Clean It Up
UK Window Cleaning Forum => Window Cleaning Forum => Topic started by: WILLIS on February 22, 2010, 02:59:40 pm
-
The recent topic and thread concerning flat roof safety and ladder work has generated a lot of interest from a wide range of window cleaners. All comments I read with interest. It has shown me just how urgent we need to clarify what the law actually says. This I plan to try and do at the Windex semminar
In the meantime!
I want to start with defining competency
To start with the Regulation 5 of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005 (statutory law which means you must comply with) states: “Every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height, or work equipment for use in such work, unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.”
Peter Bennett has recently supplied an excellent article online which spells out competency and is worth reading Peter is managing director of PASMA.
To see the full article on www.cleaning43.com or
SHP online http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=features&article_id=9782
Peter outlines ............Confusingly, there are various definitions of competence. Capability, ability, skill, fitness, aptitude, proficiency, and know-how: all of these descriptions fit most people’s understanding of the term in a work environment. In the context of this article, training could be best defined as the process of bringing a person to an agreed standard of competence by instruction and practice.
It would be reasonable to assume that competence and, by extension, the training to achieve competence, particularly in the field of working at height, would be universally acceptable and welcomed in the workplace, but, in reality, it depends on to whom you are speaking.
There is a suspicion among some sections of the workforce that this enthusiastic drive for competence is, at best, a posterior-covering exercise on the part of management, or, at worst, an effort to deflect responsibility, allowing blame to be attributed to the lowest echelon of the organisation.
In truth, it matters little what motivates organisations to aspire to achieve competence in their workforce, at any level, because the very existence of competence is empowering, if it is used and harnessed correctly. We may not always be in a position to significantly alter behaviour but, at the very least, we can be confident that a competent and therefore empowered workforce is, at least in theory, making an informed choice to make the right – or indeed, wrong – decision, with the benefit of knowledge of best practice.
And it is the last paragraph I strongly believe in
There are also two legal case law which defines competency
Case Law Brazier v Skipton Rock Co. Ltd Co. Ltd (1962)
Meaning of the word “competent” Considered by Mr Justice Winn.
Academic training and qualifications were not the only criteria in assessing competence, since experience may be an equally valid factor
Case Law Gibbs v Skibs A/S Marin (1966)
Justice Cantley considered the meaning of the expression “competent person” under the Docks Regulations 1934 “I think that a competent person………is a Person whom is a practical and reasonable person who knows what to look for and knows how to recognise it when they see it.”
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
It would then seem reasonable to apply the statutory law in Regulation 5 of the working at height regulations and the two case law and that to be deemed competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
-
Does that mean there's now going to be an NVQ in ladder climbing!!!
I wish we had competent government officials concocting all this new legislation.
This country has gone barking mad.
Woof,
Lance
-
The recent topic and thread concerning flat roof safety and ladder work has generated a lot of interest from a wide range of window cleaners. All comments I read with interest. It has shown me just how urgent we need to clarify what the law actually says. This I plan to try and do at the Windex semminar
In the meantime!
I want to start with defining competency
To start with the Regulation 5 of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005 (statutory law which means you must comply with) states: “Every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height, or work equipment for use in such work, unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.”
Peter Bennett has recently supplied an excellent article online which spells out competency and is worth reading Peter is managing director of PASMA.
To see the full article on www.cleaning43.com or
SHP online http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=features&article_id=9782
Peter outlines ............Confusingly, there are various definitions of competence. Capability, ability, skill, fitness, aptitude, proficiency, and know-how: all of these descriptions fit most people’s understanding of the term in a work environment. In the context of this article, training could be best defined as the process of bringing a person to an agreed standard of competence by instruction and practice.
It would be reasonable to assume that competence and, by extension, the training to achieve competence, particularly in the field of working at height, would be universally acceptable and welcomed in the workplace, but, in reality, it depends on to whom you are speaking.
There is a suspicion among some sections of the workforce that this enthusiastic drive for competence is, at best, a posterior-covering exercise on the part of management, or, at worst, an effort to deflect responsibility, allowing blame to be attributed to the lowest echelon of the organisation.
In truth, it matters little what motivates organisations to aspire to achieve competence in their workforce, at any level, because the very existence of competence is empowering, if it is used and harnessed correctly. We may not always be in a position to significantly alter behaviour but, at the very least, we can be confident that a competent and therefore empowered workforce is, at least in theory, making an informed choice to make the right – or indeed, wrong – decision, with the benefit of knowledge of best practice.
And it is the last paragraph I strongly believe in
There are also two legal case law which defines competency
Case Law Brazier v Skipton Rock Co. Ltd Co. Ltd (1962)
Meaning of the word “competent” Considered by Mr Justice Winn.
Academic training and qualifications were not the only criteria in assessing competence, since experience may be an equally valid factor
Case Law Gibbs v Skibs A/S Marin (1966)
Justice Cantley considered the meaning of the expression “competent person” under the Docks Regulations 1934 “I think that a competent person………is a Person whom is a practical and reasonable person who knows what to look for and knows how to recognise it when they see it.”
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
It would then seem reasonable to apply the statutory law in Regulation 5 of the working at height regulations and the two case law and that to be deemed competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
Jesus! Willis put it in plain english
Can't you understand why all this gobbdygook is such crap for any normal person? If you talk like you write I'd be asleep within two minutes at one of your seminars!
-
Difficulty bit is you could be trained but not experienced therefore not "Competent".
To gain experience you would have to spend some time using ladders without being "Competent".
-
Good post Willis, and thanks for trying to enlighten us.
The problem for many of us is that we are not lawyers, and of course laws are written in legal terminology, I guess your challenge is trying to explain them in layman's terms.
These regulations have to be presented in a way that any potential employer would understand.
The hard fact is mate, that there are loads of youngsters on the dole, and loads of window cleaners too scared to employ them.
The word practicable is enough to frighten many of us, because that word alone is a subject for legal discussion.
There are many of us who would employ, but it just seems too much hassle
-
So Willis,
Given your comments if i asked you to recomend just one good ladder safety device, which would it be and why?
(two storey and gutters)
-
The recent topic and thread concerning flat roof safety and ladder work has generated a lot of interest from a wide range of window cleaners. All comments I read with interest. It has shown me just how urgent we need to clarify what the law actually says. This I plan to try and do at the Windex semminar
In the meantime!
I want to start with defining competency
To start with the Regulation 5 of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005 (statutory law which means you must comply with) states: “Every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height, or work equipment for use in such work, unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.”
Peter Bennett has recently supplied an excellent article online which spells out competency and is worth reading Peter is managing director of PASMA.
To see the full article on www.cleaning43.com or
SHP online http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=features&article_id=9782
Peter outlines ............Confusingly, there are various definitions of competence. Capability, ability, skill, fitness, aptitude, proficiency, and know-how: all of these descriptions fit most people’s understanding of the term in a work environment. In the context of this article, training could be best defined as the process of bringing a person to an agreed standard of competence by instruction and practice.
It would be reasonable to assume that competence and, by extension, the training to achieve competence, particularly in the field of working at height, would be universally acceptable and welcomed in the workplace, but, in reality, it depends on to whom you are speaking.
There is a suspicion among some sections of the workforce that this enthusiastic drive for competence is, at best, a posterior-covering exercise on the part of management, or, at worst, an effort to deflect responsibility, allowing blame to be attributed to the lowest echelon of the organisation.
In truth, it matters little what motivates organisations to aspire to achieve competence in their workforce, at any level, because the very existence of competence is empowering, if it is used and harnessed correctly. We may not always be in a position to significantly alter behaviour but, at the very least, we can be confident that a competent and therefore empowered workforce is, at least in theory, making an informed choice to make the right – or indeed, wrong – decision, with the benefit of knowledge of best practice.
And it is the last paragraph I strongly believe in
There are also two legal case law which defines competency
Case Law Brazier v Skipton Rock Co. Ltd Co. Ltd (1962)
Meaning of the word “competent” Considered by Mr Justice Winn.
Academic training and qualifications were not the only criteria in assessing competence, since experience may be an equally valid factor
Case Law Gibbs v Skibs A/S Marin (1966)
Justice Cantley considered the meaning of the expression “competent person” under the Docks Regulations 1934 “I think that a competent person………is a Person whom is a practical and reasonable person who knows what to look for and knows how to recognise it when they see it.”
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
It would then seem reasonable to apply the statutory law in Regulation 5 of the working at height regulations and the two case law and that to be deemed competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
Jesus! Willis put it in plain english for * sake!
Can't you understand why all this gobbdygook is such crap for any normal person? If you talk like you write I'd be asleep within two minutes at one of your seminars!
Good point hard to please all as when I spell it out simply, users read into what they want so just for you
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
-
So Willis,
Given your comments if i asked you to recomend just one good ladder safety device, which would it be and why?
(two storey and gutters)
Not to use a ladder
-
Good post Willis, and thanks for trying to enlighten us.
The problem for many of us is that we are not lawyers, and of course laws are written in legal terminology, I guess your challenge is trying to explain them in layman's terms.
These regulations have to be presented in a way that any potential employer would understand.
The hard fact is mate, that there are loads of youngsters on the dole, and loads of window cleaners too scared to employ them.
The word practicable is enough to frighten many of us, because that word alone is a subject for legal discussion.
There are many of us who would employ, but it just seems too much hassle
I agree
The problem is that we have a lot of legislation that at times is daunting to comply with
I hope the FWC and other areas I am involved with we can have some input into making it clearer and easy to comply with
Hope you can make the seminars at Windex
-
I have some trade ladders three sections 2.4 closed so that they fit inside the roof of my scudo maxi, a stand off, and ladder limpets.
I'm wfp, but case law from 1934 notwithstanding i do have to use ladders at times to do my job.
I don't think your seminar has much for me.
-
I have some trade ladders three sections 2.4 closed so that they fit inside the roof of my scudo maxi, a stand off, and ladder limpets.
I'm wfp, but case law from 1934 notwithstanding i do have to use ladders at times to do my job.
I don't think your seminar has much for me.
Then what was the point of asking about LSD for 2nd floor gutter cleaning
-
To find out what the advice was.
-
hi andy
i am definately looking forward to speaking to you, i agree some sort of initial training is needed for ladder use but a training course is not the answer as i can easily demonstrate to you at the windex show.
you also replied to one question about what ladder device to use on a 2 story building for gutter clean your response was dont use a ladder,without knowing further facts about the job your answer could be tottally wrong for instance what are the ground conditions of the job what is access like to get equipment to area needing cleaning, what time duration will the task take if you weigh up all these questions then often a ladder may be the best tool for the job, this is the attitude i am faced with every week when some know it all safety officer rules out certain equipment without using common sense and looking at the true risks of each method.
you also talk about competancy how many H and S officers are competant in ladder use as most have no experience but they still come up with stupid advice, you need to read the loughborough university comic on ladder use and how to foot a ladder to give you an idea of what i am on about, then you have the 3 points of contact rule have you ever tried changing lightbulbs using just one hand again it was a rule made without looking at real life situations.
-
It may seem i was looking for a row, but i was only asking.If there is no practical advice what use is any of this.
-
If you talk like you write I'd be asleep within two minutes at one of your seminars!
;D
-
Willis, why oh why do you have to produce such waffle? Is this how the NVQ is produced also?
That's pretty much how an NVQ was based in the print industry. 10% substance wrapped up in 80% waffle. A massive file of waste paper full of ridiculous words and long winded phrases. Why can't you just call a spade a spade?
I'm betting a window cleaning NVQ could be wrapped up in two hours in plain english
Madness ::)
-
hi andy
i am definately looking forward to speaking to you, i agree some sort of initial training is needed for ladder use but a training course is not the answer as i can easily demonstrate to you at the windex show.
you also replied to one question about what ladder device to use on a 2 story building for gutter clean your response was dont use a ladder,without knowing further facts about the job your answer could be tottally wrong for instance what are the ground conditions of the job what is access like to get equipment to area needing cleaning, what time duration will the task take if you weigh up all these questions then often a ladder may be the best tool for the job, this is the attitude i am faced with every week when some know it all safety officer rules out certain equipment without using common sense and looking at the true risks of each method.
you also talk about competancy how many H and S officers are competant in ladder use as most have no experience but they still come up with stupid advice, you need to read the loughborough university comic on ladder use and how to foot a ladder to give you an idea of what i am on about, then you have the 3 points of contact rule have you ever tried changing lightbulbs using just one hand again it was a rule made without looking at real life situations.
I think you have some interesting points and also valid, I would also presume this willis bloke was just humouring the question. He would have to spend god knows how much time just finding the ins and outs of the works setup before being able to give realistic advice and why would he want to do that.
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
Although I think alot of H&S is abit too much too chew sometimes the advice he does supply is quite direct and user friendly unless you are a numpty... although my advice would be don't waste your time with most of the cowboys on here who just want an argument
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
Maybe sometimes you could justify it although the regs do also say
ensure that no work is done at height if it is safe and reasonably practicable to
do it other than at height;
Reasonably practicable = cost, time, effort, inconvenience vs risk
can you tell me you can justify not using a gutter vac or similar, price of you buying one to the price of your or an employees life?
I know what is worth more to me
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
I don't think it means if YOU have the equipment rather that the equipment is availiable.
-
Willis,
Interesting post, thought provoking.
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
Based on the two legal precedents you have quoted this statement does not lead me to the same conclusion as you. Should it not read Competency therefore = experience and knowledge and training will help.
Qualification alone will not deliver competency, knowledge alone will not deliver competency only experience of the three can on its own give competence. Not saying it always will but it is the only one that can deliver it on its own.
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
I don't think it means if YOU have the equipment rather that the equipment is availiable.
Yes that is right
Where it also says plan for emergencies and rescue; i take it if you fall from a ladder and hurt yourself it can be classed as an emergency, so should we have a written plan for this as an emergency procedure?
-
Willis,
Interesting post, thought provoking.
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
Based on the two legal precedents you have quoted this statement does not lead me to the same conclusion as you. Should it not read Competency therefore = experience and knowledge and training will help.
Qualification alone will not deliver competency, knowledge alone will not deliver competency only experience of the three can on its own give competence. Not saying it always will but it is the only one that can deliver it on its own.
Please tell me your not being serious
the whole point is none of these three things alone mean you are competent it takes a mixture of all three to mean you are a competent person
Experiance & Knowledge & qualification = competent
-
probably n ot put very well old timer but the point I was trying to make was that I dont value the qualification aspect of the equation to the same extent as the experience.
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
I don't think it means if YOU have the equipment rather that the equipment is availiable.
In that case are you saying anyone who cleans a gutter out and accesses it by ladder is breaking the law as they could have hired a gutter-vac?
-
Willis, why oh why do you have to produce such waffle? Is this how the NVQ is produced also?
That's pretty much how an NVQ was based in the print industry. 10% substance wrapped up in 80% waffle. A massive file of waste paper full of ridiculous words and long winded phrases. Why can't you just call a spade a spade?
I'm betting a window cleaning NVQ could be wrapped up in two hours in plain english
Madness ::)
Lets not be so hard on Willis, we dont want to scare him off.
He has come on here to give us the benefit of his wisdom, not to be attacked.
-
probably n ot put very well old timer but the point I was trying to make was that I dont value the qualification aspect of the equation to the same extent as the experience.
No I agree the experiance part is vital in the equation but the other two have a great importance too
You may be the most experianced shiner in the world but how do you know you have been doing it correctly/safely and to the law with out the qaulification part?
Not a dig just expressing my opinion
-
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
Qualifications do not mean you are competent by any stretch of the imagination. They simply mean you have attended a course and are able to recount what you were taught. Having a degree in geology doesnt make you a competent geologist.
I would much prefer to judge someones competence by their experience rather than their level of qualification.
-
Willis, why oh why do you have to produce such waffle? Is this how the NVQ is produced also?
That's pretty much how an NVQ was based in the print industry. 10% substance wrapped up in 80% waffle. A massive file of waste paper full of ridiculous words and long winded phrases. Why can't you just call a spade a spade?
I'm betting a window cleaning NVQ could be wrapped up in two hours in plain english
Madness ::)
Lets not be so hard on Willis, we dont want to scare him off.
He has come on here to give us the benefit of his wisdom, not to be attacked.
sorry, wrong time of the month :)
-
i had a bad fall on a ladder 2 weeks ago on a holiday village, it was on 3.5 meter ladder( i have 20 years experience on them) it was not extended and i had ladder mits bolted on and also some new feet on the bottoms. the ladders were stood on grass and i could not belive it when the ladder slipped right from underneath me. my brother then came running over and was shocked to see what had happend. i then shouted are my feet pointing in the right direction, he replied yes, i said thats ok then. I was hurt bad and was sick all over with the shock guess what i did next?
got right back on that ladder the next day
-
Willis, why oh why do you have to produce such waffle? Is this how the NVQ is produced also?
That's pretty much how an NVQ was based in the print industry. 10% substance wrapped up in 80% waffle. A massive file of waste paper full of ridiculous words and long winded phrases. Why can't you just call a spade a spade?
I'm betting a window cleaning NVQ could be wrapped up in two hours in plain english
Madness ::)
Lets not be so hard on Willis, we dont want to scare him off.
He has come on here to give us the benefit of his wisdom, not to be attacked.
Couldn't agree more but you have to remember the forum has no filter for idiotism, so unfortunately we will get it
-
Also what he was saying is probably correct as the working at height regs state avoid working at height if you don't need too, the gutter vac or similar are more than visible in this case
The Working at Height regs say if there is an alternative method which is safer then not to use ladders.
If you havent got a gutter-vac sometimes a ladder is the safest method.
I don't think it means if YOU have the equipment rather that the equipment is availiable.
In that case are you saying anyone who cleans a gutter out and accesses it by ladder is breaking the law as they could have hired a gutter-vac?
It's not so much a matter of breaking the law as much as using the best equipment for the job. So yes, hiring a gutter vac is a better option than going up a ladder. Same as using WFP is generally a better option than using a ladder.
-
I was speaking to a regular member from this forum a couple or so weeks ago on the phone who owns a gutter-vac. He was telling me how after investing all that moneuy quite often its just easier to get the ladders off and get on with the job of gutter cleaning without all the aggro of setting the thing up ???
-
i had a bad fall on a ladder 2 weeks ago on a holiday village, it was on 3.5 meter ladder( i have 20 years experience on them) it was not extended and i had ladder mits bolted on and also some new feet on the bottoms. the ladders were stood on grass and i could not belive it when the ladder slipped right from underneath me. my brother then came running over and was shocked to see what had happend. i then shouted are my feet pointing in the right direction, he replied yes, i said thats ok then. I was hurt bad and was sick all over with the shock guess what i did next?
got right back on that ladder the next day
If your bro was there why didn't you have him footing the ladder for you, glad you are not too badly hurt but play with fire and don't protect yourself you will get burn't..... maybe carry some cream around from now on, if you get my drift
-
I was speaking to a regular member from this forum a couple or so weeks ago on the phone who owns a gutter-vac. He was telling me how after investing all that moneuy quite often its just easier to get the ladders off and get on with the job of gutter cleaning without all the aggro of setting the thing up ???
Let's hope he doesn't fall off his ladder at some point and think if only i had used my gutter vac, it's as i said before i know what is worth more to me
-
I wonder if they have discussions on motoring forums about not using the roads?
-
You can't use a guttervac on every job. What do you do then - use a cherry picker on a residential property and charge them £400 'cos a ladder could be dangerous?
-
I wonder if they have discussions on motoring forums about not using the roads?
You can't drive anymore - there is a safer alternative - walking on the pavement.
-
I wonder if they have discussions on motoring forums about not using the roads?
I know they certainly don`t have this type of discussion at councils, that house children in blocks of flats, with easy access to balcony`s.
-
I wonder if they have discussions on motoring forums about not using the roads?
You can't drive anymore - there is a safer alternative - walking on the pavement.
Exactly, theres ALWAYS a safer alternative.
Theres safer than walking, its called staying in.
Theres safer than staying in, its called not getting up.
Theres safer than not getting up, its called duvet diving.
Its about being realistic. I wonder if people get being incompetent confused with being unrealistic.
-
Don't the 'regulations' state that if you are going to be up a ladder for 30(i'm sure it was that long) minutes or so then a quicker method is required. Feel free to correct me :).
-
You can't use a guttervac on every job. What do you do then - use a cherry picker on a residential property and charge them £400 'cos a ladder could be dangerous?
No that is when as a competent person if you are, you risk assess it and choose the most appropriate method for the task ahead. just a thought, if an accident was to happen do you think it is the inspector who will have to prove you did it in an un safe way or you who has to prove you met all legislation and best practice
Oh and if you are using the ladder you must make sure the user is competent to use it and the ladder has been inspected by a competent person, the ground is suitable and you take into account falling objects.
Thats alot to think about when all you need to do is chuck a ladder up and clean the gutter
and after all that ladderwork is only suitable for short durations 15-30 mins...lets hope it is a small gutter
-
i havnt used a guttervac but on looking at them i can see they carry risks too ie the use of electricity in wet conditions debris falling from gutters on yourself and passers by, the chance of dislodging loose cast iron guttering not to mention sections of guttervac becoming loose and falling then there is manual handling issues i know some on here have mentioned thatwhen guttervac pole is full of debris it can become very heavy if this is in someones hands with no experience and held at an awkward angle this could become a dangerous situation so these risks also have to be looked at, just because you are working from the ground doesnt always make it safer.
i am not trying to be argumentative with andy but discussions like this may lead to some better guidelines than what are being put forward at the moment
-
Is the 15-30 minute duration, per pitch of the ladder or per job?
-
i havnt used a guttervac but on looking at them i can see they carry risks too ie the use of electricity in wet conditions debris falling from gutters on yourself and passers by, the chance of dislodging loose cast iron guttering not to mention sections of guttervac becoming loose and falling then there is manual handling issues i know some on here have mentioned thatwhen guttervac pole is full of debris it can become very heavy if this is in someones hands with no experience and held at an awkward angle this could become a dangerous situation so these risks also have to be looked at, just because you are working from the ground doesnt always make it safer.
i am not trying to be argumentative with andy but discussions like this may lead to some better guidelines than what are being put forward at the moment
Good point, i suppose it is a case of looking at what is the most hazardous by risk rating each method and what are the easiest to control by using collective measures and the use of PPE
-
Is the 15-30 minute duration, per pitch of the ladder or per job?
HSE guidance states the following 'Only work on a ladder for a maximum of 15 - 30 minutes at a time' - in one position
Not the clearest of advice though is it
-
Is the 15-30 minute duration, per pitch of the ladder or per job?
HSE guidance states the following 'Only work on a ladder for a maximum of 15 - 30 minutes at a time' - in one position
Not the clearest of advice though is it
As clear as mud!
There isn't a window on my round that i couldn't clean within that time frame,or indeed did clean until i went WFP
-
the federation did a video on ladder use called walk up walk down i think and it had terry burrows using the ladder there are a few instances where the ladder was placed in positions where any one with any competancy would have positioned ladder totally different than what is shown, in one instance the ladder was placed out slightly further so it was on the flags instead of the grass because flags are a firm solid base, but what if the flags had been slippy the safest place to position ladder would of been in the grass up against the flag edge
-
HSE guidance states the following 'Only work on a ladder for a maximum of 15 - 30 minutes at a time' - in one position
I find any longer and the bird Im trying to ogle from the 7th rung has cottoned on to the fact that there is some pervert still hanging around halfway up his ladder and he normally never takes that long on a job.
-
the cleaning industry is dangerous in all aspects you can control the risks by doing more courses educating your employees but does not mean that you wiil prevent all accidents alltogether and that you will never have them?
-
HSE guidance states the following 'Only work on a ladder for a maximum of 15 - 30 minutes at a time' - in one position
I find any longer and the bird Im trying to ogliefrom the 7th rung has cottoned on to the fact that there is some pervert still hanging around halfway up his ladder and he normally never takes that long on a job.
Don't you only know the one position anyway Matt? ;)
-
Im sat here trying to think which one that is, so it would seem I dont even know that one ;)
-
Ha ha. Same here. ;D
-
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
SO what you're saying is that by your convoluted definition to be competent we have to do a qualification, which AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT you happen to provide. Uncanny that is
Why dont you stop spamming this forum, and least tell us how much you claim from the government for each window cleaner you con into doing one of your pointless NVQs. How much is it? is it £500?
-
Some of the above comments show just how difficult it is to help some see the importance of their own safety.
If you decide to use ladders or scaffold or cherry picker or gutter vac a risk assessment will show that you have thought about what you are doing. If you employ or have contractors work for you it is a must (actually you only need to provide written risk assessments if you employ 5 or more but it will cover your back nontheless)
As for cost and time. If it costs to hire a gutter vac or extra stuff in order to do a job, pass it on. A lot of times we price up a job based on what WE would pay and try to fit it to the time rater than work out the cost and profit and charge accordingly. We dont HAVE to take on every job we get enquiries about.
-
I dont think the issue is operatives not seeing the importance of their own safety.
I am fully aware of my own mortality. I am also equally aware of my own competence.
It is the ones that assume we arent capable and competent, assume we are inexperienced and assume we are not capable of making judgements and decisions that we have done on a daily basis (on numerous occasions) for years and years that are the ones who are unaware.
-
I dont think the issue is operatives not seeing the importance of their own safety.
I am fully aware of my own mortality. I am also equally aware of my own competence.
It is the ones that assume we arent capable and competent, assume we are inexperienced and assume we are not capable of making judgements and decisions that we have done on a daily basis (on numerous occasions) for years and years that are the ones who are unaware.
I think that is part of the problem. Because we have done the same thing for years and years bad habits evolve without our noticing them.
-
Thats just complacency on your part, going on a course wont change that.
-
I have some trade ladders three sections 2.4 closed so that they fit inside the roof of my scudo maxi, a stand off, and ladder limpets.
I'm wfp, but case law from 1934 notwithstanding i do have to use ladders at times to do my job.
I don't think your seminar has much for me.
Then what was the point of asking about LSD
i had a guy working for me a few years back, he was on the old wacky baccy, but he said he wouldnt go up ladders on LSD 8)
i will get me coat ;D
-
I have some trade ladders three sections 2.4 closed so that they fit inside the roof of my scudo maxi, a stand off, and ladder limpets.
I'm wfp, but case law from 1934 notwithstanding i do have to use ladders at times to do my job.
I don't think your seminar has much for me.
Then what was the point of asking about LSD
i had a guy working for me a few years back, he was on the old wacky baccy, but he said he wouldnt go up ladders on LSD 8)
i will get me coat ;D
Surely being on LSD is trip hazard, & a different subject all together. ;D ;D
-
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
SO what you're saying is that by your convoluted definition to be competent we have to do a qualification, which AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT you happen to provide. Uncanny that is
Why dont you stop spamming this forum, and least tell us how much you claim from the government for each window cleaner you con into doing one of your pointless NVQs. How much is it? is it £500?
Let me spell something out to you DR Windows
You can comment all you like on this forum but the minute you start quoting incorrect and libellous information you will need to back it up and that will always go for any other forum user.
For your benefit
Libel is when a person's name or reputation is brought into disrepute as a result of something which has been written and published...just writing something libellous isn't enough - it must be read by another.
So the statement(s) must be made...about a particular person or class of persons...the statement must be read by others and it must be such as to cause the readers to hold the subject in contempt or disdain
-
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
SO what you're saying is that by your convoluted definition to be competent we have to do a qualification, which AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT you happen to provide. Uncanny that is
Why dont you stop spamming this forum, and least tell us how much you claim from the government for each window cleaner you con into doing one of your pointless NVQs. How much is it? is it £500?
Let me spell something out to you DR Windows
You can comment all you like on this forum but the minute you start quoting incorrect and libellous information you will need to back it up and that will always go for any other forum user.
For your benefit
Libel is when a person's name or reputation is brought into disrepute as a result of something which has been written and published...just writing something libellous isn't enough - it must be read by another.
So the statement(s) must be made...about a particular person or class of persons...the statement must be read by others and it must be such as to cause the readers to hold the subject in contempt or disdain
I agree that we shouldn't indulge in libellous statements, points such as DR has made can be expressed effectively without using libellous language.
On the other hand, of course, the person being libelled has to demonstrate that the statements made really are libellous. It's not enough simply to say that they are.
-
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
SO what you're saying is that by your convoluted definition to be competent we have to do a qualification, which AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT you happen to provide. Uncanny that is
Why dont you stop spamming this forum, and least tell us how much you claim from the government for each window cleaner you con into doing one of your pointless NVQs. How much is it? is it £500?
Let me spell something out to you DR Windows
You can comment all you like on this forum but the minute you start quoting incorrect and libellous information you will need to back it up and that will always go for any other forum user.
For your benefit
Libel is when a person's name or reputation is brought into disrepute as a result of something which has been written and published...just writing something libellous isn't enough - it must be read by another.
So the statement(s) must be made...about a particular person or class of persons...the statement must be read by others and it must be such as to cause the readers to hold the subject in contempt or disdain
I agree that we shouldn't indulge in libellous statements, points such as DR has made can be expressed effectively without using libellous language.
On the other hand, of course, the person being libelled has to demonstrate that the statements made really are libellous. It's not enough simply to say that they are.
Ian your quite right ………however he carry’s on like he has on some of his recent posts and I will clearly demonstrate how effective law is
-
What I'm saying is simply my opinion. I am not intimidated by your pathetic threats.
Why dont you just answer the question: How much do you claim from the government for every window cleaner who does one of your NVQs?
Its a simple enough question. Lets see if you can answer it.
-
I'm not sure any of the legal comments are correct; this is cyberspace, and we are freely discoursing as forum members.
The mods ask us to be polite to guests because driving people with expetise away has happened before and we are the poorer for it.
What normaly happens in class, are their never any advese comments?
-
Ie.
there is an implied or impliciit acceptance that your opinion or what you state as fact can be challenged or ridiculed.The idea is that you fight your corner via debating skills.
-
What I'm saying is simply my opinion. I am not intimidated by your pathetic threats.
Why dont you just answer the question: How much do you claim from the government for every window cleaner who does one of your NVQs?
Its a simple enough question. Lets see if you can answer it.
If you really need an answer to that, do it under the freedom of information act, but does it matter how much the guy gets paid?
Am I missing something here? In reading this thread I see Willis responding to questions on safety issues, not pursuing a hidden agenda to drum up trade for his courses.
-
Oh crikey it's happened again!
We get the blame for this stuff as bullies but i didn't see anything defamatory?
What do the rest of you think? were we out of order or was he too sensitive?
-
Oh bloomin 'eck Slumpy, what you done now?
Your always in the middle of it :o
-
What I'm saying is simply my opinion. I am not intimidated by your pathetic threats.
Why dont you just answer the question: How much do you claim from the government for every window cleaner who does one of your NVQs?
Its a simple enough question. Lets see if you can answer it.
Normally I would feel embarrassed by someone demanding to know what another is charging for their services, as you would if another window cleaner demanded to know what you charge - it's none of their business and they have no right to know. However in this instance it can't be denied that Willis has a financial interest in advocating training for as many people as possible, and it could be argued that this thread is being used as a vehicle to do just that.
In view of that I think DR has a valid point - Willis should at least acknowledge that his motive is not entirely altruistic - he may well passionately believe in the benefit of training as a means to reduce accidents, but at the same time he stands to gain by expressing that belief on this forum.
-
Well done lads. Yet another source of good info has deleted their accounts due to the hounding of pathetic children with nothing better to do.
Hope your proud of yourselves.
-
So give me just one example, one fact, one piece of good info that was given here?
On the other thread- accessing flat roofs- i admitt there was some info that was pertinent, but blimey the legal definiion of a competent person, where does that fit in?
-
i am sorry andy willis has deleted his account and although i disagree with much of what he says at least he was in a position to see what problems we face with the health and safety legislation as it stands and could pass this on at the meetings he attends, as for what he earns then that is his business and he is not a charity but offering a service and it is our decision whether we accept that service or not,i still look forward to speaking to you at windex andy.
i dont think slumpy was wrong in asking the question in hope of an answer but may be andy should be a bit more thick skinned and not throw his dummy out as easy.
Trevor
-
I didn't ask that was someone else..... but don't worry i'm not litigous.
-
i thought advertising on here wasnt allowed isnt that what he was doing ???
-
Thought it was a very reasonable question myself.
-
Mr Wallis clearly knows his stuff, but I don`t think he has done himself any favours by "speaking down" to people!
The trouble is, this attitude in itself can be off putting & intimidating to quieter people, who may have questions for him.
-
Had he prefaced his post with a comment like , "I am in the training game and not exactly unbiased on this but what are your opinions on ................
Then he would have been open and upfront.
-
[quote author drwindows link=topic=91213.msg814522#msg814522 date=1266886504]
competent is to have both practical experience and qualification
SO what you're saying is that by your convoluted definition to be competent we have to do a qualification, which AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT you happen to provide. Uncanny that is
Why dont you stop spamming this forum, and least tell us how much you claim from the government for each window cleaner you con into doing one of your pointless NVQs. How much is it? is it £500?
I read this reply by DRwindows this morning and thought it totally disrespectful, I imagine that Willis has deleted his account in disgust.
When someone is attacked in this manner, no matter what his replies might be, someone will pounce and gleefully pick it apart, for the likes of Willis (or some others who suffer the same fate) it is a lose-lose situation.
I personally didn't agree with all that Willis said but in no way do I believe he was on here trying to promote himself or to drum up applicants for his course(s) to make more money for himself.
His expertise and depth of knowledge with regards to health and safety (as laid down in official regulations and documentation) far exceeds our own on here.
Others may read and interpret the regulations differently, usually trying to find some imagined/perceived loophole they can use...ie, I've read many that claim that as cleaning a window is only short duration then it is fine and dandy to continue working off a ladder.
That may hold water if you are say, a builder and nip up a ladder to clean just a couple of windows on a single house, not so if you are a window cleaner climbing ladders several hours a day, 5 days a week, year in and year out.
Willis (or others of his ilk) will tell you how such interpretations will be viewed by those in authority.
No matter how we might rail and chaff in angry frustration at the asinine doctrine thrown at us by qualified "experts" who have little or no practical experience (in the use of ladders where we are concerned, and I exclude Willis in this as he most plainly does have said experience) where the law is concerned, and where insurance claims are concerned and where apportioning blame in the event of accidents are concerned, it is those so called experts who will be listened to, and not us.
But yet again this forum has pushed away another expert in an area that is of no little importance to us all.
Ewan mentions that this kind of banter can happen to anyone, and not just suppliers or experts in this field or that, unfortunately it is this kind of behaviour that scares off many from posting through fear of being held to ridicule.
Ewan himself is often very forthright, on one reply of his I smiled to myself as he put forth his opinion of what a particular supplier might say, and to also say that whatever he said it would be basically a load of flannel ::)
How can anyone defend themselves if their protagonists are determined to disbelieve them no matter what they might say? Even when they haven't said anything!!
AS a moderator by the way I am not attacking (or trying to moderate) either Drwindows or Ewan, its just my opinion as a forum member.
Ia
-
The problem is as Ian has outlined, it seems that only the hardened 'boneheads' stay on this forum (and I include myself in that number even though I have deleted my account several times) therefore it makes you wonder about the quality of the advice. :(
-
Well said Ia (n) I often waffle as well but so does everybody else on here, occasionally new members especially those with a more serious point to make do get upset by all of this.
There should be a warning on CIU, to attach a few duck feathers to there skin prior to posting. They still get there point across to many.
PS. Stop having a go at me.
My deepest apologies for hurting your feelings kind Ewan :P One keeps forgetting how easily hurt and upset you get...gentle soul that you are..... ;D
I (an)
-
That's the best post i've seen you make Ian, and you have made many very good ones.You summarised the various things involved very well.
I did think he was a bit boring, and couldn't understand some of his points particulary why a legal defintion of competence was needed for us to understand. When you begin a thread as a lecture you are rather asking for it.
I asked for advice on two storey ladder work and which safety device.His reply was don't use ladders.If it is really that simple, why not just tip us the wink, listen lads what it means is you can't use ladders, even if they are not 'banned'.
Other experts seem to think you can use ladders. I wasn't after an argument, i just thought he would have good info.
-
That's the best post i've seen you make Ian, and you have made many very good ones.You summarised the various things involved very well.
I did think he was a bit boring, and couldn't understand some of his points particulary why a legal defintion of competence was needed for us to understand. When you begin a thread as a lecture you are rather asking for it.
I asked for advice on two storey ladder work and which safety device.His reply was don't use ladders.If it is really that simple, why not just tip us the wink, listen lads what it means is you can't use ladders, even if they are not 'banned'.
Other experts seem to think you can use ladders. I wasn't after an argument, i just thought he would have good info.
He did have some good info it's just that some wanted to argue and ridicule.
-
Except that i've already asked you and you can't give me one concrete example.
-
Slump, I would have been interested in a sensible reply too, and not just, 'Don't use a ladder' Even if he had fired a load of qualifying questions at you with regards to the exact circumstances so he could have given you a well considered reply.
Tough old proving ground this forum innit eh? :-\
Ian
-
I could sense the way things were going, and I did try and pour a bit of oil on what were becoming increasingly troubled waters.
Whatever Willets agenda was didn't really matter, as someone else said nobody has to sign up for a course.
The point is, even if he was using this forum for his own ends, and I don't think he was, in him we had the nearest we were going to get to our own health and safety expert.
If nothing else, we could have printed off his replies to show we had taken all practicable precautions.
Sometimes, when we think we are seeing the bigger picture, we are suffering from tunnel vision.
Some of the posters on here would make crap poker players, and would be even worse at chess.
-
I'll just point out that he deleted straight after your previous post Dai,So much for balm over troubled waters from you.In defending him you spelt out the exact thing he was being asked to answer. IE, building a case that mean't competence had to include a suitable qualification, ergo a course would seem sensible.
-
Competent person in some quarters does mean a qualification.
-
I think all of you have to take a step back.
1. Qualified individuals learned by experience. When any qualification is formed they will take someone very experienced to teach and access whether or not they have achieved a desired level. A qualification is just a piece of paper, its what is stands for that counts. In my mind it stands for someone with experience who can do the job, and has demonstrated that ability. So qualified and experienced is not the much different from each other in some respects.
2. We are talking about window cleaning. There will always be ladders used in the trade for the foreseeable future. The legislation on the use of them is clearly unclear and(not a pun about wilis's post) but waffle. Waffle that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Just as Ian has pointed out with respected to the point on time spent on a ladder(per rack or per job?). I truly believe that it only serves the purpose of making sure the blame falls at the operator or business door step's, and in fairness rightly so, as if an accident was to happen and someone else was hurt we would be responsible, and should therefore take proper precautions to ensure that any incidents are avoided. It is just unfortunate that they didn't apply common sense and clarity when writing the legislation, and it is this type of ridiculous regs that have our teachers calling a black board a chalk board because it could be taken as racist. I am afraid they have just taken it too far. Just as we would use experienced window cleaners to teach and access a qualification they should have allowed window cleaners and operators of ladders to write the legislation, and maybe would have had something clear and practical and we could all follow and achieve if willing.
-
Good post Ladder garder.
Matt
-
This is just my opinion, but we are a fairly tough audience, and any H&S guy that comes on here has to put his subject across in a way that adds interest.
He could site real examples or give us for instances, but quoting legal test cases from 1934 and defintiions of competent persons is not the way forward.Who is competent to shut an airport for H&S, an airline pilot of thirty years standing or a recently qualified air traffic controller? Who is the most qualified, the most competent?
As regards ladders, a flat surface, 75degree angle, and an appropraite ladder safety device would seem a good basic starting point. Larger businesses and commercial work probably need more consideration, but if even the basics can't be gotten across i doubt more complicated situations would have been made any clearer for us.
-
The problem is Slumpy that it is the opinion of those who apply the rules that is important as it is the 'rule keeper' who decides competancy. Sadly they may well choose the recently qualified newbie.
Good robust debate though!! ;D
-
The problem is that WAHL is new legislation and many aspects would have to be tested in court before there are any definitive answers.
It won't be until charges are bought before a judge that we will have clearer definitions.
Do you know guys, I would be totally unaware of any working at height laws, if it were not for this forum.
Many guys just haven't got a clue. I was watching contract painters today working off a huge ladder, I asked them if they were finding WAHL a hassle, it was patently obvious that they hadn't got a clue what I was talking about.
As Jeff Brimble said, it's only when someone gets killed that the crap hits the fan, this was illustrated today with the charges brought against fire officers over the firemen that died in that veg packing factory. corporate manslaughter is as serious as it gets.
As far as Willets is concerned, I truly believe that we lost more than we gained by him deleting his account.
-
The problem is that WAHL is new legislation and many aspects would have to be tested in court before there are any definitive answers.
It won't be until charges are bought before a judge that we will have clearer definitions.
Do you know guys, I would be totally unaware of any working at height laws, if it were not for this forum.
Many guys just haven't got a clue. I was watching contract painters today working off a huge ladder, I asked them if they were finding WAHL a hassle, it was patently obvious that they hadn't got a clue what I was talking about.
As Jeff Brimble said, it's only when someone gets killed that the crap hits the fan, this was illustrated today with the charges brought against fire officers over the firemen that died in that veg packing factory. corporate manslaughter is as serious as it gets.
As far as Willets is concerned, I truly believe that we lost more than we gained by him deleting his account.
I totally agree with most of what you have said DAI, although lets be honest the WAH regs have been around since 2005 and there is plenty of guidance notes and info on the net for us to be aware of them. Also if you look at when people actually get prosecuted it is usually still under the HASAW act that they actually get prosecuted so it has all been there from the beginning just not as indepth
-
The problem is that WAHL is new legislation and many aspects would have to be tested in court before there are any definitive answers.
It won't be until charges are bought before a judge that we will have clearer definitions.
Do you know guys, I would be totally unaware of any working at height laws, if it were not for this forum.
Many guys just haven't got a clue. I was watching contract painters today working off a huge ladder, I asked them if they were finding WAHL a hassle, it was patently obvious that they hadn't got a clue what I was talking about.
As Jeff Brimble said, it's only when someone gets killed that the crap hits the fan, this was illustrated today with the charges brought against fire officers over the firemen that died in that veg packing factory. corporate manslaughter is as serious as it gets.
As far as Willets is concerned, I truly believe that we lost more than we gained by him deleting his account.
I totally agree with most of what you have said DAI, although lets be honest the WAH regs have been around since 2005 and there is plenty of guidance notes and info on the net for us to be aware of them. Also if you look at when people actually get prosecuted it is usually still under the HASAW act that they actually get prosecuted so it has all been there from the beginning just not as indepth
I Know mate, but we still have to have some legal precedents, like what is or isn't reasonably practicable before we will know exactly where we stand
-
This is just my opinion, but we are a fairly tough audience, and any H&S guy that comes on here has to put his subject across in a way that adds interest.
He could site real examples or give us for instances, but quoting legal test cases from 1934 and defintiions of competent persons is not the way forward.Who is competent to shut an airport for H&S, an airline pilot of thirty years standing or a recently qualified air traffic controller? Who is the most qualified, the most competent?
As regards ladders, a flat surface, 75degree angle, and an appropraite ladder safety device would seem a good basic starting point. Larger businesses and commercial work probably need more consideration, but if even the basics can't be gotten across i doubt more complicated situations would have been made any clearer for us.
When you by a ladder it will have warning on it about the angle, and of course ladder safety devices are always a good step forward. That is not just a starting point every should be following that without fail, and if you have an accident, because you failed to do that then you are at fault.
What I feel would be wrong is someone knocking over someones ladder with them on it, the ladder hitting a car and injuring the person on the street, and the window cleaner being fined because he was on the job for more the 30 mins, and depending on how you interpretate the waffle, he gets the blame.
Thats where you need clarity and not just that, I have one job with a small extention with a flat roof, which I use a ladder to get onto then clean a window above it, I dont secure it, or use laynards, its just one window, the extention is actually a curboard thing for tools so its only about 7 feet high. and not that deep so I wouldnt be the recomended distance away from the ladder. But I can assure you it is very safe.
Now it would be inpractical for me to take all the suggested saftey precautions in this intance, and infact would mean I spend so much more time on the roof and ladder fitting implementing these precautions I would argue that, the act itsself is just as dangerous as me just cleaning the one window in the first place.
What I am trying to say, is sometimes it comes down to common sense and rules can at times have you doing something senseless. Rules should only cover the musts, the never break rules, and those rules should be achievable, not rules that double the time of a job and make it not worth your while, rules that simple, sensable and practically achievable.
If we go by the figures of HSE we would never get in our car. Infact by the fatility rates we are in more danger driving to a job than we are 20 feet up a ladder cleaning a window. But you dont have HSE going round at every driver with a clipboard when they are doing reverse parks in tescos. Yes the things we do are dangerous and it is part of our job, we understand that when your are working at heights you must apply a hell of allot of common sense, and not to take unessasary risks but it only takes that one mistake.
I do believe there is a need for tighter legislation on the use of a ladder, but so far away from a ladder on a flat roof, and only so much time per job is crazy if that is how we are to interpretate that. These are not clear rules, they are not sensable, they don't help make our job safer and are inevitably not achievable rules that we are going to follow.
As for resonable alternative, and interpretating that to mean the if you can afford to go out and buy a WFP then you shouldn't be using a ladder. That is another barmy interpration of waffle.
Also you made a point to more safety precautions on commercials, but that is not our policy we treat every job with the same precautions regardless of size. You can injure yourself just the same on a small house as on a large commercial.