View report page

Hoists and Lifts Regulations
As foreseen in the previous report the enforcement of these Regulations has placed
considerable responsibilities on the 'competent persons' — normally, of course, lift
engineers. Inevitably a few problems have arisen. Occasionally the copy of the exam'
ination report (F.54) of a defective hoist fails to reach the local authority within the
28 days specified. Defects under paragraph 5 of the report (i.e. those repairs, renewals
or alterations required to enable the hoist or lift to continue to be used with safety)
are sometimes not correctly indicated as to whether they fall within category (a)
immediate action or (b) within a specified time. If category (b) is indicated the specified
time is sometimes omitted. It is clear that some examiners are in doubt whether to
include the lack of an enclosure of the liftway, particularly with hand-operated crate
hoists, within paragraph 5 i.e. affecting the safe-use of the hoist or paragraph 6 which
has no safe-use implications.
In one aspect the Regulations appear to be inadequate. Where an examination
report indicates the need for repair, the officer who checks to see if the work has been
done is in a difficult position if the work required is of a highly technical character.
It is suggested that lift engineers carrying out repairs specified on an F.54 report should,
on completion of the work, endorse the F.54 (or its copy) held on the premises to this
effect. The officer can then quickly establish that the lift is again in a sound and safe
condition.
The "competent person" referred to in Regulation 6 who is acceptable for the
carrying out of an examination of a lift is clearly intended to be an insurance company
engineer or an employee of a firm specialising in lift installation or maintenance. There
is however no clear obligation in the Regulations for this to be so and it would appear
to be possible for a qualified person employed in a large undertaking to carry out
examinations on the company's own hoists and lifts and issue F. 54's accordingly. This
would seem to be an undesirable situation.
The number of premises within the Borough in which lifts or hoists subject to the
Regulations are sited is expected to approximate 150 and the total number of lifts or
hoists to be in the order of 200. The present count indicates that 45% of the lifts and
hoists are manually operated and the greater part of these require enclosure to meet
the Regulations. In a number of cases this work has already been carried out but there
is still a preponderance of hand-powered crate hoists, particularly in licensed premises,
which require to have the liftway enclosed.
Part III — Accidents
Of the 26 recorded accidents during the year none proved to be of a serious
character. The majority arose from an accidental fall, trip or slip (11) or a fall on
stairs or from step ladders (5). Accidents occurring to butchers with their knives continue
to appear steadily (4 in the year). All accidents were investigated and in only
one case was a clear contravention of the Act revealed.
In this case a youth employed part-time undertook on his own initiative, to clean
a gravity feed slicing machine in a food shop and sustained cuts. A contravention of
Section 18 was established and the Council, upon consideration of the case, decided
that a formal warning from the Town Clerk to the owners of the business that proper
supervision must be exercised would meet the case.
Part IV — Prosecutions
Nil.
76