“Our roof doesn’t have trip hazards present.”

It’s a comment we hear fairly regularly from duty holders and building managers. But once we gain access and get up on the roof, we’re frequently met with standing seam roof sheets.

These systems are excellent for weather performance and building longevity. However, the raised seams create an uneven walking surface the moment anyone needs to move across the roof for maintenance, inspections, plant access etc.

It’s an easy detail to miss from ground level, yet it’s one that many duty holders overlook when identifying hazards and planning safe access.

This is exactly where properly designed fixed walkways come into their own. They provide a stable, level, anti-slip route that bridges the seams safely, protects the roof from point loading and damage, and gives workers the confidence to move around without introducing unnecessary trip or slip risks.

Fixed Access Ladders

Let’s talk fixed access ladders — a topic that continues to divide best practice across markets.

In the US, OSHA has been decisive. Under 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9) (aligned with ANSI A14.3), fixed ladders extending more than 24 ft (7.3 m) above a lower level must now be equipped with a Personal Fall Arrest System (PFAS) or Ladder Safety System (LSS) — typically a vertical cable or rigid rail with a compatible harness and arrest device. Cages are no longer accepted as adequate fall protection for new or replaced ladders, with a full phase-out deadline of November 2036 for existing installations.

In the UK and Europe, BS 4211:2005+A1:2008 (and BS EN ISO 14122-4) still permits or prescribes safety cages/hoops for climbs over approximately 2.5 m. While the Work at Height Regulations 2005 take a risk-based approach — defining work at height as “work in any place where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury” — HSE guidance on hooped ladders is clear: cages do not provide complete fall arrest capability.

This contrast raises an interesting question.

The US has moved toward active fall protection for fixed ladders above a defined height threshold but still allow up to 7.2m of fall potential down a ladder to remain. Where as the UK remains more permissive on passive systems with the vertical fall limitations only becoming an element on ladders over 6m requiring a rest platform , despite the HSE acknowledging the limitations of safety cages.

Surely this is an area that needs to be updated given the amount of clear injury data showing the risk exposure that persists for end users & the level of cross messaging for specifiers/duty holders.

Fall Restraint vs Work Restraint

Can we please stop calling it “fall restraint”?

I’ve seen it everywhere lately — in method statements, training materials, toolbox talks, even manufacturer literature.

Here’s the thing: “fall restraint” is not the term used in the standards.

The correct term, as set out in BS 8437 and HSE guidance on work at height, is work restraint.

It’s a small point, but it matters.

“Work restraint” is clear: the system is designed to restrict your movement so you physically cannot reach a position where a fall can occur. It’s prevention.

“Fall restraint” sounds far too close to “fall arrest” and muddies the water between the two — exactly the kind of sloppy language that leads to confusion in risk assessments and poor decision-making on site.

I’m making a conscious effort to correct it to “work restraint” every single time I see it written or said. Small thing, big principle.

Blog Post - Rescue Plans & Product Highlight

Among many of the manufacturers product lines that we are compliant in supplying/installing/testing/repairing, one of our longest standing partners is MSA Latchways, who we have been working with for over two decades.

Over this period their products have continued to develop and now cover many different areas in the Health & Safety space but one of their unique products is the MSA Latchways Personal Rescue Device (PRD). The PRD is an integrated self-rescue lightweight harness that offers the user the ability to carry out a controlled descent of up to 20 metres in the event of a fall or emergency situation.

No waiting for a rescue team.
No reliance on external response times.

Under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (and reinforced by BS 8437:2022), employers and duty holders have a clear legal duty:
'Work must be properly planned, supervised and carried out safely. That planning must include provision for emergencies and rescue (Regulation 4).'

A suitable, site-specific rescue plan must be in place, regularly reviewed, and supported by competent people and suitable equipment.

Whilst it is not a one stop shop product that suits all environments, it is certainly one of the best products on the market that provides a seamless rescue plan integrated into an existing design.

For the end user: confidence that if the worst happens, they can get themselves to safety.

For the duty holder: compliance, reduced liability, and the knowledge that every worker is equipped with an always-active rescue capability.

Blog Post - EN 17235 Countdown Has Begun

09.08.2027 Deadline is looming.

EN 17235 – Permanent Anchor Devices and Safety Hooks. For the first time, we have a single, unified European standard that moves us away from the old EN 795 classification issues and fragmented national approaches.

What this means for duty holders

If you’re a building owner, facilities manager, principal contractor, or anyone with responsibility under the Work at Height Regulations or CDM, this directly affects you.

You have a duty to ensure that permanent anchor points used for fall protection are suitable and safe. This standard covers the folllowing;

— Kit A (Anchor kit incorporating a single anchor device);
— Kit B (Anchor kit incorporating a safety hook);
— Kit C (Anchor kit incorporating a horizontal wire anchor line);
— Kit D (Anchor kit incorporating a horizontal rail anchor line)

EN 17235 removes the previous grey area. Going forward, the benchmark for compliance is clear: systems must be tested and certified as complete systems under this new standard, with CE marking and a Declaration of Performance (DoP) supported by the most stringent AVCP System 1+ certification.

The countdown is now very real

We are in the 18-month transition period. Full mandatory compliance for market access across the UK and Europe arrives on 9 August 2027 — just over 13 months from today.

After this date, non-compliant permanent anchor devices can no longer be placed on the market. Specifiers and duty holders who haven’t updated their requirements risk project delays, non-compliant installations, and potential liability exposure.

Blog Post - BS 7883 and what it means to you the duty holder

Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of workplace fatalities in the UK. For duty holders responsible for buildings, facilities, or maintenance programmes, ensuring robust fall protection — especially anchor systems used with suspended access equipment — is both a legal and moral imperative.

The 2019 revision of BS 7883 significantly raised the bar for how anchor devices and systems are designed, installed, documented, inspected, and maintained. If you own, manage, or control premises where workers use eyebolts, safety wire systems, horizontal lifelines, or other anchors for rope access, window cleaning, façade maintenance, or suspended platforms, this standard directly affects you.

Here’s a clear, practical guide to the impact of BS 7883:2019 and what you need to do as a duty holder.

What is BS 7883:2019?

BS 7883:2019 — Anchor systems – System design, installation and inspection – Code of practice — provides comprehensive best-practice guidance for anchor devices and systems used for personal fall protection in the workplace.

It applies to anchors that workers connect to directly with personal fall protection equipment (PFPE). The standard complements BS EN 795 and other related documents and covers both temporary and permanent installations.

First published in 1997 and revised in 2005, the 2019 edition was a major update. It reflects advances in fall protection technology, introduces clearer roles and documentation requirements, and provides explicit guidance for legacy systems installed under previous versions of the standard.

The Five Types of Anchor Systems

BS 7883:2019 categorises anchor systems into five types:

Type A — Permanently fixed systems incorporating one or more structural anchors (e.g. eyebolts).
Type B — Removable and transportable anchors that do not incorporate a structural fixing.
Type C — Structurally anchored systems using a flexible anchor line (wire rope, fibre rope, or webbing) — common in horizontal lifeline/safety wire systems.
Type D — Structurally anchored systems incorporating a rigid rail or tube.
Type E — Anchor devices that rely solely on mass and friction with the load-bearing surface (e.g. certain deadweight or counterweight systems).

Understanding which types you have on your buildings is the first step toward compliance.

Key Changes in the 2019 Revision and Why They Matter

The biggest impacts for duty holders include:

New “System Designer” role — A competent person must take overall responsibility for the design, ensuring the system is suitable for the intended tasks, frequency of use, structural loadings, and future inspection/maintenance needs.
Mandatory comprehensive documentation — A simple certificate is no longer enough. Installers must now provide a full System Technical File (STF) containing design specifications, calculations, structural fixing details, hidden element records (with photographs where possible), test certificates, and more. This file must be handed over to the duty holder.
Clearer inspection framework — The standard defines four possible inspection outcomes with specific actions required.
Specific guidance for existing/legacy systems — Many pre-2019 installations lack complete documentation. BS 7883:2019 includes processes such as Installation Reviews and Hidden Element Reviews (including reverse-engineering assessments in Annex J) to bring older systems up to an acceptable standard where possible.

Inspection Outcomes Under BS 7883:2019

Inspectors now classify systems as:

Pass — The system meets all current recommendations and can remain in service.
Conditional Pass — The system meets the requirements of a previous standard or provides basic safety but does not fully conform to BS 7883:2019. It may remain in service, but the duty holder receives recommendations for remedial work within a specified timescale.
Conditional Fail — There is an immediate safety concern (or the system does not meet current recommendations in a way that can be rectified). The system must be taken out of service immediately, labelled accordingly, and remedial work completed before re-inspection and return to service.
Fail — The system presents an immediate, irreparable hazard. It must be taken out of service, labelled “Do Not Use”, and where possible physically decommissioned. Permission from the duty holder should be sought for removal.

Missing or incomplete System Technical Files is a common reason for Conditional Fail outcomes on older installations.

Legal Responsibilities of Duty Holders

As a duty holder (typically the building owner, facilities manager, or person in control of the premises), you have duties under the Work at Height Regulations 2005, PUWER 1998, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and, where applicable, CDM 2015.

BS 7883:2019 helps you demonstrate compliance. You are expected to:

Ensure anchor systems are properly designed and installed by competent persons.
Receive and safely retain the full System Technical File and all subsequent inspection/maintenance records.
Act promptly on inspection reports and remedial recommendations.
Arrange competent inspections at appropriate intervals (typically at least annually, plus pre-use checks, post-incident, and after severe weather or modifications).
Maintain an Examination Scheme for each system.
Integrate anchor systems into overall risk assessments, method statements, and rescue plans.

Failure to manage these responsibilities can result in HSE enforcement action, increased insurance premiums or claim complications, and — most importantly — serious risk to workers.