Health & Safety told me about 2 years ago they are not interested in preventing accidents (queries safety of scaffolding) they spend all their time dealing with the aftermath of accidents! Can you believe that attitude? I then emailed them some photos so they had documentary evidence of the position and that encouraged them to come round. Like most public sector bodies they're too idle to scratch fire off their s. The only way to get a response is to write and put the ball into their court by pointing out the potential ramifications of them failing to act.

Dally, you are aware of the risk-assessment model. They may have been told of such in your examples.

Also Health and Safety teams have to be responsive: unless an actual law has been breached (e.g. guards on a cutter, temperature in a foundry) they can only act as advisory: advice that if ignored will reflect badly on the guilty in court.

IMO H&S is not the problem. Lawyers promising fabulous pay-outs are.

Doubtless H&S told Dally they 'weren't interested', because they were desperately hoping he'd have an accident that would put us all out of our misery.

I couldn't agree more.

One of the low risk categories being removed is pubs. Does hygiene come under health and safety or is that a different department? Apart from the fact pub kitchens will become more dangerous for the employees I can't say the idea of kitchens being outside the scope of H&S fills me with confidence as to them keeping up hygene standards either.

I heard aobut this on BBC R2 news on the way home. They had a bloke form the Institute of Directors on, that well known right wing organisation and the business reporter was just basically feeding him lines so he could say what a jolly good idea this was. BBC propaganda machine in full force.

His main argument was twofold. First of all even without H&S legislation that doesn't mean these workplaces will become dangerous places; people are inherently careful. Secondly and echoing what you say above he painted H&S as an onerous regime with inconsistent inspectors who often over-inspected making several trips giving different results each time.

It seem blindingly obvious to me that his first point will be debunked within a matter of months if not sooner after this is scrapped and if the problem is his second point then fix [ithat[/i problem without scrapping the H&S inspections.

It also seems obvious that if you comply with H&S guidelines then an inspection should be a rubber stamp job not something that always leads to increased costs. If there some little Hilter H&S inspectors out there who make this not the case then sort [ithem[/i out don't scrap the H&S guidlines.

He also cited an example where an inspector found a vacuum cleaner just lying around so told the business to build a cupboard for it. He cited this as the kind of OTT recommendations H&S indulge in. Sorry but if someone had fallen over the thing and broken a bone oir worse that business would have bee sued.

At the end of the day its jut another bit of idiotic legislation like removing the planning guidlines that isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to the economy. Yet another excuse of so-called economic benefits being used to justify ideologically based legislation.

aaaaaaaaah a helf and safety fred. Any chance of a common sense thread. Ever wondered why living in this country is so expensive? Because everyone has to do a risk fuggin assessment.

I go to Barbados reguraly (sic). 1 year, the local workmen had dug a hole outside the hotel. I summarise for a reason. Workmen had finished for the day, and had not bothered putting cones around the hole. Naturally, I was aghast, so I stormed into the reception to complain ( in the stricktest possible way about the possible outcome of an unguarded manhole). Only to be told, " if you cannot see where you are going, that's your own fault." I almost had the thought of writing to my MP about such lacksity, but I thought sod it. So I got a few beers, sat down for the next hour and watched 3 people trip-over the man-hole. Each trip was funnier than the last, because Barbados has very few liability laws, basically how Britain used to be, and the dozy sods who did'nt look where they were going, could'nt put a claim in.

health and safety= the death of the country and common sense.

Similar in Turkey. For a short while I was concerned about things on a rough jeep excursion. Then I thought "what has our country done to me?" Then I embraced the freedom and had a great time - including chucking each other in concrete culverts!

So Turkey and the West Indies are the heights of enlightenment.

Yeah.

Right.

We could learn a lot from Barbados.

Especially in planning laws.

Especially if you're in the same rotary club as the prime minister.

Where is? Clearly not the UK per most of your posts!

You are Dave Cameron and I claim my £5.

What bunkum! Unless a worker HAS BEEN INJURED there is nothing to promise him, now is there?

Unless you are suggesting that some guy is going to fall off a scaffold cos he's seen a compensation ad?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You are Dave Cameron and I claim my £5. What bunkum! Unless a worker HAS BEEN INJURED there is nothing to promise him, now is there? Unless you are suggesting that some guy is going to fall off a scaffold cos he's seen a compensation ad? '" Not necessarily. I've worked with companies who have received claims from people who have never worked there, or claims relating to accidents that there is no record of (and I'm not talking about the type of charlatan company who would "lose" accident records) - some claims are speculatively submitted in the hope that the insurers just pay out rather than fight. But this Government's attitude to health & safety is laughable. They commissioned the Lofstedt report to look at current regulation. It reported back in November and in the executive summary it stated: Quote I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.'" www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-report.pdf Yet the Government's press release accompanying the publication of the report began with: Quote The Government has announced plans to begin a major cut back of health and safety red tape as early as January. It will begin an immediate consultation on the abolition of large numbers of health and safety regulations and intents to have removed the first rules from the statute book within a few months. '" www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-re ... 3-11.shtml I presume they thought nobody would read the report so they could say whatever they wanted in the press release.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You are Dave Cameron and I claim my £5. What bunkum! Unless a worker HAS BEEN INJURED there is nothing to promise him, now is there? Unless you are suggesting that some guy is going to fall off a scaffold cos he's seen a compensation ad? '" Not necessarily. I've worked with companies who have received claims from people who have never worked there, or claims relating to accidents that there is no record of (and I'm not talking about the type of charlatan company who would "lose" accident records) - some claims are speculatively submitted in the hope that the insurers just pay out rather than fight. But this Government's attitude to health & safety is laughable. They commissioned the Lofstedt report to look at current regulation. It reported back in November and in the executive summary it stated: Quote I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.'" www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-report.pdf Yet the Government's press release accompanying the publication of the report began with: Quote The Government has announced plans to begin a major cut back of health and safety red tape as early as January. It will begin an immediate consultation on the abolition of large numbers of health and safety regulations and intents to have removed the first rules from the statute book within a few months. '" www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-re ... 3-11.shtml I presume they thought nobody would read the report so they could say whatever they wanted in the press release.

^

Spot on.

Reveals (yet again) the utter contempt of this government for the electorate.

:2ol396pi

:2ol396pi[i:2ol396piBelow is a safety alert taken directly from the HSE website, which we are currently advising all clients of. There is also currently a campaign targetting the affects of RCS (respirable crystalline silica) caused from dry cutting of tiles by roofers, this is because recent studies show that the risks have been 'understated' recently. But don't let you sway from your belief that the HSE do bugger all until something goes wrong[/i:2ol396pi:2ol396pi.



Safety checks for building sites in Yorkshire
Date:
3 September 2012
Release No:
Y&H/155/12
Construction sites in Yorkshire are being safety-checked this month as part of an inspection initiative aimed at reducing death, injury and ill health when working at height.

The targeted inspections are in response to the continued loss of life and serious injury arising from falls from height. In the year 2011/12, 49 workers lost their lives on construction sites in the UK, with falls from height being a major cause.

During September, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will be visiting sites across the region. The inspections teams will start in Bradford before moving to other locations in West, North and East Yorkshire.

The initiative will primarily focus on those working on the external parts of buildings, but will target all types of work carried out at height

The key purpose is to remind those working in construction that poor standards are unacceptable and potentially cost workers their lives.

David Stewart, HSE's Principal Inspector for Construction in the Yorkshire region , said:

"Falling from height causes a significant number of deaths and major injuries. All too often straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put needlessly at risk. In many cases, simple changes to working practices can make all the difference.

"Poor management of risk in this industry is unacceptable. As we have demonstrated in the past, we will take strong action if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily put at risk."

In recent months HSE has prosecuted several construction companies following incidents in which workers were injured, including

Killing/injuring workers is the easiest way to create jobs.

And you're saying that this is a significant problem? Based on what?

A claim by someone who never worked there would be a clear attempt at fraud and should result in those concerned getting their collar felt, but exactly how would that be the fault of a lawyer, who (obviously) has no way of checking whether X worked for Z. The lawyer would assume that if X did not work for Z, then the response to any claim would be "Soz, X never worked for Z. Bye".

I would not rule out that the odd cowboys might not submit some "speculative" claims but what evidence is there of this being in any way significant, or a problem? Insurers are hardly naive ingenues who would fall for any sob story and reach for a chequebook, now, are they?

If they know there are such claims then that can only be because they got rumbled, didn't pay, and any lawyer involved in the claim lost money.

If the insurers have paid the claim, then they cannot sensibly say it was not merited, if you aren't liable, don't pay, simple.



No argument. In fact it is disgraceful. But of course when all inspections are abolished, and the system for thousands of businesses is reactive rather than proactive, inevitable some employers will take greater advantage and that will inevitably lead to a rise in the number of accidents and injuries.

I would bet that this lot will then go down the same vile road as they presently are with other claims, and screw all genuine claimants under the pretext of acting against some mythical great bogeyman, when in fact all they are doing is liming the pockets of the insurers.

Keeping on the road of trying to ensure that people weren't injured in the first place would clearly be the only moral way to go, but of course they wouldn't view that as of any interest.

FA sadly a grammar school in Salford was not Eton.

I am speaking as an experienced (but no longer practicing Union official) who dealt with injuries: never was a pay-out worth the hassle.
However, deciding to see if we were offering value, I ran cases we had won past advertised companies all of whom guaranteed at least five times what Thomsons had got!

Interesting that I have to be on Cameron's side when criticising ambulance-chasers!
You wouldn't be biased would you?

"but exactly how would that be the fault of a lawyer, who (obviously) has no way of checking whether X worked for Z."

of course you can: it's called a phone call. I can do it.
Oh sorry: professional ethics.

What? So no inured employees should ever make a claim as it ain't worth the hassle? That sound pretty barking, but maybe I misunderstood? What hassle? And isn't taking care of hassle what you get a lawyer for?


What's that got to do with solicitors? You (presumably) know as well as I do that these sort of companies are pure ambulance chasers, and play no part in the process, except for trousering their fees?

What a ridiculous and pointless method anyway. Without giving full details of a case, how could you think anyone could sensibly give you any sort of meaningful valuation? If you really did this strange thing, for the purpose stated, then why didn't you follow it up and advise your affected members that it appeared from enquiries you had made that their claim had been substantially under-settled? If you were not going to accept the answers, why ask the questions?


No. I wouldn't. I hate ambulance chasers.





You actually want to pursue the point that if an employer gets a random phone call, they are likely to give out confidential data to some caller that they don't know from Adam?

Really?

You don't seem to know much about the claims process, with respect. I repeat; a letter of claim lands on employer's desk; they never employed the person; they write back saying they never heard of this person. Er, that's it. I really don't get how you perceive this "pretend employee" thing to be some sort of a real issue. Sounds like an utter red herring.

hassle: mine. Hours of unpaid work and a disappointed member.

the ringing: having been told by the "legal department" that the amounts won were typical, I followed up several comments from different members that they would have been better recompensated if they had not used the union. I decided to ring some well advertised firms on using (without giving away any personal information) cases on which I had been active ... all promised that if I used them damages of (usually) 10 -50 times what was won.
I ran this past the legal department again who stated that the amounts promised were pipe smoke.
Far enough, but if I was a member of the public and was suckered into these firms, I would have used them expecting a fabulous pay-out. The amounts would attract taking action. Such actions would aggravate the employers into believing "H&S" were the root of the problem: an attitude several private company owners have related to me.

Sorry but I need to log-off (as on another post)

I'm surprised the 'usual suspects' haven't materialised condemning trade union H&S reps for the state of the economy, the lack of world peace etc.

All this sorry tale is, though, is a condemnation of seemingly misleading marketing by ... the very ambulance chasers that you (rightly) deprecate. You say if you were "suckered" into these firms, but you miss the point that you would not be, as they do not do the work, they sell the cases on.

Solicitors have a duty to both manage client expectations and from the outset on the available information provide an estimate of the value of the claim and the likely costs of getting it. I presume you haven't any evidence that lawyers, as opposed to ambulance chasers, were doing this?

If I was a lawyer picking up leads from such a firm, I think I'd get pretty pi$sed off pretty quickly with people trooping in telling me they'd been told their claim was worth 50X what it was, and anyway, at this meeting, once told the claim was only worth 1/50th of that, surely the disaffected claimant would simply choose not to bother? So even there, where is the "suckering" so far as the lawyer is concerned?


For the reason I said, in practice, they really wouldn't.


That is nuts though, isn't it? Such actions can only reasonably instil a belief that ambulance chasers promising 10-50 x the true worth of a claim were the problem? What would H&S have done wrong? I don't follow that at all.


Maybe they have, but surely not for a reason totally unconnected with H&S? And your reply should have been "[iWell get yourself a new H&S man, then, as the problem is the catalogue of daft things some companies' H&S men do based on unreasonable fear of and comprehensive misunderstanding of what H&S actually requires[/i". This drives H&S nuts too. See their website.

Indeed, if you work at or know of someone working at a company whose H&S has decreed something nutty, the H&S has now even gone to the lengths of setting up a [url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/myth-busting.htm Myth Busters Challenge Panel[/url to scrutinize such decisions.

it doesn't get much publicity. Had anyone on here ever even heard of it? But thankfully it is being used, and so making a start on dispelling the myths. Worth a read:
[url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/index.htmMyth Busters Challenge Panel findings[/url

so we agree

My point was and is that the false expectations raised by some lawyers (I can mention a case but cannot in public) have attracted claims in the hope of easy and excellent recompense when really there was no or limited recompense.

Iain (who I know) is and my past existence was in H&S.

I'm glad you agree with me. However, the above was not your point. A lawyer raising false expectations in one case is not at all the same thing as what you originally said:

That would only be "the problem" if it happened so much that it was kind of endemic in the trade, whereas you refer to a single case, and can't even give details of it. I think to claim from some isolated cases that such behaviour is "THE problem" is grossly unfair on the hundreds of lawyers doing the job properly and doing no such thing.

Isolated bad apple lawyers will always exist, same as any other trade. The main difference with solicitors is that people have probably the best recourse to compensation for professional negligence, coupled with millions of pounds' worth of compulsory insurance, and a tough disciplinary process in cases of wrongdoing and poor service, of anybody else that they may ever deal with.

So we certainly vehemently disagree that "Lawyers promising fabulous pay-outs" is "the" problem, and I know of no evidence that this is any sort of significant issue at all and if it was, the SRA has the ability and willingness to strike them off.

When a possible customer rings, they think they are talking to a solicitor ... if they are not then your "trade" union (The Law Society) has enough prowess to get rid of this problem... you haven't.

I have referred to more than one case where expectations (OK possibly not by solicitors) were raised when the reality is different.

The one case was not H&S but employment: the customer was told it could be won under H&S rules: once the evidence was handed in to the solicitor's office, he withdrew but the customer (member) had withdrawn our right to represent her ... result sacked and national exposure.
I remember her saying to me, "My lawyer has said he's glad I've come to me as he will win this and I'll keep my job and be rewarded." The words are burned into my conscious.

Absolutely not, What powers does the Law Society have? For a start, it warned about the folly of allowing these sort of organisations but was ignored. The warnings were dismissed as pure self-interest, lawyers wanting to keep the work for themselves and not let anyone else into the market. Finally the government has after many years done a U-turn and decided to ban referral fees, but will struggle to do so as the industry of leeches is now so vast and so rich, they will struggle to control it.

I am certain that if someone was reported to the Law Society for impersonating a solicitor, they would act on that. But I doubt that would ever happen and what evidence, short of highly unlikely telephone recordings, could there be?


And I'm sure ambulance chasers will say pretty much anything to get their commission. Precisely because they are in reality unregulated in how they go about their business.


Not sure that says much at all. From what you say, on the face of it, based on what client said, a case worth investigating, then when the evidence is gathered it doesn't stack up, so lawyer rightly withdraws. Isn't that in fact a case where the lawyer should be praised for not "pursuing a hopeless case"?