# StableSafety



## StableSafety (11 January 2012)

Welcome Note
Welcome to the first edition of Stable Safety, a series of articles for the owners and carers of horses, ponies, donkeys or mules.
As the owner or carer of an equine animal you are part of a huge industry worth approximately 7 billion pounds to the UK economy. The equestrian sector is also the largest sporting employer in the UK with over 350,000 direct or indirect people employed. And just for interest, did you know there are around 1.4million horses in the UK, thats 17 horses for every 1000 people and 4.3horses per square kilometre, and on average the private owner spends almost £2,500 per year on each horse. Thats a big investment, particularly during these times when money is scarce.

This series of articles might go a little way to helping protect that investment by offering some simple safety advice for both you and your horse.


I have been a horse owner now for many years and like many of you I use a part DIY Livery.  During these years I have paid many a visit to livery yards, riding schools and stables across the South East where I live. As a professional Safety Consultant I cant help but notice safety related issues I see at these establishments; and whilst I must emphasise that many of them have adopted some excellent safety precautions and practices, I have also witnessed some seriously frightening things.

What I hope to achieve in this series of articles is to raise the awareness of safety within the environment we are all so familiar with, and how a few simple steps can go a long way in making our lives that little bit more safer and less riskier.

In the UK it is estimated that over 2.5 million people are involved in this multi-billion pound leisure activity. From the young child taking their first riding lesson to the owner of several horses kept purely for pleasure and leisure, the risk of accident exists. The consequences can however vary considerably. Whilst injuries to children at the riding school usually result in a few bruises and maybe some time off school, for adults it may mean a longer healing process, time off work and financial hardships. So doing what we can to prevent injuries to ourselves and others is something that should be in the forefront of all of our minds.

After all, how many of us have had a horse related injury or know someone who has?
I have mentioned the word Risk several times already in this article and want to elaborate on it a little further. In 1999 a document was produced by the government and introduced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) called The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, (MHSW Regs). These regulations imposed a duty on all employers and business owners to assess the risks to themselves, their employees and others who may be affected by what they do, particularly when they are on our premises.

At this point it is important to understand what we mean by an employee. In a court of law the term employee could mean any person undertaking work on our behalf for some reward. This covers a contractor, a self-employed person or volunteer receiving financial payment or free or reduced cost livery in return for their labour.

What the MHSW Regs require is for the employer to look at their workplace, in this case their stable yard or riding school, and decide if the common hazards that we see around us everyday are being managed in such a way so it is unlikely they will cause us harm. In most cases this can be done very easily, a bit of tidying up, washing down hard standing areas or cleaning off the mounting block so we dont slip when climbing on it are all common issues that can cause unnecessary problems. By providing simple solutions we can remedy simple problems, it just requires a little bit of time and effort. For the more hazardous issues we may have to seek some professional advice as to how best manage the potential risk; fire is a classic example and something we will look at in the coming weeks.

The MHSW Regs also go a little further when we have to manage risks for certain types of people. The young person (defined as being under the age of 18) and children (defined as being below the school leaving age) are potentially at greater risk in and around livery yards and riding schools, due to their lack of experience and vulnerability. Remember what you were like at that age? Its all about the ponies!

In these cases, the law requires the employer/owner to undertake specific rather than generic risk assessments. It is good practice to discuss these assessments with the parents of the children who are looking to use your facilities, and when making an assessment of risks putting yourself in the shoes of the young child who is completely new to the environment.

We will look at the risk assessment process at a later date, but in the meantime lets have a look around our yards, barns and stable blocks. If we see something out of place that has the potential to cause others a problem or even some harm, lets try and put it right. If you have a riding school used by young people or children look at the world from their perspective, kneel down and look around, I guarantee the world looks a lot different from down here.

Next time we shall be looking at some of the legal requirements we should adopt as owners and carers. Until then, safe riding folks.


----------



## rhino (11 January 2012)

Interesting stuff, but are you doing this on behalf of Horse and Hound/IPC media?


----------



## StableSafety (11 January 2012)

Rhino - I have absolutely no affiliation with H&H at all. My reasons for sharing this is purley to raise the awareness of safety issues that we as owners, carers and riders potentially face on a daily basis. I'm a safety professional with a keen interest in horses and want to share with you my knowledge and experiences.
Richard


----------



## rhino (11 January 2012)

Thank you, was just wondering. I'm also heavily involved in H&S/risk management although with children, not horses!


----------



## Mithras (12 January 2012)

StableSafety said:



Welcome Note
Welcome to the first edition of Stable Safety, a series of articles for the owners and carers of horses, ponies, donkeys or mules.

At this point it is important to understand what we mean by an employee. In a court of law the term &#8216;employee&#8217; could mean any person undertaking work on our behalf for some reward. This covers a contractor, a self-employed person or volunteer receiving financial payment or free or reduced cost livery in return for their labour.

What the MHSW Regs require is for the employer to look at their workplace, in this case their stable yard or riding school, and decide if the common hazards that we see around us everyday are being managed in such a way so it is unlikely they will cause us harm. In most cases this can be done very easily, a bit of tidying up, washing down hard standing areas or cleaning off the mounting block so we don&#8217;t slip when climbing on it are all common issues that can cause unnecessary problems. By providing simple solutions we can remedy simple problems, it just requires a little bit of time and effort. For the more hazardous issues we may have to seek some professional advice as to how best manage the potential risk; fire is a classic example and something we will look at in the coming weeks.

Next time we shall be looking at some of the legal requirements we should adopt as owners and carers. Until then, safe riding folks.
		
Click to expand...

Can I ask if you are covered by professional indemnity insurance, which will provide a compensation scheme for your clients you should you give incorrect advice?  As some of this appears to be verging on the giving of legal advice, and if you were a lawyer, you would be required by law to hold professional indemnity insurance.  The ironic point not being lost that if you did get it wrong, and someone sustained loss as a result, if you had provided information to them as an independent contractor, you would not be vicariously liable as an employee, but only under contract, i.e. your potential liability would be far more limited than under reparation/tort.

However there is small risk that H&H could be liable if you did provide services to a reader of this article, who then contacted you and suffered resultant loss.

Can I also say that I think this is advertising by stealth.  Or possibly by scaremongering.  There is a difference between articles published in research journals, or books, or even newspapers, in that the writer is either invited to produce them, and that they are scrutinised by others before they reach their intended audience.  I would be professionally embarrassed if I wrote articles, say on employment law, or occupier's liability, or health and safety at work (and I have co-edited a popular textbook on it), on here.  Its just not quite the done thing.  I would also get into trouble with my professional body for covert advertising.  Still, I suppose you have realised this is an opportunity for free marketing.

Speaking as a lawyer, although generally our work is primarily to describe and explain, I also feel able to critically analyse health and safety legislation, both primary and secondary, and I honestly worry that it has a negative impact on society by removing the ability of people to think for themselves, ie it has a long term negative effect on health and safety and people's lives.  I hope we will see wide scale reform in the not so distant future.

You also seem unaware that by taking the action you prescribe, parties may increase the standard of their duty of care and may ironically make themselves more liable should they fail to go through all possible avenues with a fine tooth comb.  Sometimes doing the minimum necessary is a better approach from the viewpoint of minimising risk to the business operator in the long term.

I am sure as a health and safety exponent, you will welcome these comments which highlight the risks of posting uninvited articles on a forum!  I really would suggest that you have professional indemnity insurance though, at the very least.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (12 January 2012)

Excellent post Mithras.


----------



## StableSafety (12 January 2012)

Mithras - please refer to your private inbox for my comments on your post


----------



## Dovorian (12 January 2012)

This, is a pity as I very much enjoy the exchange of views within the forum I would wonder it a debate went underground it means that personal information was being shared. Alternatively, comments are being made which are not fit for public consumption.


----------



## StableSafety (12 January 2012)

If Mithras is agreeable I shall post the private response I  made


----------



## Sarah_Jane (12 January 2012)

As someone whose job is health and safety with a particular interest in the equine field I do feel it is a subject people need to be more aware of. There is a very difficult balance between the application of common sense and the need for written risk assessments to demonstrate that hazards have been identified and controlled. A basic understanding of the legislation by managers and owners of any equestrian establishment is essential.

I could go on for ever. I welcome anything that raises awareness although agree that maybe this forum is not the best place to print articles as above.


----------



## Mithras (12 January 2012)

StableSafety said:



			If Mithras is agreeable I shall post the private response I  made
		
Click to expand...

As I commented to you in my reply to your pm, I pointed out that I, as a member of one of the traditional professions, cannot be seen to be assisting or associated with someone who is touting for business in this manner.  Neither would I be permitted to act in such a manner by my own professional body.  The duty of any professional is to act in accordance with their fiduciary duties at all times and subject to the rules and regulations of their governing profesional body.  As your approach has not been made in a normal professional manner, your identity and claims cannot be verified, such as by recommendation from a third party, a letterhead with your qualifications and office details, or a professional journal, textbook or journalistic media which has published you.  I welcome debating points which interest me as part of my leisure time, but this is clearly an attempt by you to target worried livery yard and stable owners and obtain business.  I am not going to assist you in that. 

I would also be rather concerned that if you do indeed have an agenda to obtain business by advertising by stealth such as this, any advice you do give is going to be rather heavily weighted in favour of being a tad on the overly complex, overly-complicating side.  When in actual fact, sensible legal advice might well be to do the basic minimum under the legislation, most of which is already known to the majority of yard owners likely to follow it, to avoid taking too much responsibility for health and safety and thereby increasing their standard of duty of care to such a high degree that it becomes well nigh impossible to defend any claim.  To suggest that this is not so is somewhat naive and lacks awareness of all of the relevant case law and its development over the years.

My response to you would be entirely different if you had been asked by the organisers of this site to publish such a series of articles, or if you were simply engaging in debate.  However it appears to be completley unsolicited on your part.  

I would also suggest that you do not stray into giving legal advice, as the Law Society would not be too happy that someone who does not hold a practising certificate is doing so, and they have the power to stop it.


----------



## Anglebracket (12 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			When in actual fact, sensible legal advice might well be to do the basic minimum under the legislation, most of which is already known to the majority of yard owners likely to follow it, to avoid taking too much responsibility for health and safety and thereby increasing their standard of duty of care to such a high degree that it becomes well nigh impossible to defend any claim.
		
Click to expand...

Why would the above be sensible legal advice?


----------



## Rosie Round The Hills (12 January 2012)

Assuming that I am one of the "we" that you continually refer to in your 'article', are you intending on accompanying me to the yard tomorrow so that 'we' can look round for fire hazards and take appropriate action together?

Because goodness knows how I've managed up to now without your advice......


----------



## MerrySherryRider (12 January 2012)

If the OP had joined the forum with a username that didn't describe his/her business and had merely opened a debate about H&S in equestrian establishments, or had offered advice about how to improve safety around horses, it could have been a valuable contribution to the forum.

 We've had profeesionals using the forum to promote business interests before and its a bit annoying.


----------



## DragonSlayer (12 January 2012)

Rosie Round The Hills said:



			Assuming that I am one of the "we" that you continually refer to in your 'article', are you intending on accompanying me to the yard tomorrow so that 'we' can look round for fire hazards and take appropriate action together?

Because goodness knows how I've managed up to now without your advice......
		
Click to expand...

...don't the fire brigade do that anyway? and isn't it free.....?


----------



## Wundahorse (12 January 2012)

I totally agree with the points raised by mithras and firmly feel that people should be able to think for themselves,reach independent decisions,and risk assess and risk manage their own needs and practices.Working for the NHS i am too aware of the nanny state and how this stifles independence of practice,creativity and freedom of choice.I am only too aware of risk and do not require somebody to point out the obvious.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (12 January 2012)

Oh FGS! Good Lord, deliver us from "Elf n Safety"!  Sorry. But LOL.


----------



## badattitude (12 January 2012)

I do believe the OP is looking for some sort of business but the subject is a good one. The problem with riding establishments is that even when there is legislation there is little done to enforce it and in many cases the legislation is more concerned with politically correct health and safety than practical common sense. However that is a whole debate subject in itself.  
  There is plenty of bad advice freely available on equestrian websites, none of whom seem to be under any obligation to make sure their published articles conform to current guidelines as published by (for example) H & SE, The British Horse Society  or local councils. I have personally been in touch with a well known horse website that has published several video 'masterclasses' by people I can only assume are clueless of their responsibilities. As an example, one of there was about loading horses for travel. The horse was wearing a head collar only and the handler did not have a hat on (or gloves either as I recall) and seemed to think this was acceptable as a demo because they mentioned they might prefer to use a bridle but this was a quiet horse or words to that effect. I am fairly sure Mithras will be able to tell you just how much trouble this site would have been in if the example on the video had been followed, an accident happened and this  video advice mentioned a contributing cause to the accident.......


----------



## Mithras (13 January 2012)

Anglebracket said:



			Why would the above be sensible legal advice?
		
Click to expand...

Well lets just say its a business oriented approach.  In claims based on negligence, the Plaintiff (the person sueing) has to prove that the Defender owes them a duty of care in the first place.  There is a host case law on what sort of requirements are needed, of which Caparo and its host of exceptions and fine nuances currently prevail.  Then they have to prove that the duty of care was breached.  In relation to this, the standard of care owed by the Defender is relevant.  If they owe a high standard of care then they are more likely to have breached it than if they owe a low standard of care.  Factors which can affect the standard of care are how much knowledge the Defender has, what steps they have taken to show they are aware of risk, how thorough they have been in eliminating, as far as possible, risk in all areas, how much responsibility they habitually expect others to take for their own safety and so on.  There are hundreds of cases on this, sifting through the fine nuances of distinction.

As Lord Macmillan in the House of Lords case Glasgow Corporation v. Muir [1943] AC 448 commented, "The standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an  impersonal test. It eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question...It is still left to the judge to decide what, in the circumstances of the particular case, the reasonable man would have had in contemplation". 

If you had a yard owner who had instructed a health and safety specialist to give them expert advice, which they had followed extensively, that yard owner is going to owe potential claimants a higher standard of care than the average yard owner who has not gone to such lengths, as they are presenting themselves as having a greater knowledge of health and safety issues and having an enhanced awareness of risk. 

There is also something called the ejusdem generis rule, which basically means that if you cover a list of certain items, for example, as requiring certain health and safety precautions, if you fail to include an item in that list, it will be deemed that it should have been included and you will also certainly be liable for any injury caused by it.  Whereas if you didn't have the list in the first place, there is a chance that you would not be liable as you could argue that the reasonable person would have been able to take care of their own safety in relation to that item.  Being too comprehensive removes any doubt.

Lets not forget too that the HSAWA74 is purely criminal legislation, not civil.  Being sued under negligence is rather different from being prosecuted under the HSAWA74 - such prosecutions being relatively rare, and while a concurrent HSAWA74 or associated prosecution may be of persuasive value, rare is the case where that happens.  And it would always be secondary to any civil evidence.



ps I don't want any more work.  I am trying to reduce my work!  I only like discussing issues on this forum which interest me.


----------



## cefyl (13 January 2012)

Have to say I agree with Mithras and Badattitude on this one !


----------



## badattitude (13 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			Have to say I agree with Mithras and Badattitude on this one !
		
Click to expand...

Just you becareful or people will think we agree all the time!


----------



## Anglebracket (13 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			Well lets just say its a business oriented approach.  In claims based on negligence, the Plaintiff (the person sueing) has to prove that the Defender owes them a duty of care in the first place.  There is a host case law on what sort of requirements are needed, of which Caparo and its host of exceptions and fine nuances currently prevail.  Then they have to prove that the duty of care was breached.  In relation to this, the standard of care owed by the Defender is relevant.  If they owe a high standard of care then they are more likely to have breached it than if they owe a low standard of care.  Factors which can affect the standard of care are how much knowledge the Defender has, what steps they have taken to show they are aware of risk, how thorough they have been in eliminating, as far as possible, risk in all areas, how much responsibility they habitually expect others to take for their own safety and so on.  There are hundreds of cases on this, sifting through the fine nuances of distinction.

...
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your detailed reply to my question.


----------



## perfect11s (13 January 2012)

horserider said:



			If the OP had joined the forum with a username that didn't describe his/her business and had merely opened a debate about H&S in equestrian establishments, or had offered advice about how to improve safety around horses, it could have been a valuable contribution to the forum.

 We've had profeesionals using the forum to promote business interests before and its a bit annoying.
		
Click to expand...

 Looks like another H&S parasite  makeing a living of peoples fears of the  countrys and the eu's complicated and unnessary laws, its high time we followed the american way of dealing with things IE a legaly binding disclamer!! so if you have a **** head who does something stupid on your premises they canot then "chance there arm" with some ambulance chasing scumbag lawer on a no win no fee basis...


----------



## perfect11s (13 January 2012)

Anglebracket said:



			Thank you for your detailed reply to my question.
		
Click to expand...

   Yes what an educational and informative post  from Mithras, thanks...


----------



## Mithras (13 January 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Looks like another H&S parasite  makeing a living of peoples fears of the  countrys and the eu's complicated and unnessary laws, its high time we followed the american way of dealing with things IE a legaly binding disclamer!!
		
Click to expand...

You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence, due to UCTA 77.  But this is all to do with claims in civil law and nothing to do with the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, which is criminal legislation enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.  So, while a Health and Safety practitioner could advise on issues under the Act and associated secondary legislation, I'm unsure what they could do in relation to yard owner's main fears of combatting civil claims for damages because people who are not solicitors holding a practising certificate are not meant to charge for legal advice.

I do feel a bit mean, but I honestly think its touting for business by scaremongering.  The relevant regulations are hardly new and most people who are going to comply are aware of them anyway or can google all they need to know.  I do think there are a lot of people setting themselves up as "consultants" who count on people thinking these things are too complicated for the average person to understand.  In general, they are not.  Or at least the reasonably savvy person with experience in the industry and a good education behind them will probably do just as good a job of setting their minds to it as many so-called "experts".  And most good Fire Services will give advice on fire safety if requested, though there is a growing trend for ex-officers in public services or even in their spare time to charge for services which were traditionally offered as part of the job and not charged for...

The approach is usually to give something free, such as an information booklet, or a talk, which plays on a person's fears, and then draw them into some kind of provision of services.  I've seen it too often in areas like "Houses in Multiple Occupation Consultants" who are generally ex-council employees or trades, who often have very little in the way of proper professional qualifications to advise people on issues which might cause them thousands.  Its a growing trend.  But I digress.


----------



## Mithras (13 January 2012)

badattitude said:



			Just you becareful or people will think we agree all the time! 

Click to expand...

And as we all know that is certainly not the case!  ;-)


----------



## cefyl (13 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			And as we all know that is certainly not the case!  ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Nothing like a good healthy debate ! 

Another poster mentioned it may be a good idea to go the "American way" of legally binding disclaimers.  Now as someone who has spent the past 34 years dividing our time both residence and business owning wise between the USA and the UK these so called disclaimers are not so legally binding in the US if the claiming party has a darn good lawyer.

Therefore a question for Mithras.  Would such a disclaimer be legally binding in the UK?  Or has anyone signed one here then successfully challenged it later to claim against it?


----------



## Mithras (13 January 2012)

cefyl said:



			Nothing like a good healthy debate ! 

Another poster mentioned it may be a good idea to go the "American way" of legally binding disclaimers.  Now as someone who has spent the past 34 years dividing our time both residence and business owning wise between the USA and the UK these so called disclaimers are not so legally binding in the US if the claiming party has a darn good lawyer.

Therefore a question for Mithras.  Would such a disclaimer be legally binding in the UK?  Or has anyone signed one here then successfully challenged it later to claim against it?
		
Click to expand...

Answered it above!  Disclaimers can be binding if well written and cover the situation, as long as they don't exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.  Some disclaimers are certainly successfully challenged, but a good example of one which is usually binding is on the back of most rail tickets, preventing you from claiming true damages for any losses resulting from your contract with the railway company.  You can also have limitation of liability clauses instead...but I will not drone sending people to sleep any longer!


----------



## Sixteen Hands (13 January 2012)

Oh gosh, I've read all the threads on this discussion, thinking where to begin because in some part all add value to the debate.  

I note that the original poster only became a member of the H&H Forum on 11 January this year and so far has five posts, most of them to this discussion. It probably would have been wise for them to assess how the forum worked before launching into an article, which I have to say, I believe is totally out of place.

I read it and like others, wondered if it had a commercial basis although the original poster has come back saying that it doesn't.

I also think that it would have been better for the original poster to answer any comments within the thread, rather than resorting to private messages.  

There is already a wealth of experience within the H&H Forum and it's a great place to exchange information, knowledge and debate issues.

However, there is targeted health and safety information already available  details below. Relevant professional organisations have contributed to these documents and both have been endorsed by the HSE. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDANCE FOR INSPECTIONS OF HORSE RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS AND LIVERY YARDS
http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Health_and_safety/Livery_Yards_Guidance_2006.pdf

Health and Safety in the Racing and Breeding Industry  guidelines on good practice
http://www.naoss.co.uk/pdf/health-saf-man.pdf

I think in this discussion, it's important not to lose the wood for the trees. In the broadest terms, health and safety is about providing a safe environment and taking precautions to prevent accidents. Of course, there is the caveat that the time trouble and cost in doing this has to be balanced against the risk so that anything put in place is sensible and proportionate.

I have every sympathy with those running equestrian businesses these days. There is a whole raft of legislation; health & safety, environmental, employment and all the other bits I've forgotten. For goodness sake don't mention driving regulations

Simplification is certainly required.  The government has recently been reviewing all "red tape" and one of the conclusions from the most recent Löfstedt report is that our current legislation is broadly right, the problem is misinterpretation. (http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/hse-lofstedt.htm)

We've all read about elf and safety stories in the national newspapers and perhaps some on this forum have been at the sharp end of such episodes.

There are many professional safety consultants out there providing  sensible and proportionate advice on how to meet minimum legal requirements.  Unfortunately, until recently there was no regulation within the industry, meaning that anyone could set up as a safety consultant with little or no competence. Even now, the regulation is voluntary. However, those who apply for registration can only do so once they have reached "chartered" or "fellow" status of recognised professional safety organisations, have a minimum of five years experience, can demonstrate continuing professional development and have all appropriate insurance in place.  (http://www.hse.gov.uk/OSHCR/).  I'm only added this section as there seems to have been some discussion about "consultants".

Even so, the HSE raise the question about "do you need a consultant?"  I'm sure you can all make your minds up about that one!

I'm straying a little so I want to get back to the fundamental point. There is already a lot of information and free advice on how to comply with health and safety legislation available from local authorities and the major equestrian organisations.

In many cases, it is no than about applying good practice that has been passed down. I agree with a previous comment about raising the awareness of safety legislation and management balanced against common sense.

Legislation has been developed over the years in order to prevent accidents.  It has to be complied with  it's not an option.

In the past there have been debates on the forum over safety issues and despite me saying earlier about a knowledgeable audience, it's become clear during the debates that the level of understanding is not equal.

Let's be clear, accidents when riding horses will happen and continue to happen. When you stick yourself up a couple of metres in the air on an unpredictable four-legged creature there is always the potential.  

I think the original poster was alluding to preventing the preventable accidents.  Some accidents really are preventable. No one wants to be involved with a preventable accident that takes a life, or causes a lifetime of incapacity.  Not just because of the legal ramifications that might follow but more so because of the personal distress it causes. We are humans!

If every equestrian business came up to speed with complying with the minimum legal requirements then that certainly would be an advancement and in some cases possibly prevent the preventable accidents.

To reiterate, the original post was not appropriate as a forum item.

I've jotted this down quickly, balancing my time against content. I've put in what I've considered relevant and a lot more could be said, although I don't have time to say it. Comments are welcome but please let's not nitpick.

In my view, safety is about protecting people and in our case our four-legged friends. This forum is a great place to discuss such ideas as none of us knows everything!

Oh by the way, I'm not a safety consultant and I'm definitely not looking for any work!


----------



## Mithras (13 January 2012)

I would agree with all that you wrote.  Thankfully more succintly than me!  It is very interesting to hear the requirements of registration within that industry.


----------



## Sarah_Jane (14 January 2012)

Mithras said:



			You can't exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence, due to UCTA 77.  But this is all to do with claims in civil law and nothing to do with the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, which is criminal legislation enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.  So, while a Health and Safety practitioner could advise on issues under the Act and associated secondary legislation, I'm unsure what they could do in relation to yard owner's main fears of combatting civil claims for damages because people who are not solicitors holding a practising certificate are not meant to charge for legal advice.

I do feel a bit mean, but I honestly think its touting for business by scaremongering.  The relevant regulations are hardly new and most people who are going to comply are aware of them anyway or can google all they need to know.  I do think there are a lot of people setting themselves up as "consultants" who count on people thinking these things are too complicated for the average person to understand.  In general, they are not.  Or at least the reasonably savvy person with experience in the industry and a good education behind them will probably do just as good a job of setting their minds to it as many so-called "experts".  And most good Fire Services will give advice on fire safety if requested, though there is a growing trend for ex-officers in public services or even in their spare time to charge for services which were traditionally offered as part of the job and not charged for...

The approach is usually to give something free, such as an information booklet, or a talk, which plays on a person's fears, and then draw them into some kind of provision of services.  I've seen it too often in areas like "Houses in Multiple Occupation Consultants" who are generally ex-council employees or trades, who often have very little in the way of proper professional qualifications to advise people on issues which might cause them thousands.  Its a growing trend.  But I digress.
		
Click to expand...

One minor correction here as it is easy to confuse people. Health and Safety in Riding schools is enforced by you local Environmental Health Department, if people have queries it is good to approach these people direct as they can offer up to date advice on complying with Health and Safety regulations. In Cornwall we have just run a Health and Safety day for equestrian managers and owners to update and explain requirements, some other authorities may do similar.


----------



## Booboos (14 January 2012)

Fantastic thread, thanks OP...now we all know that if we have H&S questions we should go to Mithras!


----------



## Sixteen Hands (16 January 2012)

Booboos said:



			Fantastic thread, thanks OP...now we all know that if we have H&S questions we should go to Mithras! 

Click to expand...

I agree - useful thread with some great contributions.  

However, I'd still suggest posting any H&S questions to the wider forum community as it's such a broad topic.

Oh BTW, if anyone is unlucky enough to have an accident/near miss the BHS are asking people to report it to them through their website www.horseaccidents.org.uk

Through finding out what sort of problems are occuring (and where) it can help to target solutions.


----------

