Freelancers, Subbies and Insurance Issues

[arbmark]

On a couple of occasions recently I've come across a few freelancers and contractors who are unaware of their obligations when it comes to insurance. A lot of this seems to arise from a confusion and mis-definition of the term "subbie".

 

What I do for a living is climb and cut trees. I am self employed, own my own vehicle to get to and from site, provide my own climbing equipment, saws, rigging equipment etc. I am hired on a day basis, for as many or as few days as the company who engage my services need me to get the job done. By definition, I am a freelancer or labour only sub contractor.

 

As a freelancer, I'm neither required to have Public Liability nor Employer's liability. I am in essence, an employee of another contractor for the day. A "subbie" is a term often used to describe people who do what I do.

 

Another definition of a sub contractor, or subbie, is a "bona fide" sub contractor. This situation is very different. It would mean a self employed person who takes on the whole job, on their terms and timelines, with their equipment and the staff they choose to use. They would submit an invoice to the main contractor, who in turn would submit an invoice to the client/tree owners, usually with a mark up for their own profits.

 

In my circumstances, the individual or company that engage me and my services for work are LEGALLY obliged to hold Employer's Liability insurance. Currently, Public Liability insurance is not a legal requirement.

 

In the instance of a Bona fide sub contractor, the sub contractor is the one who is required to hold the insurance. It would cover the people they hire to help them carry out the job. (such as freelancers)

 

So, a warning to all freelancers out there. There are a few contractors who I have come across who are trading without Employer's Liability, sometimes by confusion of the term "subbie", sometimes by sheer arrogance and ignorance. You can't always tell by their name, reputation, nor are they going to be the "******" or any of the other derogatory things I expect people will have in mind. Some of these people advertise in reputable places, so don't go by that either.

 

It is prudent imo to check the insurance of people who engage you for work. If you have any doubts, DON'T work!

 

accurate and eloquent post

[crackoff]

Not specifically this industry, as this exact system is in operation across the board. Whenever we have a subbie working within or for our company, we have to check all documentation regards licences, equipment inspection paperwork, and if we are using a company rather than freelancers, we need insurance docs as well. Add to this that anyone doing the work has to do their own written risk assessment, emergency procedure etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

we get lots of whinging from subbies, as they turn up to check a plug, and do half an hours worth of paperwork before they can start.

[Hodge]

If it's his, so long as you've taken every effort to ensure he's using safe, inspected gear, that would be a situation for his own personal accident insurers and/or equipment manufacturers to decide.

 

Thanks

[Hodge]

LOLER requires you to ensure anything used on your job is pukka so you should ask for a copy of the current LOLER inspection for any kit in use.

 

That doesn't mean he wont have a broken leg if it goes wrong but you will have fulfilled your legal obligations

 

Thanks

[arbmark]

LOLER requires you to ensure anything used on your job is pukka so you should ask for a copy of the current LOLER inspection for any kit in use.

 

That doesn't mean he wont have a broken leg if it goes wrong but you will have fulfilled your legal obligations

 

correct, and if they fail to loler their gear and you still let them work with it, then you are liable as designated person in charge of h&S for failing to enforce H&S - well that's what a certain respected Arb H&S consultant told me. And i have to go with it since i dont know otherwise!

Edited January 31, 2014 by arbmark
grammar

[Gnarlyoak]

Sorry Adrian Cook, but I believe you are incorrect in your supposition of how the system currently works.

 

If you price a job, and then employ a sub-contractor outfit to do that job on your behalf independently of any further input from yourself, then they should have the appropriate insurances in place to carry out the works as & when they see fit. And all liabilities for executing the works is theirs. Unless of course you provided a work order which might of said that the tree was safe to climb, yet when it subsequently collapsed under the weight of the climber as a result of an obvious fault in the structure of the tree that you missed. Then there might be some comeback on yourself and your company.

 

If you price a job, and then do the work yourself and employ (lets say) a freelance (labour only subbie) climber for the day, then you are responsible for their welfare and their actions on site for the duration of the job. You can either let them use their own equipment or supply them your company's equipment to use, either way it is upto you to decide if the chosen equipment and PPE is fit for purpose and safe to use.

 

If the freelance climbers provides his own equipment, he can show his climbing equipment is fit for purpose by showing you an upto date LOLER testing/check sheets. You should be able to tell if his saws (if using) and PPE is upto scratch just by quickly giving it the once over.

 

However, IF for whatever reason, it all goes pearshaped and property becomes damaged or god forbid the climber has an accident where they end up in a wheelchair (as you put it), even if this was result of an accident caused by the failure of his own equipment. Then your company would be liable and it would be your insurance company that ends up paying out.

 

That is the way it has been set up in LAW to prevent dodgy company's (and I'm not suggesting that you) from setting up, using casual labour and then disappearing into the night when it all goes PeteTong!

[norfolk_tom]

 

If the freelance climbers provides his own equipment, he can show his climbing equipment is fit for purpose by showing you an upto date LOLER testing/check sheets. You should be able to tell if his saws (if using) and PPE is upto scratch just by quickly giving it the once over.

 

However, IF for whatever reason, it all goes pearshaped and property becomes damaged or god forbid the climber has an accident where they end up in a wheelchair (as you put it), even if this was result of an accident caused by the failure of his own equipment. Then your company would be liable and it would be your insurance company that ends up paying out.

 

That is the way it has been set up in LAW to prevent dodgy company's (and I'm not suggesting that you) from setting up, using casual labour and then disappearing into the night when it all goes PeteTong!

 

I see your point, it must be compulsary in law for a reason, presumably to cover these freak accidents where no one is at "fault", despite all the required checks and regulations it just happened. Obviously if the kit wasn't LOLER'd then noones insurance would be valid? (similar to if you crash a car that isn't MOT'd then your car insurance wouldn't pay out)

 

Thats my understanding but it's only a presumption, can anyone clarify further?

[treequip]

As a regular employer or sub contractors I always ensure that they hold their own insurance. Including Public liability. Whilst I am employing their services, they are in turn supplying a service to me for which they require to be insured. As an AA aproved company it is a requirement to ensure all sub contractors have proof of insurance.

 

Yes, all my sub contract employees are covered under my employees liability, but if their equipment fails such as a rope or karabiner. And they end up in a wheel chair for the rest of their life I can assure you that i will not cover that! If the subie, or freelance person uses my equipment and I supply all ppe efectively the only diference being that they pay their own tax then thats a different matter.

 

Trust me, you are in a dodgy situation if you think you are right. I hope you never have to find out the hard way

 

You (or your insurer) will cover whatever the law holds you responsible for and you don't get to decide that.

[Steve Bullman]

Thanks for posting this. The first person I ever worked for as a subbie was Lee Winger, and I remember him pointing out to me that I should always make sure I am covered. In 8 years as a subby, I have only ever had 1 company offer to show me their cover without being asked....that being said though I have never asked either.

[felixthelogchopper]

Seeing as this debate comes up frequently, can this thread be 'stickied' please? Dan's description is clear and accurate and the points about LOLER are valuable from an employer's position as well.