If you have proof of training, (induction and use of equipment provided), risk assessment read and understood, and witnesses to the accident that are prepared to write statements then that should be enough. You will have to notify your insurer who will probably ask for the above and your contractor competence checks.

Normally yes. Unfortunately the guy is self employed and so I expect him to chance his arm at claiming the site was responsible. He's going to be off work for a few months as a result of his injury and so suffer loss of earnings.

Jason, Following on from Ciaran, you may wish to consider Do you have a documented contractor selection procedure that includes a H&S section? Did your contractor provide you with copies of appropriate insurances and copies of his competence (qualifications, appropriate certificates, appropriate membership details)? When he was injured was he using your or his own equipment? Did this equipment need test certificates and if so do you have them? In your safe system of work was there any agreement on supervision or assistance? Was he working alone and did you have a safe contact system in place? Sorry may be after the horse has bolted but I have been asked for all the above and more when dealing with contractor injuries Take Care

Jason, From your reply it appears that this contractor went on a "Frolic of his own". Conduct your investigation, assemble the documentation back up ready to pass to your insurers Good Luck & Take Care

As an aside, self-employed workers also have duties arising from their undertakings pursuant to HSWA s3(2).

Jason, Demand risk assessments as part of the contractual agreement. Otherwise, they can find somewhere else to work. I could blow peoples minds in here but I need to clear this with the moderation team and to be fair, they'll need to have a group chat on what I'm proposing to post.

I could pm it to you and you'll see what the subbie tried to get past me.

BTW, whats your view of the scenario I illustrated above? That is, demonstrating contractor competence in the absence of risk assessments due to the contracto having less than five employees? My view is that although technically it wouldnt be a breach of legislation as risk assessments are required to be recorded for companies with five or more employees the HSE would take a dim view that the company hadnt taken more stringent action to ensure the welfare of both the contractor and the companies own employees. Whether the HSE would determine that adequate to justify a prosecution Im not sure. The company could argue that due to the previous work performed on site without incident that the contractor was competent due to previous work.

'BTW, whats your view of the scenario I illustrated above? That is, demonstrating contractor competence in the absence of risk assessments due to the contracto having less than five employees?' A question remains whether self-employed people are an 'employer', unless they are a limited company. I suspect most are sole traders and therefore not an employer. MHSWR 3(2) states: Every self-employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of— (a)the risks to his own health and safety to which he is exposed whilst he is at work; and (b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions. How would a self-employed contractor evidence his RA without some of documentation? Furthermore, there is a good argument under the CDM Regs that the PC must ensure that contractors working under their umbrella are competent...how does one confirm this without reviewing contractor documentation? I think that despite various pieces legislation many self-employed workers slip under the radar when it comes to health and safety. There was a recent prosecution illustrated in SHP online regarding two self-employed roofers who did not take basic precautions to secure their safety. This type of case is unusual and of course they were given paltry fines. However, more case like this would certainly focus the minds of self-employed persons. Apologies for the previous posting - hit the wrong button. Ray