Posted for: Chris Duprés [[email protected]]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Duprés [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 12:21 AM > To: Price, Ed > Subject: FW: Copy of: D of C - Who Signs? > > Hi Ed/Alan. > > Alan wrote: > < I do not think the UK S.I. No. 2372 1992 on EMC implies that the > > "Responsible Person" is a company. > > > > ---------------- Quote from UK S.I. No. 2372 1992 on EMC --------------- > > "Responsible Person" in relation to relevant apparatus means- > > (a) the manufacturer thereof; > > (b) the manufacturer's authorised representative; or > > (c) where the manufacturer is not established in the Community and HE > > HAS not appointed an authorised representative, the PERSON who supplies > > the relevant apparatus. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > N.B. My capitalisation for emphasis. > > > > If these rules were indicating a company I think the "HE HAS" in (c) > > above should have said "THEY HAVE". > > > > > Good points. However, been there... Done that... > In all my dealings with the Trading Standards - The UK Regulatory > Authorities - the interpretation is given that in the end, the Company > hurts if the rules are broken. Employees and directors come and go, the > only certain target is the 'entity' that is the 'manufacturer' or > 'supplier'. In my own case., I was taken on as a Consultant to clear all > compliance matters on a companies complete range of products. My > signature appeared on all the D of C's. Now if they were subsequently > raided for non-compliance, they would have carried the can and suffered > the > penalty. However, under entirely different legal structures they could > sue > me for those costs and my Professional Imdemnity Insurance would cough up. > > (Happily in all the work I've done this hasn't happened yet.. ha ha) > > One implication that individuals are targetted are the penalties stated in > the UK Regs. Section 99 etc.? It mentions Jail! How you can send a > corporate entity to jail is an interesting philosophical question... But > close look shows that for a Compliance (technical) offence there is a > fine, > but for a paperwork or administration offence, it's jail as well. > > I have seen an official, genuine, real, actual D of C signed by a 'Mr > Popeye' who's position was stated to be 'Sailor'. Methinks that in the > real world these D of C's are not considered to be a terribly important > thing by many people.... > > Have a nice day, > > Chris. --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
