Disclaimer - TG20:13

S

scarecrow

New member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Has anyone read the disclaimer on the front pages of TG20:13

It would appear that NASC and CADS have washed their hands of their Guidance document. Not being a lawyer but where does that leave the scaffold design PI insurance of the designs produced from it.

I will still be using TG20:08.
 
This was raised as an issue at the seminar last week. The reply from the CADS representative was that if a compliant scaffold derived from the e-guide that had been erected exactly in accordance with the compliance sheet failed due to incorrect design, their PI cover would cover it (he supposed).

You'll have to wait until something happens and it goes to court to find out how the law would view it.

To be honest, there is little chance of a scaffold being erected totally in accordance with the compliance sheet so there is about as much chance of a claim against PI as there is now with drawings.

Does anyone know of a successful claim against a scaffold designer's PI?
 
Is this similar to the do not scale wording on architects plans and if so can the scaffolders just disregard its competency as a whole because of their own admission its fundamentally flawed?

Also does this surely not distance this more from legality and back in the realms of pure guidance.....i know it is guidance but i believe it was pushing to become something more by using the word compliance? I may be wrong :huh:
 
Surely if it is guidance it must have been proved to be published as a standard (compliant) scaffold, so a basic design, and by proved I mean to the limit state as a designer should when you instruct one. If this is the case as this is the closest a layman can understand the BSEN12811 then this will be what's used in court.

Did you erect it to the compliance sheet young scaffolder, no sir, then good night Vienna?!

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

If you had photos you'd be running to an engineer quick to see of you could prove that it was adequate till someone "altered it"
 
Not if a liberal minded Judge read the disclaimer Tom.
If the NASC and CAD refuse to accept any responsibility or liability for their guidance then surely it's worthless in a Court of Law?
 
SWIFTY said:
Not if a liberal minded Judge read the disclaimer Tom.
If the NASC and CAD refuse to accept any responsibility or liability for their guidance then surely it's worthless in a Court of Law?
Click to expand...

I think your pretty much screwed if something was to happen, soo many variables. Let's hope the variables are grey areas!

Truth be told you will want a damn good consultant/lawyer to help you whichever way it's going!
 
All British standards and guidance have some sort of disclaimer at the front, even BS 5973 and BS 5975 which states "Compliance with a British standard cannot confer immunity fro legal obligations." They are all guidance documents and the only legal requirements are regulations such as the Work at Height Regulations. As people have said above, if you don't follow them you'll have a hard time i court explaining your actions to a judge.
 
Hi.

This is a very grey area!! I think the NASC and CADS would be hard pushed to 'pass' the book on this one so as to speak as they produced it and should it fail and was exactly to the design then a presto - big trouble for the producer however the grey area comes in that once you, the scaffolder or other person involved in producing the 'design', has produced a compliance sheet it is your responsibility under CDM 2007 as the designer and take on the designers responsibilities. Funnily enough I have just created a document in pdf format, at link below;

NEWS | Creator Scaffold DesignsCreator Scaffold Designs

This highlights to what extent TG20 compliance applies and at the end is a 'summary'. Only the most basic forms are within the scope of the compliance sheets anyway and any slight variations require design. See what your thoughts are. Personally (without being biased - he smiles) I think it is a good thing the new TG20 as it creates less ambiguity as to when a design is required.

My Mrs works in law and feels that some onerous is definitely on the owner or the intellectual property (NASC/CADS) however there would also be some shared onerous on the persons producing the 'compliance' sheet as CDM clearly states what is a designers responsibility and the ACOP would take precedence over TG20 as it is a Regulation and not just guidance.

Let me know your thoughts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Berry MSc (Eng) BSc (Hons)
Tel: 0114 3610060
Managing Director
HOME | Creator Scaffold DesignsCreator Scaffold Designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Ryan,

Please note if you use the eGuide it allows slightly higher independents for example than those stated on the compliance sheets in the book, meaning some of your guidance may be incorrect as the scaffold can be erected to the compliance sheet provided by the eGuide. The book is deliberately conservative due to the large variation in wind loading across the country.
 
Hi biffo,

Thanks for your feedback. I completely concur, we have gone from the documents for much the same reason but as you say can get better from the eGuide based on wind pressure. Where this is the case we have tried to state that it is worth checking the eGuide in a roundabout way.

I will look at each wind region/pressure as such and refine accordingly. I think some more statements in parts will give guidance on when the eGuide should be checked thoroughly to see if the scaffold is compliant. This all came about from a good customer of ours wanting a checklist for their contract managers.

I appreciate your feedback and will review accordingly. Would colour coding 'definites' and ' eGuide check' to be made help?

Thanks again.
 
I was going to stay out of this one mainly because I could end up looking very foolish now the designers are taking an interest. It does smack a wee bit to me as scaremongering as to be honest, as far as a thick scaff can tell, the warning is no different to any other guidance document that's out there or much different to the one that was in 08 and nobody complained at that. We all know, you can't sub out your legal duties and it's clear to me the authors accept that when they say "as fully permitted by law". The fact that the HSE and a large portion of our client base within the UKCG have adopted it and will expect to see it utilised on all sites should really tell you all you have to know.

Nice web site creator, although, once again from an end user's point of view your free download could certainly cause some confusion. I know it's technically correct, but saying for example a 3kn job has to be designed if you can't meet the criteria like transom and standard spacing should be obvious and all some would read into that is, you can't do it without design. That's the whole point of our compliance sheets and whilst you may well argue that it won't be obvious to all, it will be after a 2 minute chat with a scaffold contractor.
 
Thanks for opening the thick scaff door aom, cant let you get away with nobody complained at 2008 mate, stating that the hse have adopted it and thatsit I think you will find two thirds of scaffolders are against it because we haven't been consulted....random percentage I know but thats what nasc have done when they say they represent most of us....they do not.....when nasc make the document, the hse need consultation if it works so who do they ask .....nasc on the back of the lie they represent us its absolute cartel bllshit !

why not use lighter tube, talk about proper breaks for heavy labour,

why methods that have kept us safe for years are being completely disreguarded,

the statistics for falls of scaffs and why methods are introduced on the back of real evidence

, actual medical advice backing up methods ie.two feet close together on a step hemping can only be bad for your lumbar,

I know this does not need to be in the tg documents but it should be the basis for methods and risks assessed surely!

Scaffs would get behind safer practices but not when those practices cant be backed up with proven stats or evidence.....also with nasc being so self serving its like the worst pr so they are double fuked !!!!

These documents are ultimately moneymakers and they should ultimately be safety and better method orientated, I fail to see a case for otherwise of anyone :sad2:

I know this seems more sg4 related but its not, it seems to me the tg docs are now leading everything!
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about the 08 document Joe, I was talking about the disclaimer on the front, which this thread is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom