Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Stu Haysman
Not strictly an H+S issue, but an interesting scenario I hope!
A roofing contractor hires a platform lift from a third party and brings it onto our site. It is used for most of the afternoon, then parked up overnight. The next morning, someone notices that the lift has, at some point, blown a hydraulic hose and dumped around 10 litres of oil over our yard. Most of the oil goes down a surface water drain thanks to heavy rainfall overnight. The remainder is significantly spread by the rain and costs us £600 to clean up.
The hire company produces a pre-hire inspection checklist which indicates no faults, although on later visual inspection by us, at least one other hose is badly worn in the same place where the blown hose failed.
Which party could we seek compensation from - the roofing contractor, the hire company, both or neither?
Many thanks,
Stu Haysman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Do not no the legal answer.
However on my site the contractor would have signed a work permit that stated he had inspected and found all plant serviceable.
Given you have found another suspect hose after the event would point to the fact that this piece of plant was not subject to a before use inspection which could have lead to prevention of the incident.
hence the contractor would not be on my nice people list.
Garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Exdeeps
Stu,
Tell the people who operated the kit on your property that it is their problem and also tell them the kit is "impounded" until they pay for the clean up. Then do not allow them or the hire co to remove it until you have been paid.
The problem should resolve itself quite quickly.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Of course unless you had indemnities from the contractor for this eventuality then you are responsible for the leak and will need to convince the EA that it was the fault of another party. You cannot just pile liabilites onto a contractor unless the contract specifically permits it.
You do have a good shout against the Hire Company though as this would fall into the inadequately maintained definition of LOLER, there should also have been a six month test certificate in the documentation. Without this the plant should not have been hired out. That said the contractor should have checked it out before use..
Nice mess Stanley!!
Bob
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane J
The operator of work equipment is supposed to inspect work equipment before and after use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
Another thought
The 'contract' re the 'equipment' concerned is probably between the contractor that you commissioned and the hire company not you and the hire company as you contracted the contractor to undertake work and it was up to them to organise themselves [e.g. hire kit, organise people etc] to do that work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael McBride
We had a similar occurance and we made the contractor clean it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi,
Just shows how some people use checklists!!!
There appears to be no privity of contract between you & hire company.Again there are exceptions to this rule.legal people can advise.
No one was injured but what could have happened if the hose(s) burst while the equipment was being operated?
Seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.