![]() T he investigation identified that the Company failed to prepare adequate RAMS and/ or a scaffolding plan in accordance with Schedule 4 of Regulation 27 of the Management in Construction (Jersey) Regulations 2016. The Company’s solution, in the absence of the planned number of scaffold towers, was to erect a freestanding guardrail system fitted with plastic brick guards to the roof edge using ‘pressure ties’. ![]() The Company had initially recommended the use of 25 scaffold towers to tie the guardrails to 237 metres of perimeter roofing but reduced that to two scaffold towers on the client’s request. However, the RAMS was largely generic in nature and did not set out specific detail relating to the scaffold work to assist the scaffolders when erecting the scaffold, or provide any design or technical information to prove the adequacy of the scaffolding structure. The Company had produced a site-specific risk assessment and method statement (RAMS) for the scaffold work. It was very fortunate that no one was injured. ![]() Fortunately, due to the time of day, no persons were working on the roof at the time of the incident, however, a Jersey Daily employee had only moments earlier entered the building where the scaffold collapsed. As a result of the failure, persons working around the scaffold were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death as the scaffold was insecure.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |