<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mamma Maya &#187; Compulsory Insurance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mammamaya.net/tag/compulsory-insurance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mammamaya.net</link>
	<description>
</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:53:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Cambridgeshire Retailer Asked to Pay &#163;1000 for Not Obtaining ELCI Certificate</title>
		<link>http://mammamaya.net/cambridgeshire-retailer-asked-to-pay-1000-for-not-obtaining-elci-certificate/</link>
		<comments>http://mammamaya.net/cambridgeshire-retailer-asked-to-pay-1000-for-not-obtaining-elci-certificate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Parlor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[It's Your Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CERLAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIPD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compulsory Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health and safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IOSH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IOSH training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEBOSH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mammamaya.net/cambridgeshire-retailer-asked-to-pay-1000-for-not-obtaining-elci-certificate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent case, Health and Safety Executive has warned employers that they will face serious consequences if they fail to produce the mandated Employers&#8217; Liability Compulsory Insurance certificate. The Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Act of 1969 mandates that all those employers who are covered under the provisions of the Act have to obtain the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">In a recent case, Health and Safety Executive has warned employers that they will face serious consequences if they fail to produce the mandated Employers&#8217; Liability Compulsory Insurance certificate. The Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Act of 1969 mandates that all those employers who are covered under the provisions of the Act have to obtain the necessary certificate showing that they have complied with the rules of the Act, as well as produce the same when requested.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">In the present case, Dipak Kumar Kantial Solanki, owner of a retail shop named Melbourn Stores in Melbourn, failed to produce the required certificate when demanded by the Environmental Health Officer from South Cambridgeshire District Council during his visit in April 2009. It is pertinent to note that the employer failed to produce the certificate even after a notice was issued to him by HSE to produce the same after a period of time. </P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">According to Andrew Saunders, HSE Inspector, businesses that are bound by the provisions of the Act should have the relevant certificate and should be able to produce the same when asked. In the present case, the employer Solanki pleaded guilty to violating section 1(1) of the Employers&#8217; Liability Compulsory Insurance Act and he was asked to pay a fine of &#163;500 for each offence and costs up to &#163;539.60 by the Magistrates&#8217; Court at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cambridge</st1:place></st1:City>.</P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">HSE, reiterating the importance of the certificate, stated that the act and its provisions are created for safeguarding the interests of the employee in case of any <SPAN style="COLOR: lime"><A href="http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&amp;itemId=1074301535">accident or health</A></SPAN> related problem is caused due to work, as failure to do so will result in increasing the vulnerability of the staff.</P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>  <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Health and safety<SPAN lang=FR style="mso-ansi-language: FR"> training is essential; </SPAN>for managers and supervisors IOSH training is designed to provide you with the knowledge to manage safely and effectively in compliance with both your organisation</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://mammamaya.net/cambridgeshire-retailer-asked-to-pay-1000-for-not-obtaining-elci-certificate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
