way to prove compliance and competence but we would be fools not to make use of the forum to seek industry input.
 
Why seek "new" ways??

H&S compliancy is extremely straight forward to identify, prove as existing, monitor and gauge!! You don't see the HSE or Safety Consultants exploring "new ways" as they are simply not required or relevant!!

If you undertook a pre audit (you have already identified that do not have the necessary training & expertise do this....you quoted using outsourced services at £400 a time!) then all the answers you seek are provided.

You are struggling very badly here as your real agenda has been exposed, which is nothing more than achieving financial gain, for the least amount of effort. Reread your posts and it is plain to see! You do not need to invent any "new ways" of evaluating prospective client's H&S compliancy & standards. Simply put in place a process to actually audit them against the current regulations & standards........if you cannot do that yourself, then directly employ someone with the necessary skills or outsource that requirement! That is positive not negative advice...........but that is not what you want to hear is it?.......because that would cost you/AIS money.

Oh dear…

Of course our agenda is financial gain, we are a commercial company. Do you scaffold for free? Our motive for investing time and money in this sector is hardly charitable and didn’t need diligent detective work to be exposed. Finer, you are no Sherlock Holmes.

Also, the HSE, what are you talking about!?! They are constantly seeking new and improved ways of achieving their goals through new regulation and improved practices. IMPROVING PRACTICE ABD FINDING BETTER WAYS OF OPERATING IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THEIR EXISTANCE!!!

Who is struggling very badly here?
 
I got to agree with Anglia - He is just to get some info from you guys to try and make things quicker and easier for him to get cheaper insurance for the scaffolding industry. I dont see that to be a problem. Also being a sponsor of the scaffolding forum show that he is investing in the industry to a certain degree.
 
There is no quick way to establish compliant and suitable contractors, the process has to be methodical and concise. The specific end result attempting to be achieved ensures that process is complex and thorough, which is my point as a professional H&S auditor.

Regards

Finer.

At last - a useful response!

Shame that you cannot be more constructive with your H&S knowledge Finer. I certainly won’t be putting any work your way! But, with your attitude towards brokers I suspect that your work from the insurance sector is limited?

Which company do you work for?

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

By the way Finer, we're not trying to find a quick cheap fix for your profession here. It's pre-quote reliable info we are trying to obtain.
 
Excuse me for intruding in your debate, AIS and Finer, But as a scaffolding contractor I have been insured by the same insurance co for the last 10 years, and each year my premium has come down. The method that is used to determine compliance with H/S regulations is, I get a call from a H/S officer representing the insurance co asking where I'm currently working and the next day he visits, this is done once a year. He makes his report and if there are a few minor issues he advises on them and its put right. This does not cost me anything, nor does it cost my broker, so what is the point of finding new ways and the alleged cost of vetting prospective clients. The broker does not pay out on claims, the insurance co does that and in my case have an effective way of vetting their clients.
 
Excuse me for intruding in your debate, AIS and Finer, But as a scaffolding contractor I have been insured by the same insurance co for the last 10 years, and each year my premium has come down. The method that is used to determine compliance with H/S regulations is, I get a call from a H/S officer representing the insurance co asking where I'm currently working and the next day he visits, this is done once a year. He makes his report and if there are a few minor issues he advises on them and its put right. This does not cost me anything, nor does it cost my broker, so what is the point of finding new ways and the alleged cost of vetting prospective clients. The broker does not pay out on claims, the insurance co does that and in my case have an effective way of vetting their clients.

Brandy,
it appears you have one of the good brokers working for you, insurance is all about communication and relationship. if and when this stops, that is when you find a hike in insurance (not taking into account market forces).
In general insurance has dropped since 2005 therefore the reduction you have seen is certainly how the industry has gone, backed by your brokers advice and proposal to the insurers.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom