What is the legal "duty" owed by a business that serves another business. . . ?

[Taxus]

So -  as a loler examiner I get to see a variety of "unusual" approaches to the whole loler thing.

 

Latest query is a from a fellow loler examiner, carrying out an inspection on ppe climbing kit that was last examined by another loler firm.

The loler documents provided are, at best, thin on detail - so much so that the AA have commented on them to the tree care firm involved concerning the lack of clarity in some of the examination details.

 

I have Googled, that in English domestic law, your rights when buying services are to expect:

"Reasonable care and skill, within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price. . . "

 

 

My questions:

Should/could the tree care company with the "flawed" examination go back to their original loler examiner and ask for a no-cost re-examination or even a refund - much as we would if we made any usual purchase of goods or services from a trade professional or outlet?

Is there a sort of "Consumer Rights Act 2015" that would relate to such business to business contracts?

 

Any experience of this sort of thing out there in Arb Talk land please? 🤔

 

 

 

 

 

[matt528]

I would say if it wasn’t up to the required standard then I would want to be refunded. I’m not sure id want or have faith in them re inspecting. 
 

If one of my inspections got flagged up as sub par I’d be embarrassed to say the least and certainly refund. Also I’d be thinking about further training to refresh my knowledge before putting any more reports out.  
 

Not much help I know 

[pleasant]

When you state it is 'flawed' isn't that just your opinion?

 

Or does it fail to meet legal standards?

 

Big difference.

Edited June 28, 2023 by pleasant

[Taxus]

I use the word "flawed" in a professionally polite way, it was - apparently - the AA who picked up the discrepancy. . . 🌳

[matt528]

I’m assuming the aa would have picked up when auditing the companies paperwork. It would suggest to me that flawed would mean it wouldn’t meet the icop. 

A lot of previous inspections that Ive seen and would say are flawed just aren’t up to date with current standards, or just are very lazy. To me they wouldn’t be worth the paper they’re printed on. I think it’s important for people doing these inspections to get up to date. You’re relying on a ‘competent’ person to give the service that you’re paying for. 

[Bolt]

Schedule 1 of LOLER98 clearly sets out the information that is to be included on the report.

 

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

 

None of it is rocket science….. or optional.  
 

I would suggest that a surprising amount is missing from a large number of ‘loler tickets’.

 

As for ‘duty’, the rest of LOLER makes it pretty clear that most of that responsibility lies with the employer.

[Puffingbilly413]

I was going to ask but what was the 'detail' that was deemed flawed by the aa? 

 

And as per the above post - if it's not required under Schedule 1 what's the issue? If it missed something out required by Schedule 1 then what was it?

 

Hard to work out how bad something is or not otherwise.

[matt528]

21 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Schedule 1 of LOLER98 clearly sets out the information that is to be included on the report.

 

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

 

None of it is rocket science….. or optional.  
 

I would suggest that a surprising amount is missing from a large number of ‘loler tickets’.

 

As for ‘duty’, the rest of LOLER makes it pretty clear that most of that responsibility lies with the employer.

Agreed it’s not rocket science, however had you paid for an examination and all that information wasn’t included and it got picked up on would you not be annoyed? The employer is paying someone deemed competent to carry out a task. If the report isn’t full they aren’t carrying out that task properly in my opinion. I’ve not seen the report so I don’t know but I have seen some where information is missed so nothing would surprise me. 

[GarethM]

Annoyed maybe, but have you spoken to them to add those details?.

 

Just because your report lacks certain information AA requested, does not mean they haven't checked the equipment.

[Bolt]

21 minutes ago, matt528 said:

Agreed it’s not rocket science, however had you paid for an examination and all that information wasn’t included and it got picked up on would you not be annoyed?

Possibly more embarrassed than annoyed.

 

If I had sent stuff off to be lolered, and a report came back lacking in the detail required in schedule 1, I wouldn’t:

a) have much faith that I had engaged someone who was competent.  If their report preparation is crap, maybe their kit checking is crap to.

b) be inclined to pay.

 

Section 9 is pretty clear that almost all responsibility lies with the employer rather than, for instance, the thorough examiner.

 

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK