If you are supplying building services to a client: work on a a small number of properties (~5) and the work will last + 30 days and + 500 hours. Can the client legitimately say that notification under CDM does not apply as they are domestic servants and under section 51 of HSWA the work is classed as domestic? He insists that the people living in the properties work exclusivly in his household. I can understand why they would do this as if they are classed as tenants different rules apply re landlords duties. My point being these properties are remote from the main building/household.

More detail please about just what you are supplying; are you a private company supplying services but using people in the block to do the work? Noting that as a servant to one party doing work for another party via the first parties direction/permission can only be the servant of the first party in most circumstances and not a servant to both parties

it may be worth asking the very simple question about how is the work being paid for? If it is going through the books then regardless of the employment status of the servants it must be part of the undertaking and therefore work and therefore CDM able!

Who lives in the house is buildings is irrelevant, I think. If the client is acting as an individual, natural person, owns the buildings and is not conducting a business from them, then they are a domestic client, surely? The ACOP is explicit that "It is the type of client that matters, not the type of property". If I employ a builder to put a shed in my garden, I'm a domestic client even though I won't be living in the shed. (I acknowledge it'll be a pretty big shed if it is an otherwise notifiable project). If the client is Mr Bloggs, the property belongs to Mr Bloggs, and the cheques paying for the work are signed by Mr Bloggs and not signed by Mr Bloggs on behalf of another entity, then as far as CDM is concerned, it's a domestic client, surely? It doesn't matter whether it's him, his family, a friend, and employee, or the family dog that subsequently lives in the building - it's the type of client that matters, not the characteristics of the property.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the law as it stands. Had I known we were speculating wildly about what it might be in three years time I would obviously have not bothered contributing, since such speculation is pointless.

The response from achrn is the most accurate and relevant. The reference to HSW s51 relating to domestic servants is a red herring, and not relevant to this scenario. The 'domestic servants' exclusion is an interesting one - it only applies where someone employs ONLY servants - sometimes this is tried by employers also seeking to avoid duties to cooks, cleaners, gardeners etc. But as they are already employers of some kind, s51 does not apply - all are employees. It can apply where 'direct payments' are used by individuals to engage their own personal care assistants.

I haven't got my rather 'moth eaten' copy of HASAWA in front of me (yes I know I could go and find it online) but I greatly suspect that trying to apply S51 is a rather desperate and ultimately almost certainly a fruitless attempt to avoid their legal duty. As Sadlass - I rather suspect a red herring.