[Tom White]

Short duration is considered less than 20 minutes but should a job be expected to take 10 minutes but ends up taking 30 minutes, then that is also acceptable unless the same situation arises frequently.

I've found the notes I took at the time and this 2 day course was 100% H & S approved and the bloke was reading from the manual. The other problem is much of the WAHL are sometimes a bit contradictory and I was told to be wary of accepting just a few lines as positive proof that this or that is, or isn't, allowed.

98. Taking account of the general principles of prevention in Schedule 3 to the Act, an employer
shall—

That says 'employer'. The question I asked was about a self employed one one band cleaning windows of private houses although the regs do state by 'employer' it means the self employed, but regardless, using a ladder is legal. The term 'reasonably practicable' is also open to interpretation. Those regs also seem to be applying to the use of ladders in general but not specifically to short duration use.

A window cleaner is by dint of the term, expected to leave windows clean and if he decides that in order to do that he needs to use a ladder and clean the windows trad style, then it is legal.

It's about assessing the risks, minimising those risks, acting within the regs, and where possible and practicable, using a safer method. The regs do not state 'do not use ladders ever' otherwise as far as window cleaning is concerned, it would state clearly 'ladders are banned for window cleaning'.

I use wfp because apart from it being more profitable, I consider it safer but regardless of that, there is no law or rule stating that wfp must be used at all times and I defy anyone to find it.

Still, if it's reasonably practical to clean the windows from the ground:

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

So sure, builder's cleans can't be cleaned by WFP; you've often got to get your nose and scraper to the glass; plastic needs to be pulled off 'n' stuff.

But for most routine window cleaning jobs, WFP is REASONABLY PRACTICAL. 

So, it doesn't really matter about the 'short duration of task'; that's irrelevant - the principle of the WAHD is that if a job can be done from the ground (reasonably practical), then that is how it should be done.  And if it can't be done reasonably practically from the ground then other means of access (such as ladders) can be used.  And then another set of instructions (how to use the ladders) comes into play.

The rules effectively mean that ladders should not be used as the first means of access for routine window cleaning tasks.

[Nathanael Jones]

The bit in bold is the important bit - basically you shouldn't use ladders if there is another practicable method that will do the job from the ground. If you do, you are breaking the law. If you have any kind of insurance, look at the small print where it says that you are not covered when conducting activities outside the law....

Sky installers, painters etc etc have no practicable alternative method to carry out their job,.. window cleaners do, which is why this law is referred to so often on here.

A window cleaner can use a ladder quite legally if he decides that is the best method to do the job but he does has to have with him an alternative even if it's just an extendible pole. The idea is for every job he does he decides which way of working is best to get the results expected.

I think you're wrong.
Each window cleaner makes a decision based on each job individually - but the decision to use ladders should only be made if it is not reasonably practicable to use an alternative method, like the extendible pole or WFP.

If you go around "deciding" to use ladders regardless of practicable alternatives that remove the need for work at height, & then have a fall - good luck explaining in court why you felt justified in your decision to ignore the practicable alternatives.

Also - I've been told that the mention of "employer" if questioned in court would simply come to mean "the person in charge of making this decision" and as such these rules apply to self employed sole traders just as much as anyone else.

[rosskesava]

I was going by the notes I wrote down at the time.

It's not about deciding to use ladders as the first choice every time because then that is the same as using ladders everytime regardless.

If the person gets to the job and decides using an extendible pole (or wfp) won't give the standard of cleaning required, then he can use ladders provided it's in accordance with the regs.



Also, 'short duration'. I've now found in one place I've got written '20 minutes is considered short duration' and in another I've written 'up to 30 minutes'.

[Nathanael Jones]

Short duration applies if its a once off - - but if you're cleaning windows all day, every day, off ladders - although each job may be less than 20 mins, it can no longer be considered "short duration".

[rosskesava]

Window cleaning is classed as short duration whereas painting generally isn't. It's the amount of time spent up the ladder in one place to do the work that the ladder was put there for (i.e. one or maybe two windows) and not the total time taken up a ladder to do the whole house.

The point I'm making is not whether ladders are the safest way to clean windows but rather that ladders can be used to clean windows provided it's done in accordance with the WAHL's.

[Tom White]

The point I'm making is not whether ladders are the safest way to clean windows but rather that ladders can be used to clean windows provided it's done in accordance with the WAHL's.

So how do you explain this then?

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

It seems to allow for non-routine window cleaning; flat roofs or builder's cleans for example, where you need a ladder, but it seems to rule out the majority of 'normal' windows that can be easily accessed with a WFP.

[[GQC] Tim]

Whether ladders are banned or not, just forget about ladders. The sooner you do, the better. WFP is the standard, it's fast, easy, efficient. People who say it isn't are not doing it right. Speak to the right people with the right experience. Using ladders is an incredibly slow, cumbersome and inefficient way of cleaning windows. I only use them for access. If you are serious about your business start investing in the future.

[TomCrowther]

I've also done the safety courses and my take on it is really simple- "ladders can be used for short durations if safe to do so" It is very rare to be up a ladder for more than a few minutes when cleaning windows, so if the surface is secure, the ladder is maintained and you keep your three points of contact, you should be ok.
When I did the IPAF license, the instructor said that a short duration is around twenty minutes. However, if the worker came down the ladder onto the ground and then climbed back up the ladder, that is a new job. So you could theoretically, work for hours up a ladder without breaking the working at height reg's as long as you came down every twenty minutes.
Also, if you were working on a job and it was wfp, but there were a few windows where for whatever reason, wfp couldn't be used, a ladder could be used if more practical.
The guys on here who have said that the homeowners can be sued if a wc fell off a ladder while working on their house are incorrect. It is the wc who does the risk assessment, and the wc who decides what method to use. The homeowner could only be sued if they provided a faulty ladder for the wc to use.

[rosskesava]

The point I'm making is not whether ladders are the safest way to clean windows but rather that ladders can be used to clean windows provided it's done in accordance with the WAHL's.

So how do you explain this then?

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

It seems to allow for non-routine window cleaning; flat roofs or builder's cleans for example, where you need a ladder, but it seems to rule out the majority of 'normal' windows that can be easily accessed with a WFP.

Tosh

I did write that it is never advisable to just go by one line of a text. The problem of just one line is that the context of the entire regulation is lost no matter how definitive the wording of that sentence or paragraph may appear.

I found this on the H & S website. It is about the safe use of ladders for window cleaning. It does advise to use other methods if possible but no where does it state ladders are not to be used. It says clearly ladders can be used provided they are used safely.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc613.pdf

[pristine window cl]

I luv this subject your all mad  it must be illegal to sell ladders then  after all according to many of you  it is against the LAW to use them. xxck window cleaning i am now gonna join the ladder police      oh yeah your nicked.
alan

[Tom White]

The point I'm making is not whether ladders are the safest way to clean windows but rather that ladders can be used to clean windows provided it's done in accordance with the WAHL's.

So how do you explain this then?

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

It seems to allow for non-routine window cleaning; flat roofs or builder's cleans for example, where you need a ladder, but it seems to rule out the majority of 'normal' windows that can be easily accessed with a WFP.

Tosh

I did write that it is never advisable to just go by one line of a text. The problem of just one line is that the context of the entire regulation is lost no matter how definitive the wording of that sentence or paragraph may appear.

I found this on the H & S website. It is about the safe use of ladders for window cleaning. It does advise to use other methods if possible but no where does it state ladders are not to be used. It says clearly ladders can be used provided they are used safely.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc613.pdf

Ross, that is superseded by WAHD 2005; it's a really old document that well pre-dates WAHD 2005.

And that one line is the definitive; it's common sense; it's in black 'n' white.

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

That means if it's safer to do the job from the ground and reasonably practical to do so, then that's how it should be done.  If it can't be done that way, then other means of access can be used (such as ladders/cherry pickers/scafolding/etc).


It's common sense.

[Tom White]

I luv this subject your all mad  it must be illegal to sell ladders then  after all according to many of you  it is against the LAW to use them. xxck window cleaning i am now gonna join the ladder police      oh yeah your nicked.
alan

Don't be daft, Alan - your strawman is not the best; no-one says that ladders are illegal.  What the WAHD says is that any working at height is RESTRICTED.  Ladders therefore are not illegal, but their use is governed by the regulations contained in WAH Directive.

Can the job be done from the ground and is it reasonably practical to do so?  If yes then the job should be done from the ground.  If no, then ladders may be used; but even then the way they should be used with a ladder stabilisation device, etc (I think they need to be tied off too; not sure though without going through the regs) makes using them in the 'correct manner' (according to the WAHD) uneconomical (i.e. slow).

And I'm not 'anti ladder', I'm just saying what the WAHD sets out.  Anyone can work anyway they want as far as I'm concerned.

[rosskesava]

Tosh

I did write that it is never advisable to just go by one line of a text. The problem of just one line is that the context of the entire regulation is lost no matter how definitive the wording of that sentence or paragraph may appear.


Ross, that is superseded by WAHD 2005; it's a really old document that well pre-dates WAHD 2005.

And that one line is the definitive; it's common sense; it's in black 'n' white.

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

That means if it's safer to do the job from the ground and reasonably practical to do so, then that's how it should be done.  If it can't be done that way, then other means of access can be used (such as ladders/cherry pickers/scafolding/etc).


It's common sense.

It's on the H & S website as a current leaflet and is the same one I was given on the course I was on.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/cleaning/guidance.htm

Scroll about two thirds down the page.

The leaflet was issued in Oct 2003. As I understood it at the time, the working at height stuff was first of all a 'directive' (WAHD) which then became law in 2005 (WAHL) and basically the directive was to give industry time to get used to the new rules before they became law.

It doesn't mean the directives were changed when they became law.

[Tom White]

Rossy, it's still superseded; the WAHD is the definitive document for working at height.

Try reading the thing:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/regulation/1/made

There are no 'loop holes'.  You don't think it's going to be introduced just so people can carry on working as they did before?  If so, there'd be little or no point.

And really, it's simple common sense.  Can the job be done safely from the ground and is it reasonably practical to do so?  If yes, then that's how it should be done.  If no, then other means of access can be considered.  Section 6 covers the use of ladders in this instance.

Read it!

[Tom White]

And if ladders are to be used, because the job cannot be done from the ground, look how they say they should be used:

5.  A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by—


(a)securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends;
(b)an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or
(c)any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/schedule/6/made?view=plain

You will also notice that there are no exemptions given to window cleaners within the rules, nor does it refer to that guidance document you put up; this is legislation, not guidance (even if it is outdated).

[rosskesava]

I didn't write there were loop holes and neither did I write people could carry on working as they did before.

Before new H & S rules are introduced, and enforced, they start off as a directive which is a compulsion to comply. This is to get industry familiar with the changes and give them a chance to change methods of work. Then, at some point, they become law.

The legislation you gave a link to is not the detail. The H & S give the information on the detail which is clearly given on their website and is the link I gave earlier to the leaflet the H & S currently hand out to window cleaners if asked for.

What you are saying is the the H & S Executive are giving out wrong information.

If you required information about what methods of work are legal and safe in terms of window cleaning, who do you ask, the government department who produce legislation or the H & S people who have the expertise to give advice?

Most ask the H & S or look on their website which is what I did.

[Tom White]

Ross,

Then explain this piece of legislation (not advice):

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

[G Griffin]

The ladder police came round earlier wanting to impound my ladders. I said take the ladders, they are ancient but you're not taking my new ladder attachment.
There was a stand-off.......

[rosskesava]

Ross,

Then explain this piece of legislation (not advice):

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

Dear Toshimoto,

I will phone up the H & S people tomorrow and if possible, get suitable info and leaflets sent to me.

Will you accept that as a full and final settlement.

Yours Sincerely

Frustrated of Brighton.

...................................


Griff............  Go back to watching the Olympics. P-l-e-a-s-e.    

[Tom White]

Ross,

Then explain this piece of legislation (not advice):

(a) ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely and without risk to health otherwise than at height,

Dear Toshimoto,

I will phone up the H & S people tomorrow and if possible, get suitable info and leaflets sent to me.

Will you accept that as a full and final settlement.

Yours Sincerely

Frustrated of Brighton.

...................................


Griff............  Go back to watching the Olympics. P-l-e-a-s-e.    

You don't have too, mate; all you need to do is read and comprehend the rules.  They're not that complex really.