brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 41,240
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
sooner than that. i bought a 4 speed rewriter and within a month a 6 speed came out. i bought that then a bloody 12 speed
i bought one . then a 12 speed burnproof one .
i gave up
- Thread starter Kent
- Start date
i bought one . then a 12 speed burnproof one .i gave upKent,
As I understand it, you want to set up a joint venture factory on the farm to manufacture the steelwork...? and try to hide behind the 'site work' loop hole...
This is nonsense, and your satellite factory will have to be incorporated into your FPC and have it audited by a notified body
A poor attempt at cheating !!!!
SJR
As I understand it, you want to set up a joint venture factory on the farm to manufacture the steelwork...? and try to hide behind the 'site work' loop hole...
This is nonsense, and your satellite factory will have to be incorporated into your FPC and have it audited by a notified body
A poor attempt at cheating !!!!
SJR
the snooper
getting older by the day
- Messages
- 21,078
- Location
- Hull UK
sooner than that. i bought a 4 speed rewriter and within a month a 6 speed came out. i bought that then a bloody 12 speed
snap when they came out I got a 2 speed and blanks were quite expensive back then and then they got to 50 odd speed
blenkie1
Member
- Messages
- 1,006
RWLSTEVE it's not a joint venture though Kent is only doing the work i.e fabricating the up rights, etc as far as I can tell he has nothing to do with the other man other than he has offered Kent the work, and his workplace to do the work. He is only wanting to know the legality of it. What if the man was actually employing Kent and not getting him in as a contractor? Surely the employee would not be taken to court for doing the work set by his employer
I can understand Kent's dilemma a load of work to get him started and the other man is providing most of the gear, kent is just providing the labour, nothing to do with selling or erecting the sheds.
I don't know enough about EN1090 to give proper advice has anyone a decent link so I can read up about it?
I can understand Kent's dilemma a load of work to get him started and the other man is providing most of the gear, kent is just providing the labour, nothing to do with selling or erecting the sheds.
I don't know enough about EN1090 to give proper advice has anyone a decent link so I can read up about it?
does this mean the song has got to have the lyrics changed now to start in the year 2025
I think it depends what it is and what you knew or should reasonably have known. For instance, if you were making small nondescript metal parts which turned out to be part of an illegally made sub-machine gun, but could have been for anything, or you were making 9mm rifled barrels which no one with any sense could imagine were for anything else, the consequences would be very different. You're not absolved from doing illegal things because your employer told you to, and an instruction to do something illegal isn't a reasonable request from an employer.
This business of 'done on the farm' implies to me that it's done for your own use, not for sale.
In this case it seems that Kent is knowingly assisting in an attempt to evade a piece of legislation.
The consequences depend on the consequences, anything from a letter telling you to stop or get registered, to serious hot water in the unlikely event that a building fell down and killed or crippled a dozen schoolkids.
In Kent's position I'd want a lot more assurance that I wasn't going to carry the can, but I believe many businesses would never have started unless the owners had sailed close to the wind in the early days.
blenkie1
Member
- Messages
- 1,006
Very good points PTvor. I seem to remember a good few years back a firm making parts for a super sized gun for saddam hussain which was claimed was for the petro-chemical industry. Like you say a few businesses have been close to the edge when starting out and probably just having a dose of good luck to go with it.
the snooper
getting older by the day
- Messages
- 21,078
- Location
- Hull UK
that all depends on whether humans or the local mars fab shop built any structures there
As far as Kent goes, the question hinges on whether the possible offence is knowingly making things which are not compliant with EN1090 realising they are for sale, or it's the act of selling things which are not compliant, or whether he can be roped in for assisting in the manufacture and sale of such. There's also the question of what the insurance companies would make of it if anything went wrong (because they tend to sort things out between themselves rather then have it go to court) and to what extent his personal liability would be separate from that of his company if TSHTF big time.
I suspect he's OK with this and the person or company offering the work and selling the goods is taking the risk, but I'd be inclined to check it out with a lawyer and not one doing conveyancing, wills and defending burglars in court.
Kent
Member
- Messages
- 9,988
- Location
- Bowland, Lanacshire,UK
That's pretty much my thoughts
mike os
just a little insane.....
- Messages
- 9,809
- Location
- North Wales
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. And anyone making frames has a legal requirement to be certified. .. no way out that way.
As an employee he would be able to claim ignorance as he is not a 'responsible person' as far as design fit for purpose or BS or EN compliance. .. It is the employers responsibility to ensure that they complete what they do in compliance with relevant regs and legislation.
Even as an employee making rifled tubes... as long as it's not on the drawing as 'gun barrel' he can't be expected to know the purpose of every part he is told to make.. In the matrix Churchill case it was the owners and management that were prosecuted not the staff iirc
As an employee he would be able to claim ignorance as he is not a 'responsible person' as far as design fit for purpose or BS or EN compliance. .. It is the employers responsibility to ensure that they complete what they do in compliance with relevant regs and legislation.
Even as an employee making rifled tubes... as long as it's not on the drawing as 'gun barrel' he can't be expected to know the purpose of every part he is told to make.. In the matrix Churchill case it was the owners and management that were prosecuted not the staff iirc
the snooper
getting older by the day
- Messages
- 21,078
- Location
- Hull UK
I would say if kent is a self employed fabricator then in they eyes of the law he will be expected to know the rules and regs required just like any other business
As I said, what's the offence? Building non-compliant steelwork knowing it's for sale as structural steelwork, or actually selling non-compliant steelwork as structural steelwork (which he wouldn't be involved in), or could he be dragged in for assisting in building and selling non-compliant steelwork?
Then there's the question of liability in civil actions for damages which might follow were one of these structures to fail. Inevitably the losses would be large and there'd be the possibility of loss of life or injuries as well. Once again, I think the anvil would drop on the seller, but this is one for a lawyer specialising in this sort of work to advise on.
the snooper
getting older by the day
- Messages
- 21,078
- Location
- Hull UK
I wouldn't think the selling part comes into it at all because the section I read stated it had have the cert even if it was free of charge and given the size of steel used how could it be anything but structural
clift_d
Member
- Messages
- 574
- Location
- Hackney innit (UK)
If he's a subbie he would be expected to know that what he produces for his client i.e. the guy providing the work, needs to be compliant. So either he produces stuff which is non-compliant i.e. commits an offence, or he passes on non-compliant stuff as if it was compliant i.e. commits an offence.
The only opportunity to avoid this, as several commentators have already highlighted, is to work as an employee and then the duty to ensure compliance rests with the employer.
Presumably you can build non-compliant steel structures for yourself or hire contractors to build them, but passing them on as structural steel by way of sale, gift, lease etc is out.
If you used them as structural steel yourself, there's another lot of trouble brewing in not complying with building regulations, insurance being void should they fail and all the problems if someone else was injured.
clift_d
Member
- Messages
- 574
- Location
- Hackney innit (UK)
Presumably, although if you knowingly erected a non-compliant structure and then it failed, for whatever reason, and somebody was killed or injured by it, then there would be a whole heap of trouble.
Except they wouldn't be able to build you anything non-compliant without getting themselves in trouble i.e. you couldn't ask them to break the law.
