25.09.2004

HSE disappoints at UK Crane Hirers meeting

The annual meeting of the CPA crane interest group was held in Henley in Arden last week and was extremely well attended by over 150 crane people, with many Chief executives and owners representing their companies.

This first speaker of the day, following Chairman Martin Ainscoughs introduction, was Mike Sarson one of the three members of the team that is scheduled to audit Crane hire companies later this year.
Please register to see all images

Mike Sarson of the HSE with Martin Ainscough at the 2004 CPA meeting

Sarsons brief was to inform CPA members what they need to do when they accept straight crane hire jobs rather than contract lifts and clarify both the legal position and that of the HSE. The meeting began to get heated when Sarson indicated that the HSE’s approach was to leave the decision to crane hirer’s common sense rather than taking a highly prescriptive position. It was very clear that most attendees wanted the HSE to lay down strict simple requirements rather than leaving it to their interpretation.

At the end of the meeting the general consensus seemed to be that the HSE speaker had further clouded the issue rather than clarified it. The dissatisfaction though might, if the delegates were honest with themselves, be more related to the fact that Sarson did not, could not, tell them what they wanted to hear.

Given the importance of the subject matter and the unusually direct answers to some of the questions by Mike Sarson we publish below the basic notes from this presentation.

Sarson began by stating that the HSE know that a significant number of crane hire companies are getting to grips with the agreed CPA rules on crane hire Vs contract lift and that there had been a significant improvement in this area.

He then discussed the upcoming audits that the HSE has announced, he said that the aim was to assess the crane hirers side of the situation and that it planned to audit around 20 crane hire companies, including CPA members and others. During the audits the HSE will be addressing the following areas.

1.Identifying standards within the companies visited, highlighting problems if they come across them and producing a report so that improvements can be made.

2.Looking to identify good practices

3.Looking at the quality of a company’s operation, none of which will be new, the team will be concentrating on four areas

a)The quality of the cranes, is there an examination procedure in place?

b)The quality of the people, what has the company done to make sure that they are right for the job and well trained?

c)The lift organisation, how is this addressed, what steps are taken to ensure that lifts are well planned?

d)The company organisation, this particularly applies to companies with multiple depots, how does the company promote uniformity and consistently high standards?

Sarson then went on to say that in general terms the UK crane hire industry was very safe, and that there had been no major crane accidents in the UK for many years.

The subject then turned to straight Crane hire and how hirers are supposed to assess a customer or potential customer’s ability to manage a lift.

Sarson said that hirers should carry out a “Real” assessment of customer’s ability to provide an Appointed...or rather “Competent” person to supervise the job, he expected Hirers to be sceptical in regards to method statements or risk assessments.
On arrival of the crane on site if a problem exists he expected immediate action from the driver and for him to pull off site if a dangerous situation exists such as overhead cables in the immediate vicinity of the work.

On the other hand if the lift was straightforward but when the operator returned to base he reports that the organisation was chaotic. The HSE expects crane hirers to record this and to then be a lot tougher with that customer the next time he calls. “In essence the HSE view is that “Hiring one time in good faith is acceptable but that if repeat work is done then a much firmer line is expected” said Sarson.

A question from the floor asked “why place the responsibility on the operator, which is what this appears to do?” Sarson replied you have no choice as he is the only company representative on site. The questioner then asked if this meant that the HSE would start to prosecute the operators. Sarson responded “No But…if the operator does not call in when a serious problem exists on site then this would be an issue”

Another questioner said “Operators are not trained to evaluate risk assessments or method statements” Sarson replied that “if in doubt hirers could ask for lift plans to be faxed to the office with the order” He continued “We do expect operators to recognize clearly dangerous situations on site such as overhead power lines and to say NO!”

“The HSE recognises that there is a limit to what you can expect from crane operators, in the event of an accident the key elements we will look at are: Have you the crane hirer taken all reasonable efforts to verify that the customer is capable of planning and supervising a lift and was the operator clear of when he should call back to the office for advice?”.
A member of the audience then asked “If this is done is our liability then reduced or eliminated”

Sarson responded “Absolutely!”

Some comments were then made that Judges do not seem to share this clear view.


Sarson suggested that it would help if companies put in black and white exactly when they expected an operator to call in for advice. Operators should sign that they have read and understood this and this document should be kept on file...

One senior manager of a major UK hirer said that his company refuses to do a crane hire lift if the operator is not fully satisfied.

Sarson was then asked what evidence are the HSE looking for to prove that confirmation of competence has been requested?

His answer was as follows:

“Asking if the customer has a competent person to supervise and take responsibility for the lift? Then

a)Can you believe them? Are they a well known company?

b)If you have never heard of them are they a company that is likely to be a regular crane user? Or are they a total unknown who is very unlikely to be a regular hirer of cranes? If in doubt ask them to fax you the details of the competent person.

c)If they are a regular customer or a well know cranes user the HSE does not expect you to give them a heavy cross examination”.

Another member of the audience made the point; “Everyone should work to the same standards and asked if crane hirers ought not to simply demand that the paperwork is sent in for every crane hire lift? Then it is easy!”

Sarson replied “An appointed person is not a legal requirement in the UK; the appointed person comes from British standards. Loler simply calls for a “competent person” to supervise lifts, as there is no legal need for an appointed person’s ticket. you do not need to check on the competence of an appointed person. The HSE does not expect you to do more that are reasonable to assess competence”

Another person asked “Who’s is responsible then for checking the ground conditions?”
Sarsons response was “that on a contract lift it is easy the Competent person is responsible and that would apply to a crane hire as well”

This questioner then asked how can a competent person be held responsible for the ground unless he asks for a soil report every time? The CPA stated that in a previous response to this question the HSE had confirmed that the supply of maximum outrigger loadings to the client was sufficient.

Questions then moved on to the on site documentations required: “Should a written lift plan be demanded by the operator before he starts?”

“The HSE cannot insist that everything be put in writing, some lifts are very simple, if the operator is happy with a verbal explanation of the lift plan then that is acceptable to the HSE” We do not think that gold plating it by faxing method statements for every lift is practical, after all back at the office you have not seen the site so you cannot judge the statement or plan” said Sarson.

The meeting at this point was becoming rather heated, the Chairman intervened and said “If you haven’t seen a method statement and something goes wrong you are in for it, believe me” “You will get done for it!”

A question was then asked about giving telephone advice for a straight crane hire, does this not transfer responsibility? Sarson said “No you are allowed to give advice and the responsibility remains with the customer, but depending on the depth of the questions and if this is combined with you not having seen a risk assessment then question whether this should not be a contract lift”

“On many of these questions there is no right answer, we (the HSE) are looking to see if you are fulfilling the letter and the spirit of the law” Our suspicion is that there are CPA members who are not meeting minimum standards and it is the minimum standards that we are looking to achieve” For example if a new customer calls you, becomes flustered when questioned about competent persons and lift plans, hangs up and then calls back apparently sure of himself, we expect you to be wary”

“On the other hand if you have a regular customer that is always well organised we understand that you trust the cook and do not expect you to go into the kitchen every time and check up on him” said Sarson.

Another question took the meeting back to ground conditions “If we give the outrigger loadings to the customer and they are correct, would the HSE look to the crane company if the ground collapsed?”

Sarson said “I find it very difficult to believe that any court would hold a crane company liable in such a case”.

The point was made that the crane hire lifts put a lot of responsibility on to the crane operators who simply do not want to take it on.

Another person made the point that Jobs that the better companies turned down for straight crane hire were still being done and asked “what is the HSE doing about this?”
“What is the best way to report it to the HSE?”

Sarson said “Tell us who you think is doing the lift then we can follow up or better still tell us that xyz builder is planning a lift on such and such a date and that you do not think he is up to it. The HSE can then follow up and inspect the site. Subject to availability of staff of course”

Having run well over the allotted time the questions we brought to an end and Mr Sarson departed.

Vertikal Comment

It was very clear from this meeting that the Crane hire companies were looking for the HSE to effectively police their industry by being highly prescriptive with the rules governing crane hire. The HSE on the other hand are restricted from being overly prescriptive and are only concerned that best practice is used, it seems that the HSE have made clear efforts to try and ensure that any demands they make are practical and not overly bureaucratic.

In this case though the highly competitive nature of the UK crane hire industry and in some cases lack of discipline is causing anger and frustration among those companies that are genuinely aiming for improved safety and strict adherence to best practices as they loose business to companies that are less diligent.

The problem would appear to lie less with the HSE and more with the industry itself. Perhaps the industry, through the CPA should establish more prescriptive rules and requirements within its best practices guidelines?

On the other side the HSE should perhaps be more clear with its accident investigation reports and where a crane Hire company has clearly followed best practices aim to prevent any legal case against the crane company or at least work more closely with the judiciary so that good companies are protected and bad ones not?