Can I do some extra freelance work for the company I work for?

[Paddy1000111]

26 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

Read the very last sentence under Labour Only Subcontractor. If it won't be valid it seems pointless having it.

 

Covering Contractors Under Employers’ Liability Insurance

WWW.TOWERGATEINSURANCE.CO.UK

---

As an employer you will need employers’ liability insurance. Read how to ensure your policy covers all workers that...

 

Yes, which covers you against being sued by the public for an accident of if a freelancer made a dangerous product as you take on ownership of their work. It means that if your freelancer makes a cock up made by your instructions then your insurance company won't throw their arms up in the air and say "It's on you mate".

 

This doesn't necessarily stop either the employer or the employers insurance company suing a freelancer for negligence or misconduct. Freelancers are liable for the work they provide, they aren't immune and this is where a freelancer needs insurance. If a freelancer makes a balls up and kills someone, your public liability insurance isn't going to cover the court/lawyer costs plus the cost of a hse negligence claim against the freelancer themselves. It's them going to jail for manslaughter not your company. If your policy says that it will cover labour only subcontractors against any and all legal case and will cover all legal costs associated. If it also says that under no circumstances will the insurance underwriter pursue any freelancer/self employed contractor for losses occurred from an act of misconduct/gross negligence then great. 

I think people are confusing an accident caused by you telling your freelancer to do a job and that instruction causing an accident with an accident caused my a mistake made by the freelancer or misconduct/negligence. 

 

It even says in that article under "Employers liability for labour only subcontractors":

 

It is crucial to ensure you have the right employer’s liability insurance to cover the right subcontractors.

 

which is what I have been saying from the start,  and I am being made out like an idiot/unexperienced because I said don't assume, check?!

Edited December 22, 2020 by Paddy1000111

[doobin]

3 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

I'll have a look later when i have time.

 

Let me put it in a different way, your on a job with your groundie and a freelance climber. It's in a residential address, you're cutting up branches that your freelance climber has cut down and your groundie is loading the chipper. Your groundie asks for a hand carrying a log out to the van and you agree, your climber is at this point chogging sections down, there's nothing to hit and there's no-one around so you and the groundie carry the log to the van. Next thing you hear the saw shut off and a load of screaming. Whilst you gave the groundie a hand little Timmy ran out from the house and has just been hit and killed by a 100kg section that's just fallen 30ft. The police arrive followed by HSE, your already having a bad day and it's about to get worse. One of you is going to be charged with manslaughter.

 

According to you, you are the overall responsible person so apparently that's you even though it's your freelance climber that killed someone. The climber you had told the police "I'm a freelancer" and they will have apologized to him for even asking and said he doesn't have to be here so can go home, no questions asked. If this is how it works then I've spent a lot of money on insurance and time checking in covered when using the magic freelancer word. 

When it ends up in court, my money is on the judge ruling the main contractor to be at fault for not securing the drop zone properly. 
 

There’s also the unavoidable fact that any claimant is going to chase the party with the money/insurance cover. 
 

As far as I understand, and it doesn’t appear to be complicated, if you take orders from the main contractor, then you are a labour only subcontractor/disguised employee, and the buck stops with them.

Edited December 22, 2020 by doobin

[Mick Dempsey]

3 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Have we come to a difinitve conclusion yet ?

Not sure, but if it gets people asking questions of their insurer rather than hoping for the best it’ll be a good thing. 

[Khriss]

5 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Have we come to a difinitve conclusion yet ?

Wot about? Am wrapping presents. K

[Stubby]

Just now, Khriss said:

Wot about? Am wrapping presents. K

I was wondering if the Secret service did Secret Santa but I suppose that is something we will never know .

[Khriss]

1 minute ago, Stubby said:

I was wondering if the Secret service did Secret Santa but I suppose that is something we will never know .

... Yr not supposed to talk abt that or it wouldn't be a secret. Or just ask Priti Patell, she blabs like an open drain.. K

[Paddy1000111]

2 minutes ago, doobin said:

When it ends up in court, my money is on the judge ruling the main contractor to be at fault for not securing the drop zone properly. 
 

There’s also the unavoidable fact that any claimant is going to chase the party with the money/insurance cover. 

I've yet to see a case where someone kills someone and their manager goes to jail for it.

 

It happens all the time in the HGV world. Someone I know went to jail because his bosses pushed him to work a s*** load of hours back to back (still under drivers regulations) and he turned a 4 door hatchback into an accordion with the family inside when there was a blockage on the slip road. His boss wasn't put in prison for working his staff too much even though they complained about not getting enough sleep and the human factor issue. It was the driver driving the truck, it's you with the chainsaw. Insurance won't stop you going to jail but it will pay for good lawyers and may help your family when you're behind bars for the next few years. 

[Rich Rule]

8 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

Yes, which covers you against being sued by the public for an accident of if a freelancer made a dangerous product as you take on ownership of their work. It means that if your freelancer makes a cock up made by your instructions then your insurance company won't throw their arms up in the air and say "It's on you mate".

 

This doesn't necessarily stop either the employer or the employers insurance company suing a freelancer for negligence or misconduct. Freelancers are liable for the work they provide, they aren't immune and this is where a freelancer needs insurance. If a freelancer makes a balls up and kills someone, your public liability insurance isn't going to cover the court/lawyer costs plus the cost of a hse negligence claim against the freelancer themselves. It's them going to jail for manslaughter not your company. If your policy says that it will cover labour only subcontractors against any and all legal case and will cover all legal costs associated. If it also says that under no circumstances will the insurance underwriter pursue any freelancer/self employed contractor for losses occurred from an act of misconduct/gross negligence then great. 

I think people are confusing an accident caused by you telling your freelancer to do a job and that instruction causing an accident with an accident caused my a mistake made by the freelancer or misconduct/negligence. 

 

It even says in that article under "Employers liability for labour only subcontractors":

 

It is crucial to ensure you have the right employer’s liability insurance to cover the right subcontractors.

 

which is what I have been saying from the start,  and I am being made out like an idiot/unexperienced because I said don't assume, check?!

is it not the main contractors responsibility to ensure the person they have hired is suitably qualified and trained to do the task requested of him/her.?

 

It certainly is in relation to an employed individual and as it states in the link Eggs posted and I highlighted, labour only are classed as employees and therefore the duty is to the main contractor to ensure they are insured to cover that.

 

Which is what many in this thread have been saying from the start.

 

No one is try to make you look stupid.  The difference is in the definitions, which unfortunately you seem to be having trouble acknowledging.

 

 

[doobin]

Yes but in your example the boss disregarded all established protocols by not securing the drop zone. I’d then draw a comparison with the Somerset lorry crash where the driver wasn’t prosecuted but the boss and mechanic went to jail for falsifying maintenance records. 
 

I do agree with your position that insurance is sensible to have regardless. I disagree with a lot of hypothetical scenarios you outline. 

[eggsarascal]

To keep it arb related, not that it matters, can someone email their insurance company and ask the question. Perhaps Paddy could word the email, that way if the reply comes back has I expect it to there can be no argument.