Silly price HAVE A GUESS

[felixthelogchopper]

No, not for what you are doing

 

And

 

No not if you muck up

 

Spot on. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117

[coleman]

No, not for what you are doing

 

And

 

No not if you muck up

 

The client must check that they are all qualified to do the job they are being PAID to do eg NPTC tickets. There was a case of a vicar who got some chap in to fell a tree, he said he would do it in return for keeping the timber (this was classed as a payment) but the guy used a chainsaw on a scaff tower, flopped a branch into the scaff tower and killed himself. After a HSE investigation the vicar was charged (i cant remember what with:confused1:) but it was due to him allowing someone to do the job in a professional basis who wasn't certified to do so. So yes if things do go wrong with some dodgy old contractor who hasnt go his tickets you can end up in th sh*t in that respect.

[likeitorlumpit]

The client must check that they are all qualified to do the job they are being PAID to do eg NPTC tickets. There was a case of a vicar who got some chap in to fell a tree, he said he would do it in return for keeping the timber (this was classed as a payment) but the guy used a chainsaw on a scaff tower, flopped a branch into the scaff tower and killed himself. After a HSE investigation the vicar was charged (i cant remember what with:confused1:) but it was due to him allowing someone to do the job in a professional basis who wasn't certified to do so. So yes if things do go wrong with some dodgy old contractor who hasnt go his tickets you can end up in th sh*t in that respect.

 

So this is the opposite of what others are saying.

Which is it - client responsible or not.

In building the main contractor is I believe responsible and thats why they check tickets/method statements etc. Does that mean client is a main contractor??

[coleman]

So this is the opposite of what others are saying.

Which is it - client responsible or not.

In building the main contractor is I believe responsible and thats why they check tickets/method statements etc. Does that mean client is a main contractor??

the client is responsible only if the person taking on the job is not relivently certified, eg no NPTC tickets (******). Saying this the person doing the job would be in trouble too. If you do have all the correct certification required by law its just your ass on the line! and that is why we all have insurance

[felixthelogchopper]

The client must check that they are all qualified to do the job they are being PAID to do eg NPTC tickets. There was a case of a vicar who got some chap in to fell a tree, he said he would do it in return for keeping the timber (this was classed as a payment) but the guy used a chainsaw on a scaff tower, flopped a branch into the scaff tower and killed himself. After a HSE investigation the vicar was charged (i cant remember what with:confused1:) but it was due to him allowing someone to do the job in a professional basis who wasn't certified to do so. So yes if things do go wrong with some dodgy old contractor who hasnt go his tickets you can end up in th sh*t in that respect.

 

But was he found guilty of anything? As a private individual, the ability to check on somebody's 'qualifications' is very limited, especially in a less well-known trade such as Arb (eg everybody knows that gas installers have to be Gas safe registered but how many people know about CS units?) and so the scenario you are talking about is highly unlikely. Leading cases on this are Ferguson v Walsh and Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.

[likeitorlumpit]

Spot on. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117

 

OK - I've read this now

The issue was with chimney sweeps who died as a result of CO poisoning. They were experts and should have known the dangers and damages were halved because of this. They were constantly warned about the dangers.

So- the householder, in getting in unskilled workers- charging low prices- would not be able to use this argument in their defence. The judge held the sweeps partly responsible BECAUSE they were experts. It's a case that proves the homeowner should get in experts not cowboys and woe betold any who think they can save money by using unskilled tradesmen.

Gentlemen, we have the law on our side and it would appear clients who try to save money by not using skilled tradesmen will be burying their heads in the sand.

[likeitorlumpit]

the client is responsible only if the person taking on the job is not relivently certified, eg no NPTC tickets (******). Saying this the person doing the job would be in trouble too. If you do have all the correct certification required by law its just your ass on the line! and that is why we all have insurance

 

please read up on roles v nathan- it's very relevant.

[felixthelogchopper]

OK - I've read this now

The issue was with chimney sweeps who died as a result of CO poisoning. They were experts and should have known the dangers and damages were halved because of this. They were constantly warned about the dangers.

So- the householder, in getting in unskilled workers- charging low prices- would not be able to use this argument in their defence. The judge held the sweeps partly responsible BECAUSE they were experts. It's a case that proves the homeowner should get in experts not cowboys and woe betold any who think they can save money by using unskilled tradesmen.

Gentlemen, we have the law on our side and it would appear clients who try to save money by not using skilled tradesmen will be burying their heads in the sand.

 

The point of the case is that the unskilled occupier is reliant on a safe method of work being employed by the qualified expert. If you read my other post, you will see that for a private individual to check up on the qualifications of a contractor, while being desirable, is not seen as necessary. If the occupier (customer) became aware of unsafe practice during the performance of the work, they may be seen as jointly liable if they allow the work to continue. To sum up, you don't have the law on your side unfortunately.

[timmins90]

We have written an editorial for a local magazine discussing arboricultural compliance and what clients need to look for when employing an arboricultural contractor as a minimum guide, in our attempt to persuade them towards checking contractors credentials. Its all about educating and informing the general public about what they need to look for when hiring an arboricultural contractor, and advising them of the dangers which arise when using unqualified, incompetent and inexperienced contractors.

 

For instance how many members of the general public understand that our equipment needs to be loler checked on a regular basis, that all traffic management needs to be undertaken by qualified personnel etc and that you tickets in order to undertake tree work safely.

[likeitorlumpit]

The point of the case is that the unskilled occupier is reliant on a safe method of work being employed by the qualified expert. If you read my other post, you will see that for a private individual to check up on the qualifications of a contractor, while being desirable, is not seen as necessary. If the occupier (customer) became aware of unsafe practice during the performance of the work, they may be seen as jointly liable if they allow the work to continue. To sum up, you don't have the law on your side unfortunately.

 

I will read the other 2 cases tomorrow Felix. I'm sure you know your stuff.