ROLLACOSTA
Addicted to ArboristSite
PUWER ..the sling i bought will be used for rigging it isn't part of my PPE
Brits talkin about Brit stuff
- Thread starter ROLLACOSTA
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Thor's Hammer
ArboristSite Guru
Gray areas, gray areas, dum de dum.... 
ROLLACOSTA
Addicted to ArboristSite
..puwer i just read through your last post ,to be honest i simply give up ,i'm trying to run a small business ,imo If kit is not traceable or doesn't have a CE mark or serial number it shouldn't be sold !!,it shouldn't be down to contractors to double check then check again everything we do ,no wonder few firms bother getting kit inspected,it seems to me like were always up against a brick wallROLLACOSTA said:
ROLLACOSTA
Addicted to ArboristSite
I take my kit to a local loler inspector every 6 months i plonk the lot down ,he can check what the **** he wants or doesn't want i don't give a ****..has anyone seen the pathetic hand written serial numbers on most strops ,they usualy rub off after a few weeks ,whats he going to do when hew cant reed it ,bloody joke this proffesion
Thor my loler guy is also using the terminology 'GREY AREA ' he said tree kit is a grey area ,i said its no ******* help to me ,last time i took kit in he could only give a written report on half the kit the rest was a GREY AREA as it comes from the states and has no CE mark etc
Thor my loler guy is also using the terminology 'GREY AREA ' he said tree kit is a grey area ,i said its no ******* help to me ,last time i took kit in he could only give a written report on half the kit the rest was a GREY AREA as it comes from the states and has no CE mark etc
Last edited:
Thor's Hammer
ArboristSite Guru
Trouble is, have an accident and its you as the contractor that will catch the flying brown stuff.
I'll ask the Father, he's a loler inspector.
I'll ask the Father, he's a loler inspector.
darkstar
ArboristSite Guru
Uhh So Old
A NEW THREAD PLEAS :blob5:
A NEW THREAD PLEAS :blob5:
MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
darkstar said:
I didn't know you were British! Brits generally spell better. :Eye:
darkstar
ArboristSite Guru
good one ... your roght
Rolla,
Your main concern when buying the kit apart from making sure that it is fit for use, it that it has a CE mark, to ensure complinace with the PPE regs and Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSWR).
The text below is an extract from the factsheet i provide for my clients in regard to LOLER and CE marking:
PPE Regs - Regulation 4 (3) deals with suitability & states that PPE shall not be suitable unless - (e) " it complies with any enactment which implements in Great Britain any provision on design or manufacture with respect to health or safety in any relevant Community Directive ..... which is applicable to that item of personal protective equipment."
Regulation 4 ACOP - "The PPE (EC Directive) Regulations will require that almost all PPE supplied for use at work to be type examined by a body which is Approved and notified to the European Commission for that purpose." (Simple types of PPE protecting against low risk e.g. gardening gloves can be self certified).
"The manufacturer or importer is then able to display a CE mark on the product. From the 1 July 1995 it will be illegal for manufacturers and importers to supply or sell PPE unless it meets these requirements and displays a CE mark."
Employers can continue to use PPE that was legally supplied to them (prior to 1 JULY 1995), provided that it continues to be suitable for the use to which it is put. Any harnesses or ropes still in service are arguably no longer suitable for use.
Employees or sub contractors using their own personally imported items that do not carry CE markings will be breaching Regulation 4 as they are considered to be the supplier (no money needs to have changed hands) and are therefore responsible for ensuring items are properly type examined & CE marked.
PUWER 98 - Regulation 10 - "Every employer shall ensure that an item of work equipment has been designed and constructed in compliance with any essential requirements ... (which give effect to Community directives concerning the safety of products)". The same applies to self-employed persons.
Regulation 10 ACOP states - "Products should carry a CE marking and be accompanied by relevant certificates or declarations".
The concept that non-CE marked PPE that meet standards outside the UK (such as USA) could be used if the risk assessment suggested that it was ‘fit for purpose’ is incorrect. It would clearly be a breach if it was sold in Europe and may be subject to prosecution by Trading Standards in the UK.
Although it may be the case that the standard of equipment available from countries not undertaking the CE marking process may be suitable, it is clear that to use and provide goods to employees which are not CE marked is in contravention of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations.
Regulation 4(3)(e) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations requires, through Schedule 1, that all new PPE provided for use at work after 1 January 1993 should comply with the PPE (EC Directive) Regulations 1992 and bear CE marking. That Schedule 1, is amended also by Regulation 2(2) of the Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, to take account of the new transitional provisions contained therein.
Furthermore this issue is not only about PPE legislation. PUWER also comes into play. A work-positioning harness is not only PPE, but also lifting equipment and work equipment. Reg 10 (1) PUWER also requires that equipment is in conformity with community requirements.
The debate about ‘fit for purpose’ would, in the worst case scenario, have to be challenged in a court of law. For example one case against a Fire Authority where an employee suffered from burns to the hands, the case detail identifies the supply of non-CE marked fire-fighting gloves, which were found to be inadequate. The Fire Authority were subsequently prosecuted and fined £1500.00. The detail of the case can be debated, what cannot be debated is the provision of information to trainees and others that meets the best practice we all strive to achieve.
Where equipment is identified that may have an application in the UK it is in the interest of the manufacturer and supplier to ensure that the CE marking process is fully met before the item is imported.
Because the ACOP says it is illegal for manufacturers or importers to supply or sell there seems to be an assumption that it is not illegal to actually use non CE marked equipment. This ignores the fact that the definition of importer is anyone who brings the equipment into the UK not just retail businesses.
Your LOLER inspector can certify non CE marked kit, but again it comes down there own knowledge of the equipment. Most choose not to due to the reasons outlined above.
It would help our industry a great deal if suppliers did issue equipment with I.D marks and SWL on yet the simple fact is that most don't. Your LOLER inspector can't expect suppliers to issue SWL of kit or tell you that when you buy it it must have one on, or you'd never buy anything! Karabiners don't carry SWL, Harnesses, Ropes etc, as they don't know what safety factor/co-efficient you will be using.
So far as the markings on ropes and strops are concerned in most cases they are crap, get your inspector to re-mark the kit, it can be easily done and most arbs know what works and what doesn't.
Grey areas is a great excuse if you don't want to educate yourself, as a LOLER inspector i have chosen to do that myself, so when my clients call me in i can inform and educate them, funk me why would you pay some-one who doesn't even know what they are looking at, how it should be sold or how to mark it!
Your main concern when buying the kit apart from making sure that it is fit for use, it that it has a CE mark, to ensure complinace with the PPE regs and Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSWR).
The text below is an extract from the factsheet i provide for my clients in regard to LOLER and CE marking:
PPE Regs - Regulation 4 (3) deals with suitability & states that PPE shall not be suitable unless - (e) " it complies with any enactment which implements in Great Britain any provision on design or manufacture with respect to health or safety in any relevant Community Directive ..... which is applicable to that item of personal protective equipment."
Regulation 4 ACOP - "The PPE (EC Directive) Regulations will require that almost all PPE supplied for use at work to be type examined by a body which is Approved and notified to the European Commission for that purpose." (Simple types of PPE protecting against low risk e.g. gardening gloves can be self certified).
"The manufacturer or importer is then able to display a CE mark on the product. From the 1 July 1995 it will be illegal for manufacturers and importers to supply or sell PPE unless it meets these requirements and displays a CE mark."
Employers can continue to use PPE that was legally supplied to them (prior to 1 JULY 1995), provided that it continues to be suitable for the use to which it is put. Any harnesses or ropes still in service are arguably no longer suitable for use.
Employees or sub contractors using their own personally imported items that do not carry CE markings will be breaching Regulation 4 as they are considered to be the supplier (no money needs to have changed hands) and are therefore responsible for ensuring items are properly type examined & CE marked.
PUWER 98 - Regulation 10 - "Every employer shall ensure that an item of work equipment has been designed and constructed in compliance with any essential requirements ... (which give effect to Community directives concerning the safety of products)". The same applies to self-employed persons.
Regulation 10 ACOP states - "Products should carry a CE marking and be accompanied by relevant certificates or declarations".
The concept that non-CE marked PPE that meet standards outside the UK (such as USA) could be used if the risk assessment suggested that it was ‘fit for purpose’ is incorrect. It would clearly be a breach if it was sold in Europe and may be subject to prosecution by Trading Standards in the UK.
Although it may be the case that the standard of equipment available from countries not undertaking the CE marking process may be suitable, it is clear that to use and provide goods to employees which are not CE marked is in contravention of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations.
Regulation 4(3)(e) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations requires, through Schedule 1, that all new PPE provided for use at work after 1 January 1993 should comply with the PPE (EC Directive) Regulations 1992 and bear CE marking. That Schedule 1, is amended also by Regulation 2(2) of the Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, to take account of the new transitional provisions contained therein.
Furthermore this issue is not only about PPE legislation. PUWER also comes into play. A work-positioning harness is not only PPE, but also lifting equipment and work equipment. Reg 10 (1) PUWER also requires that equipment is in conformity with community requirements.
The debate about ‘fit for purpose’ would, in the worst case scenario, have to be challenged in a court of law. For example one case against a Fire Authority where an employee suffered from burns to the hands, the case detail identifies the supply of non-CE marked fire-fighting gloves, which were found to be inadequate. The Fire Authority were subsequently prosecuted and fined £1500.00. The detail of the case can be debated, what cannot be debated is the provision of information to trainees and others that meets the best practice we all strive to achieve.
Where equipment is identified that may have an application in the UK it is in the interest of the manufacturer and supplier to ensure that the CE marking process is fully met before the item is imported.
Because the ACOP says it is illegal for manufacturers or importers to supply or sell there seems to be an assumption that it is not illegal to actually use non CE marked equipment. This ignores the fact that the definition of importer is anyone who brings the equipment into the UK not just retail businesses.
Your LOLER inspector can certify non CE marked kit, but again it comes down there own knowledge of the equipment. Most choose not to due to the reasons outlined above.
It would help our industry a great deal if suppliers did issue equipment with I.D marks and SWL on yet the simple fact is that most don't. Your LOLER inspector can't expect suppliers to issue SWL of kit or tell you that when you buy it it must have one on, or you'd never buy anything! Karabiners don't carry SWL, Harnesses, Ropes etc, as they don't know what safety factor/co-efficient you will be using.
So far as the markings on ropes and strops are concerned in most cases they are crap, get your inspector to re-mark the kit, it can be easily done and most arbs know what works and what doesn't.
Grey areas is a great excuse if you don't want to educate yourself, as a LOLER inspector i have chosen to do that myself, so when my clients call me in i can inform and educate them, funk me why would you pay some-one who doesn't even know what they are looking at, how it should be sold or how to mark it!
teressa green
ArboristSite Operative
red tape gone mad, ha ha does anyone read this drivel let alone take it in ,
iain
ArboristSite Operative
why should we if the regulators don't understand or can't be arsed too, i don't mind disregarding it
iain
ArboristSite Operative
Ross
did you get the track'd machine going ????
did you get the track'd machine going ????
darkstar
ArboristSite Guru
are youuu annn auussiee ... jaamie ?
Thor's Hammer
ArboristSite Guru
not me, its all bollocks...teressa green said:
darkstar
ArboristSite Guru
ahats fouuoking riieeght maytt bouoggers...... fouuoking yanke!!!s
Ross Turner
ArboristSite Operative
Iain,Just got in from being on a fault.Multi stemed willow with a snapped top across all three phases bring the center phase down.Had to climb in very high blustery winds & got battered in the ribs & gut for it so going to quacks in the morning to get checked out.
The chipper we just managed to get in to the trailer(man handling it),boss says he thinks he knows whats up but it aint the hydraulics.
The chipper we just managed to get in to the trailer(man handling it),boss says he thinks he knows whats up but it aint the hydraulics.
teressa green
ArboristSite Operative
you blagged a day off ross ,lightweight ?
Ross Turner
ArboristSite Operative
Yes i have got the day off to go to the quacks,The boss wants me in even if i cant do any thing so he can claim a days wages but he would still expect the same amount of work as three men would be on site.
My health comes before £££££££ as my family would suffer in the long run.
My health comes before £££££££ as my family would suffer in the long run.
Acer
ArboristSite Operative
ISA vs RFS
I did the ISA cert arb at home with the workbook and got through ok. The problem is, it only lasts 3 years, unless you get enough points in that period. You get points by passing tests in the ISA mag, but to get enough, you'd have to attend various seminars etc. which cost. Lots. OK, having cert.arb shows you're being updated regularly, but the costs add up. Personally, I couldn't justify the costs, so I let it lapse. The RFS cert is a one off for life. They cover about the same amount of stuff.
I did the ISA cert arb at home with the workbook and got through ok. The problem is, it only lasts 3 years, unless you get enough points in that period. You get points by passing tests in the ISA mag, but to get enough, you'd have to attend various seminars etc. which cost. Lots. OK, having cert.arb shows you're being updated regularly, but the costs add up. Personally, I couldn't justify the costs, so I let it lapse. The RFS cert is a one off for life. They cover about the same amount of stuff.
