IMHO I would follow the money - my employer being defined as the person paying my salary is the one who owes me the duty of care in respect of health and safety - Company B. Company B should be effectivley managing and supervising my activity - they are the ones who should be holding the Employers Liabilty if things go wrong, have prepared RA / COSHH for any hazardous work tasks and ensured that I am trained and competent to conduct the undertakings required by Company A. Company A owe me duties as described for Premises Controllers / Landlords including any arrangements for the safety and welfare of visitors and contractors (Control of Legionella / Management of Asbestos etc.). Just had a not too dissimlar discussion with our cleaning contractors regarding responsible control of their employees on our premises - having seen no supervisors visit for over a month.

Hartman, this situation is really quite common and it is very clear that Company A have all the responsibility

Oh the joys of a wonderful Sunday morning here in Norfolk! I agree that the situation outlined is not uncommon, on the face of it, it appears to be a client/contractor relationship, and not dissimilar to a client/agency relationship. Whilst this isn’t complex, it may not be as simple as suggested at #3 and I for one would certainly never conclude or advise that ALL of the responsibility rests with A (if that were an answer to a NEBOSH examination question I would not expect ‘full marks'!). In saying that I do agree that they are highly likely to have the bulk but NOT necessarily ALL of the responsibility. As Fiesta has pointed out, the responsibility will generally lie with the ‘person’ who has or is 'best placed' to have control over the activities of the individual, which in this case appears to be A. If one of B’s employees had been seriously injured or killed then if I were company B I wouldn’t feel that I was able to lie back in my cosy office chair with a broad grin over my face because all of the responsibility was with A and that I was effectively untouchable; oh no! Likewise I would caution against assuming that the ‘person’ who pays the salary (and administers the PAYE/NI etc) is necessarily the person who is the employer for health and safety purposes. Although there are ET cases which suggest that is the case for employment (and there are some that don’t) there is also advice and guidance from HSE, business link etc which suggests that the employer for PAYE purposes may not be the employer for health and safety purposes. I would suggest that the HSE would tend to concentrate on who had, or should have had control over the individual, which in this case this appears to be A. You may be interested to know that most employment agencies will not readily accept that they are the employer for health and safety purposes even though they pay and administer the PAYE/NI for the individual, but rather that they are providing the individual under a ‘contract for services’ basis. I would agree with Fiesta that the situation outlined in #2 with the cleaners is a different situation than that which appears in #1 i.e. where the control is likely to lie. So, (#2)I would strongly caution against assuming that the person paying, is the employer for health and safety purposes this is not in my opinion (and experience) always the case, and similarly(#3) I would caution against company B assuming that it will be all rosy in the garden if something nasty goes wrong.