This episode does rather make one wonder where this country is going. Some people seem to have more ...
Paul Goddard
18:46 29.07.2008
If the van is used for personal use, and is the private property of the contractor, then the council ...
John Hill
20:44 26.07.2008
There are no related discussions.
Decorator fined for smoking in van
News | HSP
25.07.2008
A self-employed decorator who was on his way to buy tea bags has been fined for smoking in his van.
Gordon Williams, from Ceredigion, was driving near Aberystwyth in his unmarked van when he was pulled over by council officials doing spot checks on vehicle safety.
He was handed a £30 fixed penalty notice for smoking in a place of work.
Williams denied the van was a place of work and said it was insured for private use only. He has paid the fine - which could have increased to £50 - but has appealed against it.
Ceredigion Council said it would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases but noted: "The legislation allows for a right of appeal and the procedures in relation to this are set out in the notices."
The Smoke-free Premises (Wales) Regulations 2007, which came into force in April last year, state that vehicles must be smoke-free if they are used to transport members of the public, or if they are used by more than one person for work (regardless of whether they use it at the same time or only intermittently).
The latest discussion & debate from the healthandsafetyprofessional.co.uk discussion forums...
I am finding that many of my colleagues simply do not take the risk of an office fire seriously enough.
Cheesey Cakey | Sep 04 2008 03:23PM
why do we record fire outbreak on our airlines?
ihejirika uche | Sep 01 2008 11:54PM
New HSE solvent storage guidelines
Are there any members who have discovered the BS EN 14470-1 advice for storing more than 50 litres in a ...
Tony Thorpe | Sep 01 2008 02:02PM
Added: 18:46 29.07.2008
This episode does rather make one wonder where this country is going. Some people seem to have more human rights than others. I believe the human rights bill has a lot to answer for or, is it the way it is interpreted. I would suggest probably the latter. Van as a workplace or piece of work equipment, interesting question. A year or two ago I had a company car with a seat that gave me the most awful backache. I was doing about 30000 miles a year. The company wasn't that interested although my boss being the health and safety manager sent me to the company occupational provider who came to the same decision as me that the seat was to blame. Enquiries were made with the HSE for a decision whether the company car was a piece of work equipment or a workplace. Both came back as negative. It would appear that as it was neither the company had no obligation to change the seat or change the car. So if a company car is not a piece of work equipment or a workplace how can someone be prosecuted for smoking in it. I guess it will be another test case at enormous expense.
Paul Goddard
Report this comment as unsuitable
Added: 20:44 26.07.2008
If the van is used for personal use, and is the private property of the contractor, then the council concerned could well have overstepped the mark (by a mile). Also, the burden of proof (before one can be summarily fined), is the presumption of innocence. (Bill of Rights). There is also a freedom to adopt a lifestyle of choice which is also protected under EU Human Rights.(which includes the freedom to smoke if one wishes...it is not yet illegal, although the PC merchants would like it to be so, after which they can look at something else to frown upon! I would advise the contractor to seek the assistance if a solicitor versed in Human Right legislation, as there is a trend towards authoritarianism set by the government under the guise of other matters. Privacy has also been invaded. My advice: Take names and sue! It seems that the council has breached several areas of human rights legislation,(which seems to be beginning to be a habit where councils and other organisationd disapprove of the actions/habits of individuals. We are supposed to live in a democracy where officials are supposed to work for us,and be responsible to us, not the opposite. There is a good case, for if the contractor only, as reported, uses the van to get to work, then the right to privacy applies. There are far too many jobsworths out there who allow alleged power to rush to their heads. This trend to authoritarianism should be resisted at all costs, as the erosion of our liberties it represents is a slippery slope. Also, if a public servant has acted against the public interest, he/she is accountable as he/she commits an offence!
John Hill
Report this comment as unsuitable