Time Consultancy - Leading Access and Safety Consultancy - News Pressroom
BS8454:2006
On October 3rd, 2005, Steven Sinclair and a fellow worker were replacing double-glazed windows on the fourth floor of a residential apartment block in London. As they were positioning one of the heavy glass panes, both men lost their footing. They fell a distance of approximately 11 metres to the ground, along with the glass pane they were holding at the time. Mr Sinclair was taken to hospital, but subsequently died of his injuries.
The owner of the company that employed Mr Sinclair was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive, and fined £15,000 for breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He had failed to ensure that adequate means were in place to prevent the men from falling. Moreover, during the course of the trial it became clear that he was not actually aware of the minimum legal requirements for working at height.
In a more recent case, an electronics company was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay costs of over £5000. This followed an accident in which a contractor, who was installing an extraction system on company premises, fell from a ladder and fractured both wrists. Investigation revealed that a proper risk assessment for the work had not been conducted, and the job had not been adequately planned.
Every year the dangers inherent in working at height are graphically illustrated by cases of injury and death similar to those above.
In 2004/2005 53 people died and nearly 3800 suffered a serious injury as a result of a fall from height in the workplace - figures which add weight to HSE Inspector Lisa Chappell's comments following the death of Steven Sinclair:
"The risks of working at height are well-known, yet falls remain the most common cause of death and injury in the construction industry.
Mr Sinclair's family are grieving the loss of a son and brother following a fatal accident that could easily have been prevented. This case highlights once again the absolute necessity for work at height to be properly planned, and for equipment such as guard rails, barriers or harnesses to be used where appropriate."
Clearly, there is a need for effective planning whenever work at height is required, and for robust legislation to ensure such planning is properly implemented.
The introduction of The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) aims to provide this legislation - and is supported by the Code of Practice for the Delivery of Training and Education for Work at Height (BS 8454:2006), published in May 2006.
However, it seems likely that many employers will struggle to comply with BS 8454:2006. One of the UK's largest facilities management companies, Nelson Bakewell, recently appointed a consultancy firm to examine the challenges and changes the industry will face if training standards are to meet the requirements of this new code of practice.
Matt Hodgson is the Head of Health and Safety at Nelson Bakewell:
'We have more than £15 billion of commercial property under management, and we're responsible for strategies, policies and compliance.
We're in the process of getting Nelson Bakewell ISO18001 Health and Safety Accredited, so life is certainly never dull!
At Nelson Bakewell we seek cost-effective solutions to controlling the risks associated with our managed portfolios, including policy formulation, risk assessment and training.
We are aware of the working at height industry shortfalls and the changes the new code of practice BS8454:2006 will have on us purchasing work at height training, so we have sought the experience of our appointed working at height consultants - Time Consultancy - to deliver recommendations for ensuring contractors working on our behalf comply fully with legislation and best practice.'
Mr Hodgson identified high-level window cleaning as an example of one of the most hazardous activities in a building maintenance calendar and went on to say:
'... when these activities include the use of a wide range of suspended and mobile access equipment, the need for property and building management to remove liabilities and select the right contractors is essential. We are currently looking at three key areas:
Initial working at height assessment on all properties, which includes hazard operation study by a competent person
How to establish the competency of contractors employed to work at height on Nelson Bakewell Management properties
How to develop and define a clear policy structure, and specification for all working at height training...'
In its promotional literature, Time Consultancy addresses the primary reasons for things going wrong when workers are operating at height.
'You may be aware that causes of accidents are most commonly identified with a lack of safe systems at work, failure to provide physical safeguard, poor management organisation, inadequate information and poor training of those concerned.'
Following audits for several of the countries leading property management companies the consultancy concluded that many employers are simply not in a position to provide adequate work at height training, and also that the infrastructure of most training companies does not currently meet the standards laid down under sections 3 and 4 of the code.
Time Consultancy has identified several specific shortfalls:
The individuals responsible for purchasing training have no specification
What specification there is does not give training providers enough operational detail
99% of training Time Consultancy have assessed on commercial properties had not had a risk assessment carried out, despite the fact that the training provider should visit sites and complete such risk assessments prior to training.
This is a requirement for both the training provider and the duty holder under
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3)
There is a need to pre-determine the experience of trainees prior to any specific training (for example on access equipment), but this is also often overlooked.
Time Consultancy concluded that in the short term both the duty holder and providers need should ask themselves a series of questions in order to establish clarity in the following areas:
Do attendees have any prior or current experience?
Do they have any relevant qualifications?
Are attendees fit and healthy?
Do they have an aptitude for working at height?
What is their aptitude for self rescue?
Have they had any self rescue training?
Have they received a list of the equipment they should bring?
Do they agree with the trainers terms and conditions?
For more information on Working at height consultancy
Contact Harvey Dun
Time Consultancy
Willow House Randle Road
Richmond
Surrey
TW10 7LT
www.timeconsultancy.com
0870 321 1555
harvey.dun@timeconsultancy.com
The owner of the company that employed Mr Sinclair was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive, and fined £15,000 for breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He had failed to ensure that adequate means were in place to prevent the men from falling. Moreover, during the course of the trial it became clear that he was not actually aware of the minimum legal requirements for working at height.
In a more recent case, an electronics company was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay costs of over £5000. This followed an accident in which a contractor, who was installing an extraction system on company premises, fell from a ladder and fractured both wrists. Investigation revealed that a proper risk assessment for the work had not been conducted, and the job had not been adequately planned.
Every year the dangers inherent in working at height are graphically illustrated by cases of injury and death similar to those above.
In 2004/2005 53 people died and nearly 3800 suffered a serious injury as a result of a fall from height in the workplace - figures which add weight to HSE Inspector Lisa Chappell's comments following the death of Steven Sinclair:
"The risks of working at height are well-known, yet falls remain the most common cause of death and injury in the construction industry.
Mr Sinclair's family are grieving the loss of a son and brother following a fatal accident that could easily have been prevented. This case highlights once again the absolute necessity for work at height to be properly planned, and for equipment such as guard rails, barriers or harnesses to be used where appropriate."
Clearly, there is a need for effective planning whenever work at height is required, and for robust legislation to ensure such planning is properly implemented.
The introduction of The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) aims to provide this legislation - and is supported by the Code of Practice for the Delivery of Training and Education for Work at Height (BS 8454:2006), published in May 2006.
However, it seems likely that many employers will struggle to comply with BS 8454:2006. One of the UK's largest facilities management companies, Nelson Bakewell, recently appointed a consultancy firm to examine the challenges and changes the industry will face if training standards are to meet the requirements of this new code of practice.
Matt Hodgson is the Head of Health and Safety at Nelson Bakewell:
'We have more than £15 billion of commercial property under management, and we're responsible for strategies, policies and compliance.
We're in the process of getting Nelson Bakewell ISO18001 Health and Safety Accredited, so life is certainly never dull!
At Nelson Bakewell we seek cost-effective solutions to controlling the risks associated with our managed portfolios, including policy formulation, risk assessment and training.
We are aware of the working at height industry shortfalls and the changes the new code of practice BS8454:2006 will have on us purchasing work at height training, so we have sought the experience of our appointed working at height consultants - Time Consultancy - to deliver recommendations for ensuring contractors working on our behalf comply fully with legislation and best practice.'
Mr Hodgson identified high-level window cleaning as an example of one of the most hazardous activities in a building maintenance calendar and went on to say:
'... when these activities include the use of a wide range of suspended and mobile access equipment, the need for property and building management to remove liabilities and select the right contractors is essential. We are currently looking at three key areas:
Initial working at height assessment on all properties, which includes hazard operation study by a competent person
How to establish the competency of contractors employed to work at height on Nelson Bakewell Management properties
How to develop and define a clear policy structure, and specification for all working at height training...'
In its promotional literature, Time Consultancy addresses the primary reasons for things going wrong when workers are operating at height.
'You may be aware that causes of accidents are most commonly identified with a lack of safe systems at work, failure to provide physical safeguard, poor management organisation, inadequate information and poor training of those concerned.'
Following audits for several of the countries leading property management companies the consultancy concluded that many employers are simply not in a position to provide adequate work at height training, and also that the infrastructure of most training companies does not currently meet the standards laid down under sections 3 and 4 of the code.
Time Consultancy has identified several specific shortfalls:
The individuals responsible for purchasing training have no specification
What specification there is does not give training providers enough operational detail
99% of training Time Consultancy have assessed on commercial properties had not had a risk assessment carried out, despite the fact that the training provider should visit sites and complete such risk assessments prior to training.
This is a requirement for both the training provider and the duty holder under
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3)
There is a need to pre-determine the experience of trainees prior to any specific training (for example on access equipment), but this is also often overlooked.
Time Consultancy concluded that in the short term both the duty holder and providers need should ask themselves a series of questions in order to establish clarity in the following areas:
Do attendees have any prior or current experience?
Do they have any relevant qualifications?
Are attendees fit and healthy?
Do they have an aptitude for working at height?
What is their aptitude for self rescue?
Have they had any self rescue training?
Have they received a list of the equipment they should bring?
Do they agree with the trainers terms and conditions?
For more information on Working at height consultancy
Contact Harvey Dun
Time Consultancy
Willow House Randle Road
Richmond
Surrey
TW10 7LT
www.timeconsultancy.com
0870 321 1555
harvey.dun@timeconsultancy.com
