THE SCAFFOLDING ACT.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1425, 10 November 1923, Page 5

THE SCAFFOLDING ACT.

BREACH OF ITS PROVISIONS

(By Telegraph. Press Association.)

HAMILTON, Friday.

The first prosecution of its kind in New Zealand was brought under the Scaffolding and Excavation Act, before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., to-day, when a local builder, E. N. Willoughby, was charged by the scaffolding inspector, Mr A. D. Snedden, with maintaining ladders on his jobs which did not comply with the regulations under the Act.

The inspector said that the case was an exceedingly important one to all persons engaged in the building trade. Prior to the case under review he had found it necessary during the past six months to take exception to the condition of ladders on six different jobs controlled by defendant. whom he interviewed three times and wrote to him twice. The ladders were made of totara, which was quite unsatisfactory timber for the purpose, while their construction was not as laid down in the regulations. The steps were not wired, as required, or of the correct size, and the Department regarded the breach as a very serious one, in view of the fact that defendant had repeatedly ignored warnings. Mr King (for defendant) pleaded guilty, admitting that Willoughby had been somewhat dilatory. Defendant was also charged with erecting a scaffold for carpenters’ use contrary to the requirements of the regulations. Mr Snedden said the scaffolding on this particular job was about 11 feet high and should have had a working platform 18 inches wide and have been provided with a guard rail. The platform, however, merely a single plank, had also no guard rail. The inspector added that there was an erroneous impression throughout the trade that the regulations did not apply to scaffolding under a certain height. This was quite incorrect, and the regulations must be complied with irrespective of the height of the scaffolding. . ... Mr King admitted negligence m this case also, but regarded the breach as merely a trivial and technical one. The magistrate said a copy of the regulations under the Act had been tent to all builders. They were simple, and should not be difficult to comply with. The maximum penalty for non-compliance was £2O. The inspector said his department was determined to see the regulations were enforced, and towards this every assistance would be given by the Court. As the present case was the first of its kind, however, he would be fined £5 and costs on the ladder case, and £2 and costs on the latter charge.