Title Page
-
The purpose of the day’s inspections at the above listed sites was to ascertain if the scaffolds
erected have been constructed in accordance with any bespoke designs available, BSEN12811
(TG20:21 – compliance sheets) and any manufacturer’s guidance where relevant.
Other guidance used for this inspection is SG4:22 ‘Preventing Falls in Scaffolding’, TG4:19
‘Anchorage Systems for Scaffolding’ and other relevant NASC guidance documentation. In
addition, compliance with the Work at Height Regulations and The Health and Safety at Work Act
1974. -
Client
-
Site Name
-
Location
-
Conducted on
-
Inspectors Name
-
In Attendance (If Applicable)
-
Inspection Type
- Hand Over - was the site manager present and walked the scaffold during the handover.
- 7 day inspection
- Other - comments box for additional information
Site Specific Details
-
Is a bespoke design configuration applicable to the scaffolds constructed on site?
-
Is a design matrix in place?
-
Do all completed/handed over design scaffolds have a<br>"Green Lit" approved for construction design available on site.
-
Are all designed scaffolds erected in accordance with the supplied design drawings?
-
Is there supporting EDC's availed where required if minor deviation from design.
-
Is TG20 compliance sheets applicable to the scaffolds constructed on-site?
-
Have compliance sheets been issued to site?
-
Are all scaffold's erected in accordance with the supplied<br>TG20 compliance sheets
-
Are any system scaffolds constructed on site?
-
Have relevant systems manufacturers instructions been issued to site?
-
Is the system scaffold erected in accordance with the<br>manufacturers instructions
-
Is the load class of the scaffold known? - if yes, detail below in the notes the load class of the scaffold.
-
Has Anchor Testing been undertaken in accordance with TG4:19 and certificates been completed?
-
Are tested ties tagged?
-
Are 'Scafftags' in use on-site?
-
Are gin wheels installed to the scaffold? - if yes is there a current thorough examination available on site?
-
Have Handover Certificates been completed and issued for all scaffolds? This is to certify its readiness for use and inform the client of any limitations and their responsibilities.
Construction and Workmanship of Scaffolds
-
Have all previous actions been closed out from previous inspections- <br>If no- items raised must be made red and failed. Observations more than 7 days are to be failed.
-
FOUNDATIONS - Were foundations adequate and suitable for the scaffolds observed?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Foundations supplied by the client are inadequate
- Standards/base plates are not placed centrally to the sole board for even weight distribution
- Incorrect sole board size (Minimum 450mm long, 220mm wide and 36mm thickness
- No sole boards present/base plates omitted
- Sole boards were not set back the minimum of 300mm from the edge of a slope
- Sole boards were found to be damaged/not of a suitable strength
- A trench has been dug within 1.0m of the scaffold foundations creating possible ground collapse hazards
- Other observation
- Recommended best practice not followed
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Foundations supplied by the client are inadequate
- Standards/base plates are not placed centrally to the sole board for even weight distribution
- Incorrect sole board size (Minimum 450mm long, 220mm wide and 36mm thickness
- No sole boards present/base plates omitted
- Sole boards were not set back the minimum of 300mm from the edge of a slope
- Sole boards were found to be damaged/not of a suitable strength
- A trench has been dug within 1.0m of the scaffold foundations creating possible ground collapse hazards
- Other observation
- Recommended best practice not followed
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Not applicable
-
STANDARDS - Were standards adequately installed? (Consider level, joints, connections and spacing etc)
- No identified issues, No further action required
- More than two joints were found in the same bay and same lift level
- Standards were observed causing a trip hazard above the working platform. Standards should be kept flush with the working platform or exceed at 1m above
- Standards were observed outside of the vertical tolerance of +20mm in each 2.0m of height to a maximum deviation of 50mm
- Standards connected to beams have been secured on 'Horn Ends' not following the guidance set out within TG20:21 section 9.3
- Standards have been found installed as puncheons and have not been installed sufficiently/grounded on firm level ground
- Standard spacing exceeds the maximum detail in the compliance sheet and/or design
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No identified issues, No further action required
- More than two joints were found in the same bay and same lift level
- Standards were observed causing a trip hazard above the working platform. Standards should be kept flush with the working platform or exceed at 1m above
- Standards were observed outside of the vertical tolerance of +20mm in each 2.0m of height to a maximum deviation of 50mm
- Standards connected to beams have been secured on 'Horn Ends' not following the guidance set out within TG20:21 section 9.3
- Standards have been found installed as puncheons and have not been installed sufficiently/grounded on firm level ground
- Standard spacing exceeds the maximum detail in the compliance sheet and/or design
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
-
LEDGERS - Were ledgers adequately installed? (Consider level, joints, connections and spacing etc)
- No known issues, No further action required
- More than two joints were observed in the same bay including the guardrail sections above
- Underslung bridle tube were observed to have been installed with the use of non load bearing couplers (singles)
- Expanding joint pins have been used where tension could occur that have not been spliced with small length tube connected with two swivel couplers
- Ledgers were not level within the tolerance of +20mm in 2.0m of length, to the maximum of 50mm. (Exception when a foot lift that follows the slope of the ground)
- Ledgers were installed using non load-bearing couplers
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- More than two joints were observed in the same bay including the guardrail sections above
- Underslung bridle tube were observed to have been installed with the use of non load bearing couplers (singles)
- Expanding joint pins have been used where tension could occur that have not been spliced with small length tube connected with two swivel couplers
- Ledgers were not level within the tolerance of +20mm in 2.0m of length, to the maximum of 50mm. (Exception when a foot lift that follows the slope of the ground)
- Ledgers were installed using non load-bearing couplers
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
-
TRANSOMS - Were transoms adequately installed? (Consider spacing, extension and connections etc)
- No known issues, No further action required
- Transoms installed do not protrude through the coupler sufficiently as required by TG20
- Intermediate transom spacings were observed to be inadequate/excessive
- Boards end transoms were not installed within either 50mm minimum or 150mm maximum overhang of the scaffold board
- Extendable transom extension sliders were not secured to prevent movement in or out
- Structural transoms have not been installed using load bearing fittings/ structural transoms missing from the structure
- Extendable transoms were damaged/insecure
- No - Other
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practise not followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Transoms installed do not protrude through the coupler sufficiently as required by TG20
- Intermediate transom spacings were observed to be inadequate/excessive
- Boards end transoms were not installed within either 50mm minimum or 150mm maximum overhang of the scaffold board
- Extendable transom extension sliders were not secured to prevent movement in or out
- Structural transoms have not been installed using load bearing fittings/ structural transoms missing from the structure
- Extendable transoms were damaged/insecure
- No - Other
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practise not followed
- Not applicable
-
COUPLERS - Were couplers of the correct variety and used appropriately?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Girder clamp couplers were observed to have been installed individually/ not in opposing pairs as per the manufacturer's instructions
- Non-loading bearing fittings (singles) used where loading bearing fittings should be used
- Single couplers used to secure boards, proprietary boards clamps should be used to reduce trip hazards
- Other observations
- Recommended best practice not followed
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Girder clamp couplers were observed to have been installed individually/ not in opposing pairs as per the manufacturer's instructions
- Non-loading bearing fittings (singles) used where loading bearing fittings should be used
- Single couplers used to secure boards, proprietary boards clamps should be used to reduce trip hazards
- Other observations
- Recommended best practice not followed
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Not applicable
-
BRACING - Was bracing installed correctly and in line with the design/TG20 compliance sheet/manufacturer's instructions provided?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Façade bracing was not installed at the correct intervals to the full height of the scaffold
- Beams were not braced in accordance with the requirements of TG20/bespoke design
- Ledger bracing installed on scaffolds one lift tall have not been installed in the direction diagonally away from the façade as per TG20:21 sections 6.12
- Ledger bracing was not installed to the correct intervals/lift heights
- Braces were installed in excess of 300mm from a node point. Braces should be connected within 300mm of a node point as per TG20
- Bracing was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction.
- Braces were not installed in accordance with the design made available
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practise has not been followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Façade bracing was not installed at the correct intervals to the full height of the scaffold
- Beams were not braced in accordance with the requirements of TG20/bespoke design
- Ledger bracing installed on scaffolds one lift tall have not been installed in the direction diagonally away from the façade as per TG20:21 sections 6.12
- Ledger bracing was not installed to the correct intervals/lift heights
- Braces were installed in excess of 300mm from a node point. Braces should be connected within 300mm of a node point as per TG20
- Bracing was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction.
- Braces were not installed in accordance with the design made available
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practise has not been followed
- Not applicable
-
STABILITY - Were scaffolds adequately tied or stabilised?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Scaffold ties have not been installed to the correct frequency as stipulated on the compliance sheet/design
- Scaffold ties were not installed within 300mm of the node point as defined in TG20
- Structural transoms at every pair of standards or Raker support at every ledger braced bay has not been installed for scaffolds one lift high as per TG20:21 section 6.23 & 6.12
- The scaffold does not have suitable stability methods installed in accordance with TG20, TG4, design or manufacturers instruction
- Anchor ties installed have not been installed adequately as per TG4 and/or manufacturers instructions
- Ties have not been installed in the correct configuration as per TG20
- No - Other
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Scaffold ties have not been installed to the correct frequency as stipulated on the compliance sheet/design
- Scaffold ties were not installed within 300mm of the node point as defined in TG20
- Structural transoms at every pair of standards or Raker support at every ledger braced bay has not been installed for scaffolds one lift high as per TG20:21 section 6.23 & 6.12
- The scaffold does not have suitable stability methods installed in accordance with TG20, TG4, design or manufacturers instruction
- Anchor ties installed have not been installed adequately as per TG4 and/or manufacturers instructions
- Ties have not been installed in the correct configuration as per TG20
- No - Other
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not applicable
-
PLATFORMS - Were working platforms correctly boarded, boards of good quality and platforms of adequate dimension for the activities being undertaken?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Scaffold boards less than 2.13m have not been secured adequately to prevent movement
- Scaffolds boards were observed to be damaged/have cuts/ splits and/or signs of rot present
- Scaffolds boards were warped excessively creating trip hazards on the working platform
- Board(s) are notched and have not been adequately supported either side of the notch with transom tubes within 150mm of the notch, this may affect the load bearing capacity of the scaffold board
- Gaps in excess of the allowable 50mm were found to be present within the working platforms. Working platforms should not have any gaps greater than the allowable 50mm present for the passing of the inside standards
- Materials was stored on the platform, exceeding the maximum loadings detailed on the compliance sheet/design (third party). This could affect the strength and stability of the scaffold
- Overlapping boards have been installed on the main platform. Overlapping boards should be avoided and should only be sited on the returns of scaffolding
- Metal system scaffold decks were observed to be damaged with excessive dents/bends/impact damage observed
- System scaffold decks were not secured to prevent uplift using the propriety system
- Impact hazards were observed on the working platform such as protruding tubes/equipment/low head room or tie tubes
- U-gap decks/U-ledgers with gap covers have not been used creating potential trip hazards within the working platform
- System scaffold deck were found to be damaged
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended beat practice not followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Scaffold boards less than 2.13m have not been secured adequately to prevent movement
- Scaffolds boards were observed to be damaged/have cuts/ splits and/or signs of rot present
- Scaffolds boards were warped excessively creating trip hazards on the working platform
- Board(s) are notched and have not been adequately supported either side of the notch with transom tubes within 150mm of the notch, this may affect the load bearing capacity of the scaffold board
- Gaps in excess of the allowable 50mm were found to be present within the working platforms. Working platforms should not have any gaps greater than the allowable 50mm present for the passing of the inside standards
- Materials was stored on the platform, exceeding the maximum loadings detailed on the compliance sheet/design (third party). This could affect the strength and stability of the scaffold
- Overlapping boards have been installed on the main platform. Overlapping boards should be avoided and should only be sited on the returns of scaffolding
- Metal system scaffold decks were observed to be damaged with excessive dents/bends/impact damage observed
- System scaffold decks were not secured to prevent uplift using the propriety system
- Impact hazards were observed on the working platform such as protruding tubes/equipment/low head room or tie tubes
- U-gap decks/U-ledgers with gap covers have not been used creating potential trip hazards within the working platform
- System scaffold deck were found to be damaged
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended beat practice not followed
- Not applicable
-
GUARDRAILS - Were guardrails adequately installed to all working platforms and set at the correct height?
- No known issues, No further actions required
- Falls from height were observed to be present/ inadequate guard rail arrangements in place
- Guardrails were incorrect to the measurements as detailed within the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (470mm max gap/ 950mm minimum height)
- The internal service gap was in excess of 300mm with a risk of a fall present without double guardrails installed. (Double guardrails should be installed unless other arrangements are made to control the risk of falling personnel)
- The internal service gap was between, 225mm - 300mm with a risk of injury present, without single guardrails installed
- Edge protection was observed to have been erected to an unknow configuration outside the scope of BS EN13374 and SG27 or a design drawing
- Guardrail tube have been secured with non load bearing couplers at the return corners of the scaffold
- Guardrail tube has been secured with non load bearing couplers
- Inadequate restricting of access to incomplete sections of scaffolding was observed, minimum of double guardrails and signage required
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended beat practice not followed
- Not Applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further actions required
- Falls from height were observed to be present/ inadequate guard rail arrangements in place
- Guardrails were incorrect to the measurements as detailed within the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (470mm max gap/ 950mm minimum height)
- The internal service gap was in excess of 300mm with a risk of a fall present without double guardrails installed. (Double guardrails should be installed unless other arrangements are made to control the risk of falling personnel)
- The internal service gap was between, 225mm - 300mm with a risk of injury present, without single guardrails installed
- Edge protection was observed to have been erected to an unknow configuration outside the scope of BS EN13374 and SG27 or a design drawing
- Guardrail tube have been secured with non load bearing couplers at the return corners of the scaffold
- Guardrail tube has been secured with non load bearing couplers
- Inadequate restricting of access to incomplete sections of scaffolding was observed, minimum of double guardrails and signage required
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended beat practice not followed
- Not Applicable
-
TOE BOARDS - Were toe boards adequately installed to all working platforms, correctly supported and in good condition?
- No know issues, No further action required
- Toe boards were observed to be omitted/missing from the working platform, this increases the risk of materials falling from height
- Toe boards were observed to be unsecured/loose fitting present, toe boards should be secured in two locations to prevent inwards and outwards movement
- Excessive gaps were present in the toe boards to the working platform that increases the risk of materials falling from height
- The toe boards installed were observed to be in a poor condition
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not Applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No know issues, No further action required
- Toe boards were observed to be omitted/missing from the working platform, this increases the risk of materials falling from height
- Toe boards were observed to be unsecured/loose fitting present, toe boards should be secured in two locations to prevent inwards and outwards movement
- Excessive gaps were present in the toe boards to the working platform that increases the risk of materials falling from height
- The toe boards installed were observed to be in a poor condition
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not Applicable
-
BRICK GUARDS - Were Brick guards installed to all working platforms, if required by risk assessment?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Brick guards were missing, this gives rise to the risk of materials falling from height
- Brick guards were not secured adequately and as per manufacturer instructions
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not Applicable
Observations:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Brick guards were missing, this gives rise to the risk of materials falling from height
- Brick guards were not secured adequately and as per manufacturer instructions
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not Applicable
-
NETTING/SHEETING - Was netting/sheeting installed and in accordance with the specification of the design/compliance sheet?
- No known issues, Mo further action required
- Netting was loose/insecure/inadequately installed to the scaffold to prevent falling objects, in accordance with the manufacturers instructions
- Sheeting was loose/inadequately secured to the scaffold in accordance with the manufacturers instructions
- The scaffold has netting/sheeting installed that is not considered in the compliance sheet/design scope. This creates additional wind loading and tie loading which must be considered by further design calculation
- The netting/sheeting has been installed above the top lift principle guardrails without as additional support lift complete with ledger bracing and structural transoms installed as detailed within TG20/bespoke design
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not Applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, Mo further action required
- Netting was loose/insecure/inadequately installed to the scaffold to prevent falling objects, in accordance with the manufacturers instructions
- Sheeting was loose/inadequately secured to the scaffold in accordance with the manufacturers instructions
- The scaffold has netting/sheeting installed that is not considered in the compliance sheet/design scope. This creates additional wind loading and tie loading which must be considered by further design calculation
- The netting/sheeting has been installed above the top lift principle guardrails without as additional support lift complete with ledger bracing and structural transoms installed as detailed within TG20/bespoke design
- Other observation
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not Applicable
-
ACCESS/EGRESS- Was access and egress to the scaffold safe, appropriate and without undue risk to scaffold users?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Good practice observed
- Ladders have not been adequately secured as per NASC guidance SG25 Access & Egress from Scaffolds. Ladders should be secured at both stiles using, proprietary ladder clamps or other suitable means
- The ladder does not project the minimum 1.0m past the working platform to provide as adequate handhold for users of the scaffold when accessing or egressing the ladder
- Access points did not have self-closing ladder gates or ladder trapdoors (hatch) installed, due to this, falls from height were present in this location
- Ladder hatches/ gates have been left open in various areas, this creates possible fall from height hazards. Where ladders/hatches have been left or propped open, this should be recorded and reported to the site manager/ supervisor of the main contractor
- The ladder gate/hatch that has been provided is in poor condition, giving a risk of a fall from height
- Ladders used do not conform to the applicable BS EN131 professional ladder class
- The ladder was damaged with missing end feet to the top or bottom/damaged stiles/damaged rungs
- Ladders have not been placed on firm/level ground
- Ladders guards used do not conform to HSE requirements. as a minimum, guards should cover a minimum of six rungs and no more than 50mm of the rung should be exposed when the guard is tight to one side of the ladder
- Excessive steps are present around the access/egress point
- Gaps exceeding 470mm between principle guardrails and ledgers at internal ladder locations are present, this may lead to a risk of a fall from height
- The maximum recommended vertical distance of 6m between internal ladder landings has been exceeded
- The maximum recommended vertical distance of 4.7m between external ladder landings has been exceeded
- Protruding scaffold tubes/boards were found creating impact hazards
- Other observations
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Good practice observed
- Ladders have not been adequately secured as per NASC guidance SG25 Access & Egress from Scaffolds. Ladders should be secured at both stiles using, proprietary ladder clamps or other suitable means
- The ladder does not project the minimum 1.0m past the working platform to provide as adequate handhold for users of the scaffold when accessing or egressing the ladder
- Access points did not have self-closing ladder gates or ladder trapdoors (hatch) installed, due to this, falls from height were present in this location
- Ladder hatches/ gates have been left open in various areas, this creates possible fall from height hazards. Where ladders/hatches have been left or propped open, this should be recorded and reported to the site manager/ supervisor of the main contractor
- The ladder gate/hatch that has been provided is in poor condition, giving a risk of a fall from height
- Ladders used do not conform to the applicable BS EN131 professional ladder class
- The ladder was damaged with missing end feet to the top or bottom/damaged stiles/damaged rungs
- Ladders have not been placed on firm/level ground
- Ladders guards used do not conform to HSE requirements. as a minimum, guards should cover a minimum of six rungs and no more than 50mm of the rung should be exposed when the guard is tight to one side of the ladder
- Excessive steps are present around the access/egress point
- Gaps exceeding 470mm between principle guardrails and ledgers at internal ladder locations are present, this may lead to a risk of a fall from height
- The maximum recommended vertical distance of 6m between internal ladder landings has been exceeded
- The maximum recommended vertical distance of 4.7m between external ladder landings has been exceeded
- Protruding scaffold tubes/boards were found creating impact hazards
- Other observations
- In the inspectors opinion this is possible third party interference
- Recommended best practice has not been followed
- Not applicable
-
LOADING BAYS - Were loading bays constructed in accordance with the provided design specification/TG20?w
- No known issues, No further actions required
- The loading bay dimensions deviate from the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- Bracing was not installed in accordance with the supplied design/TG20
- The loading bay was missing appropriate signage identifying the maximum safe working load
- The transom spacing was excessive/inadequate and not erected in accordance with the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- The foundations/sole board configuration is not in accordance with the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- Brick guards are missing from the sides of the loading bay to prevent falls of materials
- The loading bay gate is inadequate/damaged/incorrectly erected
- Other observation
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not Applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further actions required
- The loading bay dimensions deviate from the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- Bracing was not installed in accordance with the supplied design/TG20
- The loading bay was missing appropriate signage identifying the maximum safe working load
- The transom spacing was excessive/inadequate and not erected in accordance with the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- The foundations/sole board configuration is not in accordance with the supplied design/TG20 compliance sheet
- Brick guards are missing from the sides of the loading bay to prevent falls of materials
- The loading bay gate is inadequate/damaged/incorrectly erected
- Other observation
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not Applicable
-
PUBLIC PROTECTION - Are public protection measures required and are they in place and adequate?
- No known issues, No further action required
- Observation identified
- This is undertaken by the Principal Contractor and not applicable to the scaffold company
- No applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Observation identified
- This is undertaken by the Principal Contractor and not applicable to the scaffold company
- No applicable
-
Housekeeping
- No known issues, No further action required
- Good practise observed
- Scaffolders materials were observed to cover/part block the working platform creating trip hazards. Working platforms should have a minimum clear passageway of 430mm for operatives to traverse the working platform
- Other trades materials were observed to cover/part block the platform creating trip hazards. Platforms should have a minimum clear passageway of 430mm for operatives to traverse the working platform
- Scaffolders equipment stored/ stacked vertically and left unsecured. creating a material fall hazard
- Other trades materials are stacked poorly creating materials fall hazards
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Other observation
- Not applicable
Observation:-
-
undefined
- No known issues, No further action required
- Good practise observed
- Scaffolders materials were observed to cover/part block the working platform creating trip hazards. Working platforms should have a minimum clear passageway of 430mm for operatives to traverse the working platform
- Other trades materials were observed to cover/part block the platform creating trip hazards. Platforms should have a minimum clear passageway of 430mm for operatives to traverse the working platform
- Scaffolders equipment stored/ stacked vertically and left unsecured. creating a material fall hazard
- Other trades materials are stacked poorly creating materials fall hazards
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Other observation
- Not applicable
-
Additional Items
- Good practice observed
- Category A - Imminent danger to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- Category B - Potential for harm to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- Category C - Low potential for harm to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- In the opinion of the inspector this is possible 3rd party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
- Gin wheel has been installed incorrectly
Observation:-
-
undefined
- Good practice observed
- Category A - Imminent danger to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- Category B - Potential for harm to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- Category C - Low potential for harm to scaffold users and or 3rd parties
- In the opinion of the inspector this is possible 3rd party interference
- Recommended best practice not followed
- Not applicable
- Gin wheel has been installed incorrectly
-
Was all parts of the scaffold accessible at time of inspection - if no what parts are inaccessible
Report Sign Off
-
All NASC Safety Guidance documents are available to download from here https://nasc.org.uk/shop/
-
If applicable and where design engineers confirmation has been requested, please store all relevant information (Engineers design confirmation) with the site file
-
Additional comments/notes (If Applicable)
-
Disclaimer - The inspector(s) believe the information contained within this report to be correct at the time of the visit. The report is based on matters which were observed or came to the attention of the inspector(s) during the assessment and should not be replied upon as an exhaustive record of all possible risks or hazards that may exist or potential improvements that can be made.
-
Details of any action taken as a result of any matter identified - if applicable
-
Details of any further action considered necessary - if applicable
-
Inspection Completed By
