if not tg20 then what

D

daftscaff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
0
Location
glasgow
after the poachers thread on cape policies,i ponder the question what now is the legal standard for street work/building site work.
i generally work on powerchem sites and offshore,so i have to abide by the so called company policy.i do also do the odd bit of street work so as not to get rusty and always stick to the 7" rule am i wrong you tell me
 
ah well that will teach me to try and start a thread when im half pissed,cheers for the input lads thats cleared it all up for me;)
 
Well old Bean---they dont apply the TG Docs in some of the Oil and Gas Service Companies never mind on the street or domestic builds.

I swear some of the Management Teams don't know about the TG docs, I had to pull the last lot about their procedures they were still citing the old SG Doc, I even put the TG Docs and the new SG on a memory stick and the Client reps and service company management got a copy---Im tellin yi amateurs...

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

Andy---god call, would make a good program...

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

Oh and an other thing old bean---not one of the structures were accompanied with a drawing even though they were all special structures in T&F...
 
The point i tryed to make was if there is heaven forbid a collapse what standard do the hse assume you have erected the structure as the tg20 is only a guideline and there is no real national standars for scaffolding that is legal.correct me if im wrong
 
daftscaff

Q.what now is the legal standard for street work/building site work.
Its what it always has been mate...Health & safety @ work act 1974
Working @ height regulations 2005
Plus now CDM regs and I guess Provisions of work equipment as scaffolding woul be classed as that

TG20 is NOT a legal requirement it is only a working recomendation for the safe erection of undesigned scaffolds....BSEN12811 is now the recognised British standard for MINIMUM requierments...so yeah as the others said its what ever you want untill you get caught..... then in civil court if you can proove you have done everything practicaly possible to comply with best practice you get to gome home with all your loot...if not you get fined
Reckless scaffolder fined for not wearing harness | Construction News | The Construction Index
 
THANKS GEOFF BUT I WAS ALWAYS TOLD FROM THE CITB THAT THEY WERE GUIDELINES AND NOT STATUATORY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
I AGREE WITH THE STREET WORK PHILOSOPHY OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH,I SUPPOSE THAT IN THE END OF THE DAY THE GUY WHO SIGNS THE TAG COPS THE LOT.
WERE THERES A NAME THERES BLAME:eek:
 
Daftscaff---there are Instruments within the HaSaWA which indicate Statutory requirements---however, there are no actual dimensions ect, corallations, configurations and or permutations of Scaffold Structures, however, it mentions stability ect---therefore Structures to be erected via engineering guide lines in the tolerance, bending moments, malleability and elasticity of the Scaffold Tube and the amount of frictional stress applied to the coupler to maintain the stability reliability and integrity of the scaffold Structure.

Furthermore, it is not a Statutory requirement to be Trained and Ticketed to erect the Scaffold, HOWEVER, it is a requirement that a Scaffolder can erect the Scaffold to Statutory requirements.
 
Garry read The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 this is a british law

section 9
Training
9.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety,* including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment,* any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.

(2) Every employer shall ensure that any of his employees who supervises or manages the use of work equipment has received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/contents/made

Also WAHR states all those involved in working at height must be deemed competent
UK deffination of competent -someone that has been trained and tested
 
Last edited:
Hi Gary,welcome back thought you may have won the lottery.
Interesting comments about statuary requirements.
Would the law support this,if a scaffold was erected by me(No tickets)to statuary requirements,and someone got injured on it.?
 
I concur---Training but there is no mention which organization, CITB/NASC.

Training is required, be it in house or other wise.

Training : System Installers manufacturers Guide and in house

Training : Tube and Coupler, mostly in house.

Training : CITB/CISRS is not a Statutory requirement it is build into the Clients mind set that is a legal requirement, when in fact it is an option and in the light of it being a monopoly they are seen as the only option.

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

Fredrik

no lottery win Im afraid---more like abducted by aliens LOL...

Good question and would have to be tested in a court of Law and the definition of competency would have to be proved.

Here is a Question for you, If a Scaffolder went for a job with a Scaff Co and was knocked back because he did not have a card, would this be discrimination and would he win his case if he raised an action for discrimination ???

Garry...
 
Yu poot ma wee heed in a spin now Gary, Ticket may show qualifications,but not competency,I suppose the onus would be on me to prove Ive been paid as a proffesional scaff,maybe, up to the prosecution to prove I'm incompetent. That would be interesting as in my case I hold a scaff inspectors cert. yes...no...yes...no.....Awww...give up mate.Feck knows.
 
Interesting points boys but I think it's fairly simple, the only way to prove competence is to hold a valid CISRS ticket. There has been loads of literature written on the subject if I could work this thing I would add some links but I cant so lets not kid ourselves on.

We all no the reality is very different with regard loads of top men haven't got this ticket and loads of dross has but the ticket will always win.

Maybe your test case will not be too far away though Gary with the ECITB fiasco.
 
Point taken
But that is the same with a lot of things that you need to have training in and to have been tested on ...such as to drive a car in the UK ... you can only get the license from the DLVC or a pilot can only get their license in the UK from the CAA.

At present CISRS are the only people that issue recognized scaffold tickets not the CITB or NASC neither of them supply the ticket, CITB are only a training body the same as Simion Risk , safety and access , training 2000 etc NASC is only a voluntary agreement between a collection of scaffold companies

The only problrm with the EITB is there is no evidence of traing having been undertaken by the holder...that's it. they are more than likly practicly competent but they have no evidence that shows this only a letter of competence from their employer and look who got that when the assessed route was in force...
 
Last edited:
Sorry to but in but by the sounds of it the hsawa basically blows away the ecitb,im a scaff but no card out of the water,because there is no formal training ie paper trail to back it up.
Rightly or wrongly the nasc/cisrs have grabbed this and claimed it for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom