Rank: Forum user 
|
Our company are the main contractor on a project and have brought in subcontractors (all vetted) to undertake works on the site. Following a recent site visit by the HSE three contraventons of health and law were identified, all these by a single subcontractor.
My question is should the subcontractor be liable and held accountable for the subsequent fee for intervention costs? The HSE have issued their letter to our company. Thanks Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As Main Contractor, I assume you 'control' the works/site, so as you were 'allowing' the breach, I would expect your company to be liable for the costs. Vetting is not enough, your site audits should have picked them up.
[I expect subcontracts to have clauses in future that say they will reimburse the Main/Principal Contractor any Fee Intervention costs incurred by their acts and omissions- if thats legal to do so]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I may be answering my own question here, as we are the principle contractor are we deemed as the 'dutyholder' and therefore responsible for the material breach
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes  As Main Contractor, I assume you 'control' the works/site, so as you were 'allowing' the breach, I would expect your company to be liable for the costs. Vetting is not enough, your site audits should have picked them up.
[I expect subcontracts to have clauses in future that say they will reimburse the Main/Principal Contractor any Fee Intervention costs incurred by their acts and omissions- if thats legal to do so]
yes our site manager was in control of the works, he should have picked up on the breaches and one of our visiting SHEQ advisors should also have picked up on the breaches. The contractor in question didnt follow the method statement he provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You "permitted" them to work out of scope - ergo you get the letter It is why it is termed Management of Sub-Contractors - vetting and Pre-Qualification are only a part of the whole activity Edited by user 03 October 2017 14:48:19(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You "permitted" them to work out of scope - ergo you get the letter It is why it is termed Management of Sub-Contractors - vetting and Pre-Qualification are only a part of the whole activity Edited by user 03 October 2017 14:48:19(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Lets not be too hasty here.
I know of several occassions where this has happened and the P.C. has NOT recieved the N.O.C. but the sub-contractor has. This was down to having a robust safety management system in place and good supervision levels in place too.
The P.C. where able to demonstrate to the H.S.E. that they had done everything possible and indeed it was the sub-contractor who where in breach of the relevant regulations and they recieved the N.O.C. and eventual invoice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: allanwood Lets not be too hasty here.
I know of several occassions where this has happened and the P.C. has NOT recieved the N.O.C. but the sub-contractor has. This was down to having a robust safety management system in place and good supervision levels in place too.
The P.C. where able to demonstrate to the H.S.E. that they had done everything possible and indeed it was the sub-contractor who where in breach of the relevant regulations and they recieved the N.O.C. and eventual invoice.
did the PC demonstrate to the HSE at the time of the site visit, that they had done everything possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
You can always a query that you are not the cause of the breach and therefore the FFI should be directed to the sub-contractor. It would depend on the content and context of the breach. Unfortunately there is no appeal against a NOC unlike an enforcement notice. I have challanged the HSE on a number of NOC issues and asked for "clarification" to which they have not responded (they also haven't submitted anymore FFI invoices either). The NOC must specify whether it is the PC that is the cause of the breach (e.g. failure to control contractors working on the site) or if it is down solely to the contractor for not following the method statement and in that situation would auditing/inspection programmes have picked it up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Could both the PC and subbie recieve a NOC I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have also known that to happen too Ray where both parties recieved an invoice.
|
 1 user thanked allanwood for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the input into this thread :-) its very much appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.