[200William-EC SP67851] SP67851 - SAFETY REPORT

[Rob Willett]

‘to identify physical hazards that give rise to risks on the Subject Property, to assess those risks, and to recommend control measures’.

WTF! Goodness me, I sympathise George having to deal with people like this! So we pay the money, they can’t give us the full details we need, they take no responsibility and tell us to find out ourselves. In other words, we need not do anything because the red tape sys why should we! 

I wanna be in that business! Actually, no, I couldn’t think of anything worse. 

Thanks George anyway, sounds like we are in code. 

















On 10 Jun 2014, at 11:53 pm, George Ziri <Georgeziri at bfms.com.au> wrote:

> Good Afternoon All,
>  
> So far I have the following. The response from the Safety report inspector is ambiguous and they are not able to provide requirements for when the building was constructed.
>  
> The only extract I could find from the BCA is attached. From the extract (fig 3.9.2.2 & 3.6.2.3), all areas noted under the report are less than 1 meter heights.
>  
>  
> George Ziri
> OPERATIONS
> Building Facilities Management Solutions
> m: 0400 300 242
> e: georgeziri at bfms.com.au  w:  www.bfms.com.au
>  
> <image001.gif>   
> Safety | Integrity | Service | Excellence
>  
> From: Marco Camps [mailto:MarcoC at solutionsinengineering.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2014 9:35 AM
> To: George Ziri
> Subject: RE: SP67851 - SAFETY REPORT
>  
> Hi George,
>                
> Our safety reports, in line with cl 16.1.1 of our Supply Terms and Conditions, have as their purpose ‘to identify physical hazards that give rise to risks on the Subject Property, to assess those risks, and to recommend control measures’. It is not within the remit of our safety report to comment on whether the building would have complied with the BCA at the time it was approved. We deliberately refrain from doing so, as we believe the relevant building certifier at the time was better placed to make that determination.
>  
> However, should you wish to investigate the matter yourself, you may be assisted by the archives of the BCA: http://www.abcb.gov.au/en/ncc-products/ncc-archives/bca1988and1990-archives Handrails are generally provided at D2.16 of the BCA.
>  
> Thank you
> Marco
>  
> From: George Ziri [mailto:Georgeziri at bfms.com.au] 
> Sent: Friday, 6 June 2014 6:30 PM
> To: Marco Camps
> Subject: RE: SP67851 - SAFETY REPORT
>  
> Thank you Marco for clarifying item 6.
>  
> The safety report is now on record and in the interest of knowing if the builder complied with the BCA at the time of construction (1999) would you be kind to clarify if this code in affect at the time.
>  
> George Ziri
> OPERATIONS
> Building Facilities Management Solutions
> m: 0400 300 242
> e: georgeziri at bfms.com.au  w:  www.bfms.com.au
>  
> <image001.gif>   
> Safety | Integrity | Service | Excellence
>  
> From: Marco Camps [mailto:MarcoC at solutionsinengineering.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 6 June 2014 3:11 PM
> To: George Ziri
> Subject: RE: SP67851 - SAFETY REPORT
>  
> Hi George
>  
> In response to your queries.
>  
> Item 6 : AS3760:2010 Table 4. If you do not have access to the Australian Standards, there is an extract of the AS3760:2010 on this link: http://www.abctestandtag.com.au/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=3&id=40&artlang=en
>  
> Item 19, 33 and 34. The BCA does not have retrospective legislative effect, but it is considered good practice to keep up to date with new building requirements. Work Health Safety and Common Law (including possible public liability) overarching obligations are to provide a safe place of work/safe environment for site visitors, not just comply with the building code. As such, we recommend that to reduce the potential for liability under the WHS Act and in negligence.
> The BCA Volume 1 is updated every year, and this is the current standard. We don’t have access to previous standards to see when exactly it changed.
>  
> I hope this explains your queries, if you have any more question please feel free to email or call me.
>  
> Thank you
> Marco
>  
>  
> From: George Ziri [mailto:Georgeziri at bfms.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, 5 June 2014 9:37 AM
> To: Marco Camps
> Subject: SP67851 - SAFETY REPORT
>  
> Good Morning Marco,
>  
> We have received and reviewed the report prepared for SP67851 by Solutions Engineering.
>  
> Would you be kind to provide information on the following please:
>  
> Item 6 – Is a fixed appliance. As a residential property please advise what code/standard/requirement you are referring to having the appliance tagged.
>  
> Item 19 – Under a residential property please advise when this code/standard/requirement was introduced. Is this a requirement of good practice?
>  
> Item 33 – Under a residential property please advise when this code/standard/requirement was introduced. Is this a requirement of good practice?
>  
> Item 34 – Under a residential property please advise when this code/standard/requirement was introduced. Is this a requirement of good practice?
>  
>  
> George Ziri
> OPERATIONS
> Building Facilities Management Solutions
> m: 0400 300 242
> e: georgeziri at bfms.com.au  w:  www.bfms.com.au
>  
> <image001.gif>   
> Safety | Integrity | Service | Excellence
>  
> <image003.jpg>
> <image003.jpg>
> 
> <CCF11062014_0001.pdf>_______________________________________________
> EC mailing list
> EC at 200william.com
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140611/46e242dd/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ROB19732_RobEmailSig.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20317 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140611/46e242dd/attachment-0001.jpg