Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 23 June 2009 13:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GavinR We have a 3rd party contractor conducting some maintenance of equipment, inspection and calibration. He is 1 man operation and has been working for the company for many years and widely recongised as being very competent standard. The issue is he has no PL insurance due to the insurance company quoting him excessively high figure. I know PL is not compulsory but i'm uneasy with having this contractor conduct his business on our premises without this insurance. He has suggested he may be able to work through a company he previously was employed by (we employ the larger company with EL AND PL and they subcon him to us). This will still not provide him with PL but (if the PC agreed to this) it would satisify our requirements as the PC will cover any damage/incident under their insurance? Would i be correct in thinking this?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 23 June 2009 13:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Swis You like him becuase he's good. You don't want him because he hasn't got the insurance. You know that he don't really need the insurance. You are finding a loophole which can be used to hire him. why don't you just take him and through your policy out?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 23 June 2009 13:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GavinR thanks swiss.... that was very useful. I take it from your message you feel we are doing the wrong thing trying to keep a working relationship with this contractor? We know he can do the work to the standard we need, we know he understands and works to our H&S requirements and has a good track record with regards safety performance. We do wants to retain him for these reasons. If we can find a workable solution that ensures we looking after ourselves and that he is covered to complete the work i don't see why that is a negative thing? I'm asking for the opinion of others who may have experienced similar issues before and if they agree we me or believe this is not the correct path to take. Cheers
Admin  
#4 Posted : 23 June 2009 14:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuff4blokes Gavin, this is a classic risk management decision. How likely is he to cause damage by his actions, how much will it cost, can you afford to carry this risk yourself? I say yourself as although your contractor may be legally liable for damage, he may be " a man of straw" and unable to pay.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 23 June 2009 14:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GavinR Hi, thanks for your reply. Yes, my belief is that should he cause any significant damage to property or loss of business then if we took action against him he would be very unlikely to be able to pay any of the costs associated with such action. Suppose this will be a consideration for our mgt team, as you said its something we will have to assess against what could go wrong. Cheers
Admin  
#6 Posted : 23 June 2009 14:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Y Gavin I am wondering what the risk that this persons work presents to the public (i.e. are the public likely to be affected by his work?), and whether the risk is when he is carrying out the work or if your concern is about any residual risks as the result of the work that he has carried out? I know it is always a ‘niggle’ at the back of your mind but I would say that overall I tend to agree with ‘stuff’ – it is essentially a RM decision.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 23 June 2009 15:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GavinR Again thank you for your reply. Yeah, again if he was to fail to maintain or calibrate equipment and it failed causing a loss to business then what do we do? I do not foresee any effect to public but potentially to other contractors working on our site. Cheers
Admin  
#8 Posted : 23 June 2009 15:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Hagyard Gavin rather than use him as a contractor could you not take him on as an employee so he's covered by your insurance? you may need to be creative with the contract to get the hours you needed, and I accept the add on cost of an employee (NI etc) may mean not workable. Brian
Admin  
#9 Posted : 23 June 2009 15:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By hooperman3 Had this before with subbies aquinted to us, first thing to do is check with your insurers, most PL policies have within their underwriting policy a clause that covers sub contractors who are sole traders
Admin  
#10 Posted : 24 June 2009 09:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By SteveD-M Many self-employed tradesmen or owners of small businesses will discover that there are a variety of products that are designed to their particular trade. These products can be found under a number of labels including business insurance , small business insurance or self employed liability insurance. These policies should include a number of individual parts including employers and public liability, combined with a selection of legal expenses, professional indemnity and office insurance. The answer really is to get him to shop around explain in more detail what he does..
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.