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

[matt528]

33 minutes ago, GarethM said:

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.

It’s nothing that concerns me was just voicing my opinion to the post. 
 

If a garage does a mot and doesn’t do the paperwork or whatever properly rendering it useless for example. Is it ok because they’ve checked the car? 

[GarethM]

Whilst comparable, providing I got an MOT certificate that's on the system that's fine.

 

I don't need the check list saying he's emptied the ash tray & refilled the magic smoke.

 

Essentially the equipment has an active test report, as bolt says it's down to your boss to say the report isn't upto snuff.

 

You pays your money and take your chances, like your car take it elsewhere next time if you're not happy or give them the chance to sort it and they may even appreciate the feedback.

[matt528]

40 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Whilst comparable, providing I got an MOT certificate that's on the system that's fine.

 

I don't need the check list saying he's emptied the ash tray & refilled the magic smoke.

 

Essentially the equipment has an active test report, as bolt says it's down to your boss to say the report isn't upto snuff.

 

You pays your money and take your chances, like your car take it elsewhere next time if you're not happy or give them the chance to sort it and they may even appreciate the feedback.

I’m not disagreeing with his points and I know what needs to be included. I provide loler examinations & have someone I trust and knows what they’re doing to do my kit. I don’t know what was missed or wrong with the one mentioned in the post. 
 

All I’m saying is if a ‘competent’ person isn’t carrying out their job properly then that’s not good enough and something should be done to improve their service  ie, refreshed skills or whatever. Yes they should be made aware and they can then improve if they wish. I’m not trying to reinvent what should be included in a loler, I’m not suggesting it should have 3D pop out characters or the magic smoke your car has Im just saying it should be done properly. 
 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by matt528

[Bolt]

1 hour ago, matt528 said:

Im just saying it should be done properly. 

 

I’m just saying that the only person with a legal duty to see it’s done properly (according to LOLER) is the employer.

[matt528]

28 minutes ago, Bolt said:

I’m just saying that the only person with a legal duty to see it’s done properly (according to LOLER) is the employer.

I shall cancel my professional indemnity insurance tomorrow then if it’s not my responsibility to insure I’m carrying out my job correctly. 

[openspaceman]

10 hours ago, matt528 said:

I shall cancel my professional indemnity insurance tomorrow then if it’s not my responsibility to insure I’m carrying out my job correctly. 

I assume you are being sarcastic.

 

The thing is in the event of an accident from a piece of PPE failing following an incompetent inspection HSE will visit the employer to establish the circumstances and he will be liable for the kit failure. The employer then is likely to make a case against you (though a civil one rather than the criminal one) so your PI may come into play (though not if you are joined in a criminal case). IANAL

[Taxus]

Many thanks for all the responses, and the interesting views.

My main question was whether there is a "duty" on a professional firm to give a reasonable service to another business client. . .. the question could be the same as e.g. providing stump grinding services to another tree care company, and whether there is any "legal" (apologies, I have no "leagl training so I might be using the wrong terms here) redress if the stump grinding was not done to an acceptable or otherwise agreed standard. Yes, get the grinding team back in to make good, but is that a contractual thing or does it dip into the whole "reasonable service level" thing, and if so; where does that reasonable service sit in English "business" law. . . ?  🤔

[GarethM]

What's the obsession with an litigious definition and solution?.

[Taxus]

Thanks Gareth,

Not so much an obsession, more of wanting to learn where it all fits together in terms of the legal liabilities that sit with a loler examiner trying to offer the best  professional service to clients who are relying on the examiner to get it right . . .

 

I have asked this question (see my post above) of several of my very knowledgeable arb friends and colleagues, and have all agreed with me that there "must" be a legal duty somewhere, but none can give me an answer as to where etc. . . which makes me even more interesed to know the answer. . . 🤔

 

I'll run it past the A.A. and if I get an answer, I will post it here for the forum.

 

Cheers.

[GarethM]

Thing is you've not found if they haven't done the necessary checks and just not given you a piece of paper that details what you or the AA want in word form.

 

That's the real legal sticking point, as if they've just passed your equipment without checks that's their neck on the line.