Employers liability for building contractors

[jackswift]

I am looking for a carpenter for sofit and facia replacement, do I need to pay employers liability while they are there?

 

[peteb]

Not unless you are a main contractor, no.

 

[cremeegg]

If they fall and suffer damage while they are on your property they can sue you. They may not have much chance of success but, if they go to a solicitor it is likely they would issue proceedings.

What can you do about this.

1. Ask to see their insurance. They should have insurance, which would mean that in the event of an accident that would be the first port of call for a claim. While most people probably don't do this I think it is a perfectly reasonable request.

2. You could ask for an indemnity on their insurance. This means that if for any reason a claim is made against you, their insurance will protect you. This is probably overkill, and their insurance company may not allow it, but no harm to ask.

3. Your household insurance probably covers you for public liability. It may be a good idea to check this with your insurance company, and to ensure it covers tradespeople coming on to your property.

 

[peteb]

To develop creme eggs pint a little further. You only ask about EL i only answer about EL.

Your household policy will cover your personal public liability relating to your ownership of the property. So if a tradesman injures themselves as a result of your negligence your household policy will cover the matter.

If you get a carpenter directly, the likelihood is that unless he has a few guys working for him he won't have employers liability cover. He will probably just have public liability. This only covers him damaging your property or injuring members of the public. Him falling off a ladder that he provides is his own issue.

 

[DirectDevil]

Just a few observations on the general issues.

Whether a person working on your premises is your employee or not in the legal sense is not always clear. Much turns on the facts. The principal test - amongst others - is that of control. If you retain the right to control the method by which work is done you could find yourself being the employer. The method by which work is done is not the same thing as directing the ultimate objective to be achieved.

What does it matter if the person is an employee or not ? If a tradesman is an employee a master / servant relationship will then exist. A master / servant relationship carries with it certain specific legal duties peculiar to that association and which go beyond a general duty of care. An injured employee has more chance of a successful case against an employer because there are so many more duties owed.

If a tradesman is not an employee there is no master / servant relationship. However, the householder would still owe a duty of care to the tradesman within the general terms of the tort of negligence.

Most household insurance policies should cover the employers' liability risk or the public liability risk if the tradesman is not an employee of the householder.

Many trades vans or note-paper will announce that they are fully insured for public liability and employers' liability. What this does not tell you is that they are fully insured for their liabilities not yours.

If a tradesman is working on your property he is owed a duty of care by the householder and a duty of care by his employer. If there is an accident both parties face legal action and the matter may end up being decided by a judge if the insurers behind the parties cannot resolve the issue as between themselves.

BTW in relation to the rest of the public you are generally not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor (or his servants or agents) but there are exceptions. This premise also rests mainly on the issue of control. If the tradesman is not an independent contractor and is negligent and hurts a member of the public that liability could come back to you vicariously as the principal.

Otherwise, + 1 the observations of peteb and cremeegg.