Should this be reported?

wuckfit

but they're still required to have fire drills to test evacuation procedures. this is even more important when there are disabled staff. I'm not going to argue with you about it since you clearly aren't capable of grasping the basics of Health and Safety procedures.

misgrace

jamespir wrote: »

supervise and care are to totally different things

he can still work and keep an eye on the young lady

But its not down to the staff to take care of the daughter, specially in light of dad dropping her in for the others to look after here while he has a week off.

Its a business of work, not a drop in centre, the daughter needs to be helped all through the day, usually her father does this, but he's having a week off and the other staff are looking after her.
I dont think they would mind if asked, but the sheer cheek of the dad dumping his daughter and expecting the other staff members to muck in and look after DD amounts to neglect on the dad's part.

Its not in thier job description, they havent even been asked if they could help or look after the daughter, she was dumped on them, the staff had no say in the matter.

The health and safety issue would bother me, having to stop my work to take her to the toilet, help her to eat or drink, or keeping her occupied is not down to staff members, she shouldnt be there without her father, unless she is actually working there.

wuckfit

jamespir wrote: »

true but the freind was asked to supervise not to take care

it doesn't matter what they were asked to do. the supervision automatically becomes a care provision, legally speaking because of the physical and mental impairments of the person requiring care.

It's clear you don't understand the first thing about employment or care law.

tanith

jamespir wrote: »

so im sure if that were the case they would help the disabled child out of the building


there not going to leave her there it would be the same as if one of the employees was disable

The thing is that the fact she is in a wheelchair could put her and whoever feels responsible for getting her out of the building in more danger than if she wasn't there at all.. no one doubts that someone would try to get her out but it would make the whole scenario much more difficult and could result in several people being injured ...

jamespir

tanith wrote: »

The thing is that the fact she is in a wheelchair could put her and whoever feels responsible for getting her out of the building in more danger than if she wasn't there at all.. no one doubts that someone would try to get her out but it would make the whole scenario much more difficult and could result in several people being injured ...

so yet again were judging that the company don't have sufficient procedures in place for fire drills


how do you know it would be know different than if the dad was at work too

MrsAnnie

Thank you to all posters who have offered advice and helped me see there are actually further implications to this situation than I previously thought there were.

I will pass the information on and I am sure that my friend will follow up on the information given. He is fond of this young woman and her dad, but he goes to work to do a job and can not take on the responsibilty of being a carer at the same time. This woman needs a great deal of supervision and care by trained individuals, not just friendly banter with her father's work colleagues.

jamespir

wuckfit wrote: »

but they're still required to have fire drills to test evacuation procedures. this is even more important when there are disabled staff. I'm not going to argue with you about it since you clearly aren't capable of grasping the basics of Health and Safety procedures.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY HAVENT ? the op claims she does but she doesnt work there so she wouldnt know

smartpicture

It sounds like your friend and colleagues are happy for the girl to be there when the father is there, but not otherwise.

In that case, I wouldn't report it to anyone externally because there's a good chance that the end result would be that she can't go there at all. The correct response is for your friend or one of her colleagues to speak to the father when he picks her up, and say that they want to be supportive, but everyone is uncomfortable with being responsible for her care when the father is not around. If he cares for his daughter (which is certainly sounds like he does if he's willing to be her carer 24 hours a day under normal cirumstances), then he should take this on board and deal with it. If he chooses not to - that is the time to speak to external agencies, not before.

tanith

jamespir wrote: »

so yet again were judging that the company don't have sufficient procedures in place for fire drills


how do you know it would be know different than if the dad was at work too

But the father is her carer and responsible for her welfare.. the fathers colleagues ARE NOT... they may well have fire drill procedures in place but the girl is the fathers responsibility and he is not there...

SandC

It's not so much about fire drills and health and safety because they must have the facilities to ensure disabled persons can enter and exit the building. However, unless the daughter is on the payroll, she should not be in the building. She is not an employee and therefore their employment laws don't cover their backs in the event of something going wrong.