To say, or not to say, that is the question

[ban-all-sheds]

There will always be a main contractor, he is called the principle contractor.

Really ? Go read the regs again - carefully. While the majority will have a principal contractor, I can think of some domestic projects where there would be no single contractor fitting the description.

There is always a principle contractor, whether there are single or multiple contractors. Always.

What a strange world he lives in. I don't think it is the same as ours. Or, if it is, then he's clearly got some serious limitations in the thinking department if he cannot imagine a situation where a home owner builds an extension by contracting in individual tradesmen who have no relationship with each other, or by a mix of that and some DIY.

I expect that this site is full of such examples - odd that he's never seen them. Maybe he just refuses to accept that people are telling the truth.

 

[SimonH2]

There is always a principle contractor, whether there are single or multiple contractors. Always.

What a strange world he lives in. I don't think it is the same as ours.

Indeed, either that or the text is rendering something different for him ! Because the text I read clearly allows for there to be no principal contractor.

Or, if it is, then he's clearly got some serious limitations in the thinking department if he cannot imagine a situation where a home owner builds an extension by contracting in individual tradesmen who have no relationship with each other, or by a mix of that and some DIY.

Exactly. I think he's thinking that the person laying the bricks/blocks will automatically be the principal contractor - even though he won't be involved prior to arriving to start work (other than to quote) or after getting the walls up.

I expect that this site is full of such examples - odd that he's never seen them. Maybe he just refuses to accept that people are telling the truth.

The latter seems to be his problem. I can't help thinking he's led a sheltered life and has never encountered a situation other than where a customer has contractor one business to do the project (whether using subbies or in-house labour for the "non building" parts).

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Simon, out of interest what actions have you taken with regard to the CDM regs? Have you prepared and kept a health and safety file up to date?

I'm just wondering how often this would actually be done by an average home owner doing refurbishment work.

 

[^woody^]

Indeed

The thing is, I know the CDM regs, I manage CDM work and perform principle designer and contractor functions, I teach it, and work with legal teams prosecuting and defending it.

I don't get my information from reading on the internet, nor do have to interpret a few lines of text to what I think it means.

It's a bit like looking out a window at men working on a roof and stating one thing based on uneducated beliefs, without knowing all the facts.

And if you can refrain from the childish ad hominem comments that would be good. We all know that once you start that, you have lost the argument and any credibility.

So where were we, oh yes, what CDM experience do you have again?

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Woody, can you explain how the new CDM regs work with regard to a homeowner employing subcontractors.
For example, if a homeowner gets some drawings done, then directly employs a groundworker, labourer and a bricklayer, a chippy, a plumber, and electrician to build his extension, who would be responsible for overseeing the CDM regs? I can't see that any of them would call themselves the Principal contractor.

 

[SimonH2]

Simon, out of interest what actions have you taken with regard to the CDM regs? Have you prepared and kept a health and safety file up to date?

Nothing ... yet. I've not got to that stage.

I'm just wondering how often this would actually be done by an average home owner doing refurbishment work.

I'm sure Woody can explain given that he's the expert around here.

The thing is, I know the CDM regs, I manage CDM work and perform principle designer and contractor functions, I teach it, and work with legal teams prosecuting and defending it.

So you say, while demonstrating an inability to read. In the example both myself and RonnyRaygun have given, not one of the contractors employer would be considered a principal contractor - that duty would fall on the householder employing the separate trades.

I suspect your problem is that you (according to your claim) teach this stuff - to businesses. You are so used to the "normal" situations that you just don't recognise the outliers that don't fit neatly into your predefined pidgeonholes - not an uncommon problem.

 

[^woody^]

can you explain

I'll pm you later

 

[^woody^]

I suspect

There you go again making things up and asserting it as fact, to fill the gaps of what you don't actually know.

 

[jeds]

Last year there, as a result of falling from height (HSE definition) there were:

29 Deaths
2,950 Specified injuries
3,117 '7-day' injuries

Still think this H&S stuff is just a paperwork exercise?

I'll bet not one of those involved somebody being blown off a low pitch crinkly tin roof. If you really want something to do get out on the side of the road and report all the incompetent drivers. (there were about 1700 deaths on British roads last year) Second thoughts, better not, your head will probably explode. And then I'd need to report you.

 

[SimonH2]

I suspect

There you go again making things up and asserting it as fact, to fill the gaps of what you don't actually know.

No, I made a statement of fact. It IS a true statement that I suspect your situation to be as I described, so that statement is not "making something up and asseting it as fact". I did not state that your situation is as described (if I had then you'd be correct), only that I SUSPECT it to be so (a true statement).
Please don't blame others for your inability to understand fairly simple written English.

 

[kazuya]

Sometimes you just have to stop reading and looking things up on the internet, stop peering out the window, but go out into the real world and see how things really work, because there is no substitute for experience.

 

[Newboy]

I'll bet not one of those involved somebody being blown off a low pitch crinkly tin roof

And that statement is based on what?
How about doing a bit of background reading before you make sweeping non-specific statements?

And as an aside, me being a pratt and knowing that it wouldn't happen to me, being sure footed and young (and invincible) I fell off a very low flat roof and landed, from about 9 feet, upright on my feet.
It took me nearly 8 months to get over the fractured heal, compressed disc and the rest - and I'm one of the lucky ones!

 

[garyo]

I'll pm you later

I'd like to understand this responsibility /liability too, having been in this position (90 percent self build)

 

[SimonH2]

And that statement is based on what?
How about doing a bit of background reading before you make sweeping non-specific statements?

And as an aside, me being a pratt and knowing that it wouldn't happen to me, being sure footed and young (and invincible) I fell off a very low flat roof and landed, from about 9 feet, upright on my feet.
It took me nearly 8 months to get over the fractured heal, compressed disc and the rest - and I'm one of the lucky ones!

Ouch. I hope you recovered fully, or did it leave you with long term problems ?

But I also know of "the impossible" happening. OK it's third hand, but was told to me by someone I would trust not to be telling porkies. It was a few years ago now, before elf-n-safety really took off in the way it is now. Someone fell off (on a tin roof, in the rain, wearing galoschers) the roof of one of the big sheds at the local engineering works, landed on his legs from a height, shim bones out the bottom of his feet sort of injuries. And the next day, someone else went up to complete whatever it was, also in the wet, also wearing galoschers - though he didn't fall off.
I know some people will take the fact that the second guy didn't fall off as proof that there isn't a hazard to mitigate. The first guy rather blows that argument out of the water.

Not a large number of "known occurrences" in the grand scheme of things, but it's certainly not the zero claimed.

 

[bernardgreen]

You are so used to the "normal" situations that you just don't recognise the outliers that don't fit neatly into your predefined pidgeonholes - not an uncommon problem.

Very common problem when people in arm chairs are the people told to write the Health and Safety rules for those actually doing the work. And if the (wo)man in the chair is told about an exceptional set of circumstances that combine to create a hazard (s)he may decide the risk of those circumstances combining is so small it isn't worth spending time to think about how to protect people when those circumstances combine.

Being able to go into "What If" mode with an open and un-fettered mind when writing safety rules is essential.