Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Responsibilities at work


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1806 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've been with my employer for over 12 years and during that time have gone from being an engineer to senior engineer, "senior" in this case referring to length of service / experience. Last year, after previously working alone, I gained an office buddy - we both report to the same manager so although he is on a much lower grade than me, I am not his boss.

At the time he was hired, I pointed out to the company that I didn't seem to have a proper job description aside from my title, and HR promised to provide one. I'm still waiting. Since then there have been a couple of times where I've not been happy at assumptions made about my role. Mainly, the Health & Safety manager circulated a new H&S policy this year which outlines various responsibilities to named individuals - I am named in this document as a manager.

I pointed this out to the H&S manager, that I am not a manager, but if they were to offer me such a position (2 grades above my current pay), then I might consider it... of course they will be doing no such thing. I understand that someone needs to be responsible for H&S on a local basis, as there is only two of us in this office, but I'm really not happy that other people think it's OK to incorrectly assign job titles, and the assumptions that might follow..

Today I have been asked to complete "H&S training for managers", and again there is a document attached to the email which lists me as office manager. I am happy to take certain responsibilities at a local level, but unless they are going to promote me I don't want to be referred to in this manner. TBH I'd love the money but I have no aspirations to be a manager, it would be a complete change from my current role and something I have no training or experience for.

 

Just wondered if anyone else has been in a similar position..?

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, I understand that someone needs to be responsible for H&S on a local basis - that's not what I'm asking. My point is that they should no more call me office manager than they should call me a director. It's not my job, and I don't like the implications of such assumptions.

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 facets to H&S at work, the employers respionsibility and a general responsibility of everyone to each other. Your company has to fulfil certain responsibilities under law and one of the methods of doing so is to appoint someone to do that tas. that person must be qualified by education training or experience. As it is a genral duty it is not necessarily a job as such so you cant really say no becuase it will be covered by that general duty of care.

Now, most companies like H&S training for staff, it makes them look good when it comes to box ticking on govt forms and their insurers love it as well. Usually it is good for the employee, promotion, more interesting work, time away from desk to fulfil the new function with no chance of any backlash from fellow employees etc. Do they have to pay you more? no. Can they sack you for refusing? possibly.

if you havent show any real antipathy to this new role yet you should explore seeking an honorarium to compensate you for the extra responsibility etc. Waht would be a suitable amount? Well start at a sensible fraction of the pay scale difference between your current post and the one 2 grades higher. The reason you should go down this route rather than a pay rise is that any H&S role is not part of your job and may be taken away from you as an individaula and placed on someone else's shoulders. The fixed sum honorarium recognises this If you can explain this to your company they will most likely agree to it. £200-500 a year is the sort of figure most companies are happy to add to your pay. Not a fortune but it is a recognition of the additional responsibilities and may help your career development if you find you like the H&S aspect of the industry you are in, go on other courses and then take a new post in that field instead of being on the tools.

I did the NEBOSH general cert and a number of other courses a few years back, no promotion off the back of it but I got to talk to people who you wouldnt otherwise mingle with in a large organisation and by doing so influenced a lot of promotions for others and helped set up a new staff grading scheme which meant more money all round (just about).

Employers like it when you go on union H&S courses, they get the benefit and dont have to pay for them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, I understand that someone needs to be responsible for H&S on a local basis - that's not what I'm asking. My point is that they should no more call me office manager than they should call me a director. It's not my job, and I don't like the implications of such assumptions.

 

 

I agree and plus there is implied responsibility to H&S manager, which means a lot of things such as if something happens, you're responsible. If somebody injures themselves and investigation finds that H&S wasn't implemented, it would be your misconduct.You should have H&S L3 training. You pointed this out to the H&S manager, I assume verbally, but to cover yourself I would put it in writing, offer a meeting to discuss it. In this way, you'll have evidence that policies (if there are any) were not followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, I understand that someone needs to be responsible for H&S on a local basis - that's not what I'm asking. My point is that they should no more call me office manager than they should call me a director. It's not my job, and I don't like the implications of such assumptions.

 

So are you objecting to the title or the responsibility?

 

We have loads of managers in our place who don't manage people but manage other things.

 

But I cannot see that they are trying to change your job title.

 

I'm just not understanding why you are upset. Do you expect them to send someone else out to do risk assessments etc at your office?

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you objecting to the title or the responsibility?

 

We have loads of managers in our place who don't manage people but manage other things.

 

But I cannot see that they are trying to change your job title.

 

I'm just not understanding why you are upset. Do you expect them to send someone else out to do risk assessments etc at your office?

 

OP: in the same vein as Emmzzi's post:

 

Ask them not to refer to you as the H&S manager.

Ask them not to refer to you as a manager.

However, you need to do this and be seen in a positive light, too, so you need to offer a viable alternative.

 

Would you be happy to be referred to as the "H&S lead" for your office?

 

Could you lead the 2 of you there on H&S issues, without being a manager? Your colleague could come to you with any H&S issues and you could point them in the right direction : as you probably do anyway (for H&S and non-H&S issues) as the senior!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They assign these h&s responsibilities to existing members of staff without paying them any extra.

It happens everywhere.

They did the same thing to my wife because she was the most senior employee.

Like you she objected but they kind of forced her and sent her to the relevant course.

On first h&s inspection my wife found serious breaches of fire regulations (fire extinguishers out of date by 2 years, escape doors locked with chain and padlock with key missing, etc.)

She reported these findings immediately and marked them as urgent.

A week later they hadn't even replied to her email.

She sent another one explaining that she was going to pass the failed list to hse and refuse to work on h&s ground.

She received an email saying that with immediate effect she was not the h&s manager anymore.

Sweet.

2 years later no changes have been implemented.

She works next to a working escape door, so this doesn't affect her, but there's an entire floor that would have no escape route during a fire.

At the time, when she contacted the fire brigades for advice, they attended and put stickers over the failed equipment.

This was followed by a letter, but then nothing was done.

She sent an email to HO explaining that she had reported the faults and basically her responsibilities were done and dusted with.

Maybe if you dot the i's and cross the t's they'll appoint someone else.

There are contraventions in every building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks all for the replies. I may not have explained completely clearly (the H&S situation is a bit of a red herring); what I am objecting to specifically is being referred to by a job title which, although it exists in some of our other locations, does not exist in our tiny site.

 

I have again requested that they do not refer to me as manager/supervisor/team leader, all of which were used in the H&S policy and all of which are specific positions in the company above my pay grade. I have pointed out that I am not aware of the job description for such a position (hell, I don't seem to have a formal description for my current role!), and this makes me wary of being seen as responsible (in some eyes) for things that I have not received training/briefing/pay for.

 

Pay aside (it would be nice!), if the creation of such a position were being considered there is no guarantee that I would consider applying, or that the company would consider me suitable!

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loz

I fully understand your gripe, sadly it is just a way that companies expect employees to take on more responsibility with no increase in pay, it is increasingly common and has been for many years.

I am afraid it is called capitalism

 

That said, if there is any prospect of promotion or increased pay this will help, it's a sort of catch 22 situation really.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been here long enough to know that promotion or increased pay are very unlikely unless there is a big change in our clients' requirements :-(

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest again that you play by their own rules and apply them by the book, no exceptions, no grey areas, no leeway.

Apply the h&s rules on every occasion and very strictly and very soon they'll appoint someone else, especially when they see that this new responsibility takes a lot of your time that could be used to do your job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the replies. I may not have explained completely clearly (the H&S situation is a bit of a red herring); what I am objecting to specifically is being referred to by a job title which, although it exists in some of our other locations, does not exist in our tiny site.

 

I have again requested that they do not refer to me as manager/supervisor/team leader, all of which were used in the H&S policy and all of which are specific positions in the company above my pay grade. I have pointed out that I am not aware of the job description for such a position (hell, I don't seem to have a formal description for my current role!), and this makes me wary of being seen as responsible (in some eyes) for things that I have not received training/briefing/pay for.

 

So, as the "H&S is a red herring", this is all actually about the pay, truth be told?. As you "have not received training/briefing/pay for" this, but you've declined the briefing and training ....

 

Today I have been asked to complete "H&S training for managers"

 

So, what, if anything have you put forward to them?, given:

 

I pointed this out to the H&S manager, that I am not a manager, but if they were to offer me such a position (2 grades above my current pay), then I might consider it... of course they will be doing no such thing. I understand that someone needs to be responsible for H&S on a local basis, as there is only two of us in this office

......

 

I am happy to take certain responsibilities at a local level,

 

So, if you understand someone needs to be responsible on a local basis, and are happy to take certain responsibilities, suggest to what degree you want to be briefed / trained / take responsibility, and then ask them to renumerate you on that basis ....

 

Pay aside (it would be nice!), if the creation of such a position were being considered there is no guarantee that I would consider applying, or that the company would consider me suitable!

 

You acknowledge the company has job needs that need to be fulfilled. You aren't co-operating with their current requests. You haven't told us what solution you are putting forward to meet those needs as an alternative to the company imposing a solution.

You might not even apply if they proposed such a position : sounds to me (together with your use of 'red herrings') that they might reasonably conclude you are aiming to make yourself redundant?.

 

I suggest again that you play by their own rules and apply them by the book, no exceptions, no grey areas, no leeway.

Apply the h&s rules on every occasion and very strictly and very soon they'll appoint someone else, especially when they see that this new responsibility takes a lot of your time that could be used to do your job.

 

They likely won't "just appoint someone else". They'll create a post that involves the level of responsibilities the company requires filled. Either the OP won't apply for it (and will make themselves redundant), or the company will appoint them, or the company will make the OP redundant.

Whichever choice, the OP is better coming up with a proposal that meets the company's needs and keeps them in a job (at a level of responsibility they are happy with!), unless what they are really after is redundancy ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they want to create a new position, they're just giving the op extra responsibilities.

That's why i suggested to be nice, accept them and apply h&s rules by the letter.

When they see the first detailed report with lots of issues they will probably pass the responsibility to someone who would sweep things under the carpet.

If there are no h&s concerns these new responsibilities should be easy to fulfil, but in my experience very few companies operate above board on h&s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no h&s concerns these new responsibilities should be easy to fulfill

 

Tripe.

You are confounding "responsibilities" (which remain regardless of if there are concerns at the moment) with "current problems".

 

If there are no current problems that is good for the company as they don't have to make investments in plant / PPE and new (safer) systems of work. That doesn't reduce the responsibility of the person holding the H&S portfolio in the future, just means they don't have to report anything today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tripe.

You are confounding "responsibilities" (which remain regardless of if there are concerns at the moment) with "current problems".

 

If there are no current problems that is good for the company as they don't have to make investments in plant / PPE and new (safer) systems of work. That doesn't reduce the responsibility of the person holding the H&S portfolio in the future, just means they don't have to report anything today!

 

We're saying the same thing.

If there are no issues the inspection would be much quicker and easier, just a lot of ticks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're saying the same thing.

If there are no issues the inspection would be much quicker and easier, just a lot of ticks.

 

Only now. The OP's responsibilities will continue into the future, though.

 

So, the OP has the choice to influence how much responsibility they want to take on board now, or risk the company imposing a higher level on them or their replacement later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...