Hse and insureance

[wozz]

After a bit more understanding on health and safety/law.

Recently I questioned the hse on twitter and actually got a reply!

It was regarding them ****ging off a council for telling a tenant of a housing association block of flats to remove children's play equipment from a communal area, on health and safety grounds as it didn't meet public play equipment standards. The hse ****ged off the council with the old ' health and safety myths' thing hey love doing. I said it seemed reasonable and did they think the councils standards are wrong?

The message I got back was along the lines of 'it was a insureance liability issue not Health and safety'. A statement was put on their news section of the website about it being a insureance issue.

Now am I being thick here? But why is insureance needed in the first place? Was the council being reasonable?

I will try to find links to the case.

 

[wozz]

Guess everyone is as confused as me when!

 

[sellers]

It's probably in regard to other children using this child's play equipment!

Sounds very daft,

I dont get this world sometimes, it's like when they say if you get hit by an un insured driver then you claim on your own insurance? Why?

If they are not insured you claim against the person and it's all at their cost!

 

[wicksy]

It's the same as footpaths if you walk along and break your toe on a broken raised slab then you might have a claim.

Unfortunately the UK is following the USA where there is blame there is a claim.

In 10 years time there will be no NHS as I lived over there for 3 years and I can see it happening over here too

 

[ProDave]

In a previous car I drive through a VERY deep pot hole in the road and it cracked one of my allow wheels.

The trouble was it was raining and said pot hole was full of water, and of course you can't see how deep it was. I later went and measured it and it was over 6" deep and about a foot round.

I claimed from the council and they paid for a replacement alloy wheel and the pot hole was repaired next day.

 

[wozz]

but why was insurance needed in the first place?

 

[Doc Hudson]

the pivotal issue here is the fact that it is a "communal area". As an example, your work tools left in your own garden, for your own family to trip-up over and break a bone, does not need insurance. Your tools left in someone else's garden for their children to fall over does need insurance because if someone is injured they will most likely be claiming off you for negligence. Same principal with these garden toys, if others can access, use and injure themselves on them.

Doc H.

 

[Technician]

If I can add a little to what Doc has said,

there are such things as play equipment and

leisure activity equipment standards and

believe it or not some councils have play

equipment inspected and reports issued. I

have seen this done. Play kit purchased over

the counter does not, so far as I know, meet

this exacting standard.

For instance, any equipment that suspends a

child must have a secondary means of support

IF the first method of support fails for

whatever reason.

So, the liability issue is this and as Doc

has pointed out, the council was instructing

removal of the kit from the communal area to

eliminate the possibility of a claim made

against the equipment owner, i.e the tenant.

The council was therefore acting in the tenant's

interests and preventing what may have been a

punitive claim from arising.

HTH.

 

[gavindrummond]

Why don't they just install a sign play at your own risk.

 

[wozz]

So you are saying they could get sued? Would this be in court? If so on what charge / law?

 

[Technician]

Like Doc says, if you place YOUR equipment in

a communal area and there IS an incident leading to

loss, damage, injury that is connected with it,

the owner could be liable in a civil court if

not a criminal one.

Under Tort law, this is the beginning of a claim

for negligence.

Have you ever seen the size of the books on Tort

Law?

 

[wozz]

good answer tech, no i havnt seen the size of the books but i do love wikipedia, so the basis of the case would be negligence through your equipment being in a public place and not SAFE enough for its location. So tort law would be used in a civil case to claim compensation (loss of earnings ect)?

So in this case would you say tort law was being used for public health and safety purposes?

 

[Paultrim]

Sorry to be anal but I am quite familiar with the many different BS standards covering play areas and equipment. It's not just a case of signage to state 'unsupervised' and 'own risk' but the operator/owner of said equipment has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the play equipment in use complies to necessary BS standards. The council therefore have a responsibility to ensure the equipment provided meets regulations set out. Unfortunately or fortunately for me, most councils don't understand the regulations and so they turn to ROSPA or ADIPS who are HSE recognised schemes who oversea the inspection and installation of play areas, equipment and all manor of leisure equipment right upto amusement rides etc. Insurance companies WILL state that equipment used must be inspected by a third party inspection body registered under ROSPA or ADIPS to prove compliance with relevant BS Standards.

That's why the HSE enforces the closure of the equipment and not because they were being spoilt sports.

Paul

 

[wozz]

Sorry to be anal but I am quite familiar with the many different BS standards covering play areas and equipment. It's not just a case of signage to state 'unsupervised' and 'own risk' but the operator/owner of said equipment has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the play equipment in use complies to necessary BS standards. The council therefore have a responsibility to ensure the equipment provided meets regulations set out. Unfortunately or fortunately for me, most councils don't understand the regulations and so they turn to ROSPA or ADIPS who are HSE recognised schemes who oversea the inspection and installation of play areas, equipment and all manor of leisure equipment right upto amusement rides etc. Insurance companies WILL state that equipment used must be inspected by a third party inspection body registered under ROSPA or ADIPS to prove compliance with relevant BS Standards.That's why the HSE enforces the closure of the equipment and not because they were being spoilt sports.

Paul

Haha kind of flys in the face of what they were saying then when 'busting myths' around the removal of children's play equipment. They distance themselves from this one claiming nothing to do with health and safety it was all about insurance.

 

[Paultrim]

Vicious circle insurance and 'health and safety'.

 

[wozz]

This was exactly my original problem with the HSE saying 'dont blame us' if laws are being used on health and safety grounds how can they just wash their hands of it to avoid bad press?!

 

[Technician]

Wozz; Tort Law can be used to bring

any civil or criminal case of negligence.