Are you sure that is how it is worded? I have had a few visits from hse and never been dug about it, that doesn't mean insurance firms wouldn't question it should something go wrong. As you say tricky one but you just have to do what you can.
Render adapt
- Thread starter WheresThatGoneDan
- Start date
instructor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
Aom even the gap between the inside standard and the inside boards could be deem unsafe if something fell through and hurt someone below.
Ok, heres one for you....what about the gap between the main boards and the inside boards, 50mm. Is that permissible?
In the specific case being discussed where the inside boards are fully removed, there is no gap in the "working platform".
Yeah but that is controlled the same way, through risk assessment. It would be dangerous if on a public walkway and you are working with thin heavy bolts or some other heavy items less than 50mm but if you are on a site using block then the 50mm is fine. Even the hse use common sense, the only time I have ever been dug for an inside gap is from the 2 day inspectors. You are right though, I usually prefer it when they just lift the board themselves or with one particular squad who managed it lifting and replacing 1 board at a time. As always depends on a few factors.
instructor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
Only when someone gets hurt. Some guy invented (stop that gap) that prevents this.
Through risk assessment though?
I would still feel it's down to the end user and covering yourself as far as practicable with paper work. We have fitted inside hand rails but usually come back to site with them strewn all over the place.
I would still feel it's down to the end user and covering yourself as far as practicable with paper work. We have fitted inside hand rails but usually come back to site with them strewn all over the place.
instructor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
On gantrys,bottom lifts of any boarded scaffold (Stop that gap never took off ) but does the job without any tripping hazard.
instructor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
Costs money Aom. As you know it all right until someone gets hurt. Law V Risk Assessment Law always win in any court.
Very true. I hate using the real world quote but the scaffold has to be fit for purpose to carry out the required work or what's the point? It is my humble opinion that rendering can be done with due care and attention without the need for an adapt, you just need a strong agent and a squad of proper tradesmen willing to put in a bit of effort and accept that it may take them a while longer to achieve the required finish.
A bit like what the scaffs have been doing for years.
---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 PM ----------
Found this, I know it's all down to interpretation but the hse would say it's pretty clear and reasonably practicable is still there.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005
A bit like what the scaffs have been doing for years.
---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 PM ----------
Found this, I know it's all down to interpretation but the hse would say it's pretty clear and reasonably practicable is still there.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005
the SG guidance says that for gaps in excess of 225mm where there is no doubt someone could fall or suffer injury because of the size of the gap, double guardrails and toe boards must be installed.
For gaps where there is just risk of injury only, rather than a person falling through the gap, then a single guard rails and suitable safe system of work should be implemeted.
So the way i read that is 225mm is ok, anything over requires double guard rails, if this will hinder the work then put a single rail in place and a ssow, if you dont want ay internal rail ssow, ie harness.
but always put on the hand over that the scaffold does not comply with the w@hr
For gaps where there is just risk of injury only, rather than a person falling through the gap, then a single guard rails and suitable safe system of work should be implemeted.
So the way i read that is 225mm is ok, anything over requires double guard rails, if this will hinder the work then put a single rail in place and a ssow, if you dont want ay internal rail ssow, ie harness.
but always put on the hand over that the scaffold does not comply with the w@hr
Alan Reade
Well-known member
Morning Instructor,
If something or someone can fall then it is unsafe, however we are in an industry where 90% of the trades are inherently unsafe the other 10% are generally working in an unsafe environment. The aim is to make it safe where possible failing that we have to minimise risk and advise accordingly hence risk assessment and method statement.
Whilst WAH require platforms to be constructed with no gaps “unless suitable measures have been taken” the 50mm gap in T&F scaffolds, between main platform and inside boards, is deemed as acceptable “providing a suitable risk assessment has been made “ and “where necessary suitable measures put in place to protect” etc.
“if such measures are not practicable, then the gaps shall be reduced accordingly.”
---------- Post added at 04:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 AM ----------
Morning Bri
you are correct that SG4 shows 225 as the gap on a finished scaffold, however WAH is the LAW not sure you should be writing on the handover that the scaffold does not comply. I would however think that you should advise, in writing, the client that the scaffold is built to his specification and requirement and that HE should perform a risk assesment and prepare a method statement for a SSoW
---------- Post added at 04:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------
Morning AOM
I come from a family of plasterers and spent many a school holiday working for them indeed my first two years in construction were as my fathers Joey.
We did countless rendering jobs and never needed the scaffold adapted we squeezed between the gaps and had a high level of quality, that said it was the late 60's early 70's.
With regards "reasonably practicable" you are correct, I refer you to my coment 14 on this thread.
'not sure you should be writing on the handover that the scaffold does not comply. I would however think that you should advise, in writing, the client that the scaffold is built to his specification and requirement and that HE should perform a risk assesment and prepare a method statement for a SSoW'
That worded much better Alan!!
That worded much better Alan!!
Nice one Alan, good to know I am not just a fuddy duddy thinking everyone else is wrong and I am right. I have long felt rendering could be done without the adapt especially now with the growth of smooth K Rend. I have said many times now that instead of training the scaffs they should think of training the end user.
Last edited:
How Many Times Have Any One Of Us Gone To Strip A Scaffold Which Bears No Resemblence Whatsoever To The Scaffold We Erected? And The Worst Culprits Are Probably The Harler (Inside Ledgers Missing Etc) Does The Hse Notice Any Of This? Probably Not Why? Because The Jobs Been Done And The Main Contractor Is Making Money
I have been struggling to do this lately as we have been so busy but I try and take as many pictures as possible of completed jobs. Only recently started taking pictures of the bags of knitting we come back too when 1 client in particular bombarded me with pictures. I have a nice little portfolio built up now of ammunition when he tries it again.:idea: