| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
nigel
Senior Member
358 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 07:44:10
|
I had to laugh yesterday, not only at certain rantings but at these two snippets someone sent me;
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007070788,00.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007070785,00.html
Both articles are about mice in food premises, yet both employ pest control.
Having been a witness for the prosecution on two occassions in instances like this in the past, it has always been a simple task to prove that the offender has failed to take all reasonable precautions, even with pest control being employed.
The new food regulations now have a clause in them that if it can be proven that a third person is at fault or is the cause of the owner or manger to be in breach of regulations and liable for prosecution, then that third person may be held liable, not the owner or manager.
So does this new clause mean that if a business is paying a pest control company to provide pest prevention and the property becomes infested, then the pest control company can now be held liable? |
|
|
Dusty
Senior Member
Australia
439 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 08:20:07
|
Nigel, any reason why the pest control firm should take the money but not be immune from a ny penalty for not doing the job?
Might not be a popular comment but that would also include your local councils too! Stuff up, fifty lashes, or the equivalent in Stirling!!
Don't feed them, get Rid of them - visit us on www.ridpest.com.au |
 |
|
|
Dusty
Senior Member
Australia
439 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 08:23:15
|
Could then be a fun time if some ignorant git who thinks he knows all about pest control conducts a training day and doesnt provide reasonable training. Oh, the solicitors and barristers would be rubbing their hands.
Did someone mention that it might be a good idea to licence everyone? pmsl
Don't feed them, get Rid of them - visit us on www.ridpest.com.au |
|
|
|
NickA
Hyperactive Member
United Kingdom
802 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 09:32:50
|
Good housekeeping or lousy pesty control is the other conundrum.
I would think its a combination of both. Vast turn round of stock, people lifting, restacking produce.
Not enough visits to check bait placements. Proofing inadequate.
Both companies have National pest control accounts, maybe it is a cost exercise.
Sue them.
Pests are smart - We're smarter
www.rpcwildlife.co.uk |
|
|
|
Iain
Moderator
United Kingdom
224 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 10:32:41
|
As Nick says, it will be a combination of both.
When do such big customers ever pay heed to the 'house keeping, proofing and hygiene' recommendations of their pest controllers?
I would hate to think what such customers are actually paying for their pest control services. The technician on the ground will almost certainly have only the fraction of the time he or she needs to do their job properly because some National Accounts Manager has been forced to negotiate a pathetically low price in order to get the account.
Perhaps it was negotiated by an 'Internet Auction', as seems to be increasingly popular with buyers.
And as for 'licencing' Dusty, please see the new posting on this very topic.
|
|
|
|
blatta
Senior Member
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:15:18
|
Another point that is increasingly making life harder for PCO's is that the stores are open 24 hrs, 7 days a week making access for inspection on the sales floor extremely difficult.
Add that onto the hygiene and proofing issues and life is fun for the PCO.
Alot of the problems do come from time pressures placed on Technicians but as has been pointed out, not all.
We are back to the age old problem of national accounts sales people willing to put in silly prices to buy contracts AND purchasing managers within the companies not asking questions such as 'How can the pest control company do that work for that amount of money?' or if they do ask it, they don't care because they will be moving on before the **** hits the fan. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Good pest control or lousy house keeping?
