Operators and owners of lifts or cranes must:
There are two main sides to legislation – that placing requirements on designers and manufacturers and on the other side obligations for owners and operators.
This is an Act of Parliament and so a law of the land. It is very general but carries high penalties and so is usually the one used for prosecutions. In essence it says that no-one should become injured or have their health affected at work or by someone at work. If they do, then either the employer or employee is to blame, and they may be fined or in extreme cases jailed.
For example, it is likely that if someone is injured by a faulty crane or lift that has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions then a prosecution would be made under the HASAWA rather than PUWER because a judge would argue that the employer has not made every effort to keep persons safe. The procedure would be the same to take action against an employee if the accident were caused by an employee tampering with a safety device as the HASAWA places a legal duty on employees to co-operate with their employer and not to misuse or tamper with safety related items.
These start to flesh out the Act with more detail but are enacted by ministers or ministerial bodies rather than Parliament and can be enforced by various authorities but not always in a Court of Law. The most general one relating to the workplace is the Provision and use of Work Equipment Regulations and, due to the specific hazards associated with lifting there is a sister regulation in the Lifting Operation and Lifting Equipment Regulations that gives specific requirements to control the risks around lifting. They are generally enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and contravention can lead to fines but if someone has been injured it would be more usual for a prosecution to be brought under the HASWA. For example, if a routine visit by a Health and Safety Executive inspector flagged up that lifting equipment was not being inspected then a fine may be imposed due to the contravention of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations.
Such documents are not legal requirements as they can be very prescriptive and so cannot cover all situations or new developments in technology. They are advice for certain circumstances that if followed then the enforcing authority is unlikely to take action. More than that, if it is an Approved Code of Practice that has been suitably applied then the enforcing authority cannot take action. There is an Approved Code of Practice for Goods Lifts that describes in considerable detail how a goods lift can be designed, built and installed. It cannot be applied to a whole range of circumstances such as garage lifts, a fork-lift trucks, dock-levellers or our own CellarLifts but all these would still be covered under LOLER, PUWER and HASAWA.
This is a term regularly used in regulations when describing who should be inspecting equipment and can be open to interpretation. It is generally accepted that a competent person has “such appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment to be thoroughly examined as will enable them to detect defects or weaknesses and to assess their importance in relation to the safety and continued use of the lifting equipment”. They must also be suitably impartial as to be able to “fail” items and have no pressure applied to “let things run”. The owner or operator of the equipment must decide who they contract to carry out inspections. It sounds obvious but inspection and maintenance are different, but both are legal requirements.
The Machinery Directive governs every aspect of machinery design and making ready for sale. It covers a wide range of design aspects but in brief,
The enforcing authority for ensuring compliance of machinery and equipment in the workplace is the Health and Safety Executive but for private use it would be Trading Standards. Penalties can be harsh. It has been used in the past to ensure conformity of design throughout the European Union but criteria may now start to diverge. American design safety factors have always differed to that of the UK so any crane bought in the USA would need to have the design checked and documented prior to affixing the CE/UKCA mark and being offered for sale in the UK.
These are detailed documents drawn up by a variety of bodies who have expert knowledge in particular areas to drive improvement, efficiency, safety and conformity. They have some bearing on operators but are primarily aimed at designers. Some British standards (BS) groups work with European partners so that it can become a European standard (EN) or with international partners to become a world standard (ISO). They have no basis in law but can be used as evidence of best practice. An example is that the Association of Lorry Loaders, Manufacturers and Importers (ALLMI) represent the UK at a Europe wide working group to improve the design and safety of lorry loading equipment. They have helped to produce the BS EN 1299:2020 Cranes-Loader Cranes. The document specifies minimum requirements for design, calculation, examinations and tests of hydraulic powered loader cranes and their mountings on vehicles or static foundations.