Insurance

[Andy Collins]

Oh well different strokes for different folks, at least your the same with your guys, fair enough.

[Dean Lofthouse]

The employer should be in charge of the job and supervising, so under his supervision an accident shouldn't happen. If it does he should have foreseen it so he should use his insurance.

 

If you employ someone, that someone should not be thrown into a big job without the employer first getting to know the subbies abilities, he should be started on small jobs if you have never used him before to find out how competent he is.

[Andy Collins]

So all the companies I've worked for in the past have been wrong? Interesting.

[Dean Lofthouse]

So all the companies I've worked for in the past have been wrong? Interesting.

 

It's like has been said above Andy, you want to be a Contractor, you have got to accept the liabilities, you can't go driving round in your brand new range rover pricing jobs, getting someone in to do them for you, creaming money off the top with no liability whatsoever

 

Nice if you can do it.

 

What would happen if there were an accident is you would be sued on your insurance then your insurance would try to recover their losses from your employer, no doubt arguing he should have been supervising

 

That's my take on it

[Andy Collins]

See your point Dean, so why would it be a requirement for subbies to have their own cover, if they are covered by the company policy anyway? which if I'm not mistaken, was the original query? And

why wouldthe HMRCE state that subcontractors should carry ins. to show that they accept an element of risk?

[Dean Lofthouse]

For that reason, the contractor cannot be responsible for every action of the subbie, it's down to the insurance companies to argue between themselves.

 

The subbies will be claimed off first, if it is negligence on his part, it stays with him, if it can be apportioned to the contractor the subbies insurers will claim off him.

 

How they determine or interpret blame is a whole new thread .

 

In my MEWP accident, that is what really got my goat and really peed me off is, my passenger sues me, I sue the mewp retailer, the mewp retailer sues the manufacturer, each lawyer takes his cut along the line and so does each insurance company, who claim their costs.

 

The only ones who make money is the insurance companies and Lawyers, but instead of going direct, all those down the line make money out of costs.

 

One big scam is insurance mate, and if you find a loophole, it's soon shut down. Like the "he's self employed so I don't need EL insurance loophole" was.

[Andy Collins]

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=52615&postcount=34 So am I being thick or have you not just contradicted yourself? What, if anything, have we resolved here? Subbies should have their own PLI, or how else can they be bona fide sub-contractors? It seems to me that many companies wish to have full-time regular s/e staff, simply because they do not wish to pay holiday pay, sick, or indeed NI and tax for them.

[volvo]

All sub's and contractors should have there own insurance its safer,if they dont then they are imo cowboys and shouldn't be there.

Just my take on things.

[Dean Lofthouse]

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=52615&postcount=34 So am I being thick or have you not just contradicted yourself? What, if anything, have we resolved here? .

 

Your analyzing things too deeply Andy

 

I was responding and commenting about Mesterh's comment,

 

"So its ok for the main contractor to take all the profit and NONE of the risk?"

 

Everybody should have insurance, the point being made was, should, if anything went wrong, the risk be with you the Subbie or the man whos job it actually is and who is ultimately in charge

[Andy Collins]

With you now Dean...... at last!!