Insurance and non compliance with Best practice Guidelines

[Dean Lofthouse]

A tenant does not insure the building, the landlord does.

 

Tenants normally only have contents insurance.

 

 

The question then is will they pay out on his insurance when they find out the cause

[skyhuck]

The question then is will they pay out on his insurance when they find out the cause

 

Yes, not his fault the tenant has cocked up.

 

Of cause your mate WILL have told them he has rented out the building, as he needs landlords insurance NOT occupiers insurance, if he hasn't he is screwed

[Buzz]

NFU Mutual used to state on the biz insurance in the products liability section that you had to comply with all statutory legislation. If you did consultancy work they would't insure you unless you could prove competence with relevant certification etc.

 

The local NFU offices however are genrally alot more lax !

[Quickthorn]

 

If an accident happens, and you were found to be non compliant (i.e. No Rescue Climber, or no ticket for a piece of equipment you were operating)

 

Will this render your insurance void?

 

Depends on what your policy says..mine has a general condition that says "You must take all reasonable steps to prevent [...] accidents [...] and comply with all laws and manufacturers' recommendations relating to the [...] the safety of property or the safety of people."

 

As far as I'm aware, and except for pesticide apps, not having a relevant NPTC (or any other) ticket breaks no laws (although goes against guidance and the PUWER ACOP); not having suitable training would break PUWER..so it suggests to me that this insurance should be valid if you don't have tickets, but it might be void if you're not trained for what you're using.

 

If in doubt, perhaps write to them asking for clarification in writing..

[Buzz]

Like you say they can't specify NPT's because there are alternatives, if however there was an accident HSE would anihalate you if you hadn't fulfilled the requirements of PUWER.

[Yorkshireman]

a minefield gents , there are rafts of legislation for work practices

inc Mahsaw 99 being a doosy

 

hse mantra reasonably practicable

 

.training & certification are reasonable Can you the employer demonstrate the competance / awareness of the recommended uses of equipment ?

have they under gone training/familiarisation for the kit if so has this been documented ?

 

other than aerial top handle saw the Law is still vague however when the sum of the parts etc

ie its not just one overall rule its the death of a thousand bites from all angles.

that said in pratical terms due dillegence to demonstrate reasonable behaviour.

 

However that said it is the responsibility of the staff to ensure their own safety too H&S74

[Andy Clark]

I thought this deserved its own thread, as it has come up a few times, and no one seems to have a definative answer. I work 90% on contract work, where having NPTC's are a pre requisite, but what about private work?

 

If an accident happens, and you were found to be non compliant (i.e. No Rescue Climber, or no ticket for a piece of equipment you were operating)

 

Will this render your insurance void? I am not talking about HSE prosecution (that will happen whatever), but your insurance company refusing to pay.

 

 

 

I don't think it's so much about the insurance validity/come-back from YOUR insurers, moreso the liability come-back on those who have employed you in the first place.

 

Yes, in terms of "contract" work, normal duty of care to employ appropriately skilled/qualified/competent persons etc is both required and expected, in order to mitigate against the resultant inherent liability, BUT surely that same principle filters down the ranks into the small jobs too??

 

On a Civil vs Statute basis, is the law really THAT diferent if a business employs the services of a business, to when Joe Public employs the services of a business??

 

In principal no, not really, IMO I don't think it is...... I think it's just more enforceable, and much higher profile when it's business to business contract, thanks to things like HSWA, MHSWA etc...

 

 

But when is a job NOT a contract?? Even a written £50 quote for pruning Mrs Miggins Apple tree, is STILL a contract, and surely Joe Public would still be deemed in Law (in principal) as an employer, therefore charged with duty of care obligations of only employing appropriately skilled/qualified/competent persons?

 

 

And if so, your insurance would only primarily come into play if at any time Mrs Miggins made any direct claim against you, but what about any claim filed against Mrs Miggins by a third party?

 

She COULD still surely be held accountable under "duty of care" principles associated with the long list of "other" relevant statutes.... Occupiers liability Acts etc?

 

 

Therefore, your insurance would again only really come into play, if Mrs Miggins were to ever make a counter-claim against you.

[Buzz]

 

 

 

 

But when is a job NOT a contract?? Even a written £50 quote for pruning Mrs Miggins Apple tree, is STILL a contract, and surely Joe Public would still be deemed in Law (in principal) as an employer, therefore charged with duty of care obligations of only employing appropriately skilled/qualified/competent persons?

 

 

And if so, your insurance would only primarily come into play if at any time Mrs Miggins made any direct claim against you, but what about any claim filed against Mrs Miggins by a third party?

 

She COULD still surely be held accountable under "duty of care" principles associated with the long list of "other" relevant statutes.... Occupiers liability Acts etc?

 

 

Therefore, your insurance would again only really come into play, if Mrs Miggins were to ever make a counter-claim against you.

 

Quite correct and often overlooked by people who employ cowboys. If a householder employees an un-insured and un-qualified tree surgeon to carry out a task and it goes badly wrong they are liable.

 

They will however claim against you in the event of an accident / incompetance.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Buzz

[Andy Clark]

Quite correct and often overlooked by people who employ cowboys. If a householder employees an un-insured and un-qualified tree surgeon to carry out a task and it goes badly wrong they are liable.

 

They will however claim against you in the event of an accident / incompetance.

 

 

 

Give it time..... public awareness IS growing.

 

Cases such as Poll vs Bartholomew etc, set the precedence in terms of the academic aspects such as surveying/consultancy/contractors making work recommendations etc, but there's still little out there to promote and carry that same ethos in relation to the practical aspects of Arb.

 

 

Until that time comes, we'll have to rely on Joe Publics sense of "doing the right thing".

[Buzz]

I used to actively push this point of view at quotation point and had a folder with me with copies of certification and insurance. Some say overkill - maybe - but occasionally and especially on the bigger trickier dismantles i'd like to thing it made the difference.