Seven-day scaffold inspections: what the regulations actually require

The seven-day inspection is the single most recognisable duty in scaffolding, and the one most often reduced to a number. Seven days is a maximum interval, not the whole rule — and it is not the only trigger for an inspection.

The triggers

Under the Work at Height Regulations 2005, a working platform used for construction work from which a person could fall more than two metres must be inspected before it is used for the first time in that position, at intervals not exceeding seven days since the last inspection, and after any event liable to have affected its strength or stability — adverse weather being the obvious one, but also substantial alteration or an impact.

• –Before first use in that position — including after a scaffold has been moved or re-erected.
• –At intervals not exceeding seven days thereafter, while it remains in use.
• –After any event liable to jeopardise safety — high winds, a vehicle strike, an unauthorised alteration.

What goes in the report

The regulations set out what an inspection report must contain, including the location and description of what was inspected, the date and time, details of anything found that could give rise to a risk, any action taken, and the name and position of the person making the report. The report has to be provided to the person for whom the inspection was carried out within 24 hours, and kept available — on site while the work continues, and afterwards for a period at the office.

Check the current text of Schedule 3 and Regulation 12 rather than relying on a summary, including this one, for the retention period and the precise wording. The substance rarely moves; the details occasionally do.

Where the duty actually fails

Almost never at the inspection itself. It fails at the tracking — not at the guard rail or the toe board, which an experienced pair of eyes clocks in seconds. A structure erected on a Tuesday by one squad, inspected the following Tuesday by someone who happened to be passing, and then missed entirely because the job moved to a different gang and nobody was counting from the right date. A scaffold's inspection clock belongs to the structure, not to the person who last happened to look at it.

That is a records problem before it is a safety problem, and it is why inspection dates are worth holding per structure with a reminder that fires before the interval runs out — rather than in a diary entry that survives only as long as the person who wrote it.

Inspected, but not evidenced

Inspections are generally carried out. What is inconsistently done is recording them in a form that shows what was actually checked, on which structure, by whom, and what was found — including when nothing was found. A record confirming an inspection occurred proves attendance; it does not demonstrate that anything was examined.

The other predictable gap is coverage. On a site with several structures, a register of what exists is what makes it possible to know an inspection round was complete. Without one, inspection records accumulate and nobody can say what proportion of the structures they represent.

Common mistakes

• –Recording that an inspection happened without recording what was checked
• –No register of structures, so coverage cannot be established
• –Defects noted but never raised as work with an owner and a date
• –Inspections after alteration or adverse weather treated as optional
• –Records held on paper at site with no copy held centrally
• –No link between an inspection finding and the adaptation log

Worth knowing: inspections generate work, and the work needs tracking

The inspection regime is usually well understood. What is less consistently managed is the queue of work it produces — defects found, actions raised, and whether they were actually closed. A firm with impeccable inspection records and no view of open defects has documented its problems rather than resolved them.

Worth reviewing periodically: how many findings are open, how old the oldest is, and whether any are repeats. Repeats in particular are the signal that something structural is being patched rather than fixed.

• –Track open findings as a queue with owners and ages, not as a document
• –Flag repeat findings on the same structure explicitly
• –Review the oldest open item regularly — age is the best single indicator
• –Close on verification rather than on the work being scheduled

Where this connects: the queue the inspections create

A well-run inspection regime produces a steady stream of findings, and the regime is only as good as what happens to them. Firms with impeccable inspection records and no view of open defects have documented their problems rather than resolved them — and that is exactly the shape an auditor or an investigator finds most concerning, because it shows the information existed.

Three figures are worth looking at monthly: how many findings are open, how old the oldest is, and how many are repeats on the same structure. Age is the single best indicator, because a finding that has been open for six weeks is telling you something about ownership rather than about the defect.

• –Track open findings as a queue with owners and ages
• –Review the oldest open item every month
• –Flag repeats on one structure explicitly — they are a different problem
• –Close on verification rather than on work being scheduled
• –Watch for inspections that never find anything on heavily used structures
• –Report coverage alongside findings, which needs a register