CFTS urges industry to sort forklift inspections 30 May 2013

As the HSE continues to clamps down on inspection and maintenance dodgers, industry is being warned to think twice before delaying inspections and maintenance of forklift trucks.

The warning comes from Richard Hayes, chairman of CFTS, the delivery body for the UK's national standard for the thorough inspection of fork trucks, and follows news of the HSE's latest prosecution against an Essex-based steel fabrication firm operating a truck with infringements under LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) and PUWER (the Provision of Work Equipment Regulations).

"Ignoring this legal and moral duty is not a good policy for your industrial equipment and, furthermore, it's not legal – as a number of forklift truck users have found to their cost this year," states Hayes.

In the most recent case, the employer's forklift had not had a thorough examination for more than 12 months. Furthermore, it had been kept in continuous use, despite showing obvious signs of disrepair.

The HSE's report revealed that no fewer than 18 of the 24 key items examined on the truck required urgent repair. Defects included: worn-out tyres, loose counterweight and non-functioning lamps and beacons.

CFTS, which administers the fork lift truck industry's own national thorough examination accreditation scheme, suggests that not all inspections offered to forklift users would have picked up on these issues.

"Due to the nature of their design, fork lift trucks are covered by two separate pieces of legislation – each of which has its own testing criteria," explains Hayes.

"The parts comprising a truck's lifting mechanism are covered separately by LOLER, which requires a thorough examination of all lifting apparatus at least once every 12 months.

"Under PUWER, employers must ensure that safety-critical parts such as those cited by the HSE report undergo regular, recorded safety inspections," he continues.

"A LOLER-only inspection would have picked up defects in lifting components, such as forks and chains, but would not have checked vital aspects covered by PUWER – such as brakes, steering and safety equipment, and the majority of companies are still carrying out LOLER-only inspections."

The company concerned was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £3,238 in costs for putting its workers at risk through breaches of LOLER 1998 and PUWER 1998.

"Sadly, this is not an isolated case," asserts Hayes. "Earlier this year a slate and stone supplier was fined for breaching PUWER. Once again, courts heard that the company's practice had been to repair only in response to breakdowns."

HSE investigators reported that the truck had not been properly maintained and that the two sets of bearings holding the forks in line had collapsed.

Brian Tinham

Related Companies
BITA Ltd
Fork Lift Truck Association

This material is protected by MA Business copyright
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.