How Does This Happen?

I agree with what you go on to say IF 'someone got hurt by it' - but how on earth is that likely (or not so likely!) to happen?

Kind Regards, John

Whilst I agree it's probably unlikely, there is always the possibility. I gave up being a safety rep a few years back but will don the hat again for this one.

Lets say there are two people standing next to the wall having a chat. One of them raises a hand to express a point, or point at something to the other person. As he/she raises their arm the back of their hand scrapes across the protruding screw head and they suffer either a cut or a deep scratch. That in itself is grounds for a claim. Lets take it a little further. The cut/scratch is not immediately reported or properly treated so develops an infection, (doesn't have to be a serious infection but an infection is an infection). This could give grounds for a bigger claim if they could prove where/when it occurred. Such proof could actually be as simple as posting on a social media site a picture of their scratch/cut on the day it happened to let their friends know what happened to them when they were in Wetherspoons for lunch.
Sounds a bit far fetched I know, but after sitting on safety panels over a number of years nothing surprises me when people report an incident. Once came across a guy who had trod on a nail in the service yard. He put a claim in and the company refuted the claim as he was responsible for ensuring the yard was kept clean of debris at all times. Went before a tribunal and the tribunal rejected his claim because, a/ it happened mid morning after he claimed to have already swept the yard. b/ the nail was sticking out of a piece of wood he stood on, which should have been removed when he claimed to have cleaned the yard earlier, c/ he admitted that after he had cleaned the yard earlier no one else had been out there and there had been no deliveries. He was there held responsible for not ensuring the yard was clean and safe.

By the way, I was not an active member in this case, merely an observer that all rules were being followed.
 
Sponsored Links
Whilst I agree it's probably unlikely, there is always the possibility. I gave up being a safety rep a few years back but will don the hat again for this one. ... Lets say there are two people standing next to the wall having a chat. One of them raises a hand to express a point, or point at something to the other person. As he/she raises their arm the back of their hand scrapes across the protruding screw head and they suffer either a cut or a deep scratch. ...
All true - but, as I have just written, there are probably countless things in most premises open to the public which could scratch, or even cut, them. I would say that it would make little sense to report those couple of protruding screw heads to the proprietors if one was not also going to seek out, and report, all the (undoubtedly many) other things in the premises which could 'scratch'.

Is it 'safe' for them to allow their customers to have cutlery or cocktail sticks etc?

In any event, this discussion has rather slipped, because I thought you were talking about issues which related to the fact that it was an electrical accessory. If we are just talking about the protruding screw heads (or anything else that could scratch/cut a person), then that's a rather different matter!

Kind Regards, John
 
As a safety officer, or any sort of manager, if I saw this or had it pointed out to me my first reaction would be to get it sorted immediately. My second thought would be, "If they have done this in open view what have they done that I can't see and could it be dangerous?"
If I was in a managerial position I would insist that a member of staff, higher up than the installer, visit the premises as soon as possible and give me a valid explanation as to why this was done in this manner. I doubt if they could come up with an acceptable explanation.
If a spark did this in your home would you accept it?
 
Sponsored Links
Nice to have a discussion without people insulting each other. ;)
 
I think Conny is coming from a perspective of what is clearly a potential hazard (albeit in reality probably not much of one) as opposed to something that one couldnt reasonably remediate against.

HSE, which I know is universally mocked, is really only there to protect against foreseeable issues and dangers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice to have a discussion without people insulting each other. ;)
I wouldn't count your chickens - this place has not been totally sterilised :)

Back on topic, I would hope that we would all agree that the bit of work we are discussing is apalling, ridiculous, shouldn't have happened and shouldn't be tolerated - but to try to make out that it is a significant 'safety' issue seems to be scraping the barrel to an extreme degree, when one considers how many minor (and similar) potential hazards there are in virtually any environment.

More seriously, is it not 'safety officers' etc. saying things like this that leads to all the (counter-productive) ridicule of " 'elf 'n safety "?

Kind Regards, John
 
I was an employee rep not an officer but I take your point.
Yes it is appalling and ridiculous but it does raise the question why it was done this way when there clearly is provision for doing it correctly. If he made an error in the opening I'm sure it would have been quite simple enough to rectify if he had been a tradesman.
 
I think Conny is coming from a perspective of what is clearly a potential hazard (albeit in reality probably not much of one) ...
I think he probably is - but, as I have said, the hazard presented by two slightly protruding screw heads (which quite probably don't even have sharp edges) is surely incredibly small, and no greater (probably less than, in many cases) the hazard presented by countless other things in almost any environment.

Just a few days ago, I scratched one of my fingers by brushing it against the end of a cup hook in my kitchen.
... as opposed to something that one couldnt reasonably remediate against.
Some of the 'hazards' comparable with those associated with those 'slightly protruding screws' might be difficult (unlikely to be impossible) to 'remedy', but I'm sure many of them could fairly easily be 'remedied' - if people thought there was a 'need'.
HSE, which I know is universally mocked, is really only there to protect against foreseeable issues and dangers.
Indeed - but, as I've said, isn't regarding these 'slightly protruding, quite probably smooth-edged, screw heads' as being a significant hazard a good example of one of those things which brings about all the mockery and ridicule which seriously undermines public perception of the actually well-intentioned true value and importance of HSE?

Kind Regards, John
 
Yes it is appalling and ridiculous but it does raise the question why it was done this way when there clearly is provision for doing it correctly. If he made an error in the opening I'm sure it would have been quite simple enough to rectify if he had been a tradesman.
Agreed - it's rather mysterious. In fact, what he/she did might even have taken more time/effort than a more acceptable solution would have taken. The explanation might be revealed if we could see what's behind the socket!

Kind Regards, John
 
I would be less worried about the screws being scratchy and more concerned about the IP breaches in the faceplate.
 
I would be less worried about the screws being scratchy and more concerned about the IP breaches in the faceplate.
As I said, we don't know what's going on behind the faceplate - so it might not be an IP breach.

In fact, on reflection, given that the holes are on the front, where the IP requirement is only IP2X, there's no way that they could represent an 'IP breach', is there (those holes are certainly not 12mm!)?

Kind Regards, John
 
I know what the regs say, but personally, I would consider that an IP breach. It's an unnecessary hole; the manufacturers have already provided two perfectly good fixing holes!

Not sure if the latest regs have anything in about installing to manufacturer's instructions or whether that has been taken out in 17th amendments or the 18th Ed?
 
I know what the regs say, but personally, I would consider that an IP breach.
Well, an 'an unnecessary hole' is clearly worse than 'no unnecessary hole' (from the point of view of aesthetics, if nothing else) - but, as I said before, it rather depeds upon what's behind the holes. If it is wood, the IP rating may well not have changed.
Not sure if the latest regs have anything in about installing to manufacturer's instructions or whether that has been taken out in 17th amendments or the 18th Ed?
I can't remember for sure when it changed (the last amendment of 17th, I think), but the original 'must' (or 'shall') comply with MIs changed to "must take MIs into account".

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top