Handyman liability? (long, with boredom potential)

[Witchy]

Hi folks,

To avoid boredom you can jump to the question at the end. It's marked 'question'.

Talking about becoming a handyman type of bloke in another thread reminded me of this scenario from last week:

In the summer we bought another place and I set about bringing it up to standards for letting. A sparky came in and told me what needed to be done to get up to 16th edition regs and fire regs which I did, and that passed the inspection with only a couple of minor points (sockets on skirting boards aren't allowed now etc).

I also moved the kitchen radiator and added 3 more in upstairs bedrooms. No leaks when the system was refilled and still no leaks when the pump was switched on for the first time. To pass the gas safety cert the heating was on long enough for some of the rads to heat up (the one in question is furthest away from the boiler, typically).......but still no leaks....water must've been circulating round the whole system, yes?

However, the NEXT time the heating was put on a few weeks ago one of the SpeedFit joints literally popped, but because it was under a bedroom floor and said floor was over the garage nobody in the house really spotted it, despite the fact it was almost pissing into the garage!

I had to drain the system to replace the elbow in question and it turned out the rubber seal had a manufacturing defect that meant about

10mm of it is missing - there's nice straight edge on one side of the gap in the seal so it's not a case of bad fitting.

37k JPG at

The puzzling thing is, when I found the leak water was pouring out with no help from the pump, so if said seal had been in this state when the system was refilled it would've leaked from the word go, and DEFINITELY would've leaked with the pump on, so what happened to the missing bit?

Question: Now if this had happened over any of the other rooms the potential for damage is huge, so who would ultimately pick up the tab for the damage and repair? Me for not being around when the heating was used in anger for the first time, B&Q for selling dodgy fittings or the manufacturers of SpeedFit?

This is the sort of thing that worries me!

cheers

witchy/binarydinosaurs

[Wanderer]

I'd say B&Q would have to be the first line of attack, they're selling something that is not fit for the purpose. The Sale of Goods Regulations or whatever they're called seems to be quite specific about this, but IANAL!

[David Hearn]

I would expect that B&Q would be liable for a replacement part - but that's all. If you bought a car from a garage, and it broke down and you lost business because you couldn't get to a client, the garage would not be liable.

I suspect this is where Public/Professional Liability Insurance or something kicks in. You'd need some sort of insurance like this to cover these sorts of problems - even when you probably couldn't do much to help it.

D

[stefek.zaba]

IANAL either. From what I think I know, law and practice is heavily on the side of the end consumer. If you do work as a "handyman", it's

*you* who's liable to your customers (assuming they're private householders rather than other businesses), as you are presumed to be doing this stuff day in, day out, have called yourself skilled or knowledgeable enough to do work for others, so it's reasonable to hold you accountable for all but the most unforeseeable cockups. Even if it's a clear fault on the part of the manufacturer of something you've installed, the consumer (roughly speaking) still looks to *you* for redress; you then get to try and stick the costs of making good which you've had to bear back to the immediate-supplier/distributor/manufacturer: and you'd have to demonstrate in any such dispute between you and Speedfit that you were basically competent, had done a string of other installs without problem, that no normal handyman/jobbing-plumber would have spotted the dodginess of the relevant fitting, etc.

Sorry if you don't like the answer, but that's [my possibly totally flawed understanding of] consumer protection for you. The underlying principle is, in my opinion, reasonable - someone who's trading, offering either goods or services, is presumed to know (a lot) more about them than the ordinary private individual buying those goods or services. Business-to-business transactions are treated differently, with both parties being generally expected to be grown-up big boys - in particular when buying for trade use, the buyer is expected to satisfy themselves as to fitness for specific purpose. Of course, if a supplier either wilfully or grossly-negligently misdescribes something they sell, the trade buyer has a reasonable cause of action; even there, though, they'll have to work hard to get consequential losses taken into account. (Meaning, in this case, you might get money back on the little Speedfit elbow from B&Q (cos they do refunds at the drop of a, with (AFAIK) no discrimination between trade & retail customers), but you'd have naff-all chance claiming for costs of repairing the flooded building, or for your own loss of reputation as a handyman, either from B&Q or Speedfit.

Hence, for businesses, the existence of liability insurance: if you claim on that you still have to demonstrate to your own insurance company (or their loss adjustor) that you didn't do anything daft, exercised reasonable care, etc.; but you have a much more specific contractual relationship with them than you do with either B&Q or Speedfit when you've bought material for use in the course of your business. The other insurers who'd come into play in a situation like this are the householder's: the householder might well claim for the accidental damage from the self-destruct plumbing on their home buildings policy [if they have one and it includes accidental damage cover!]; said insurer pays up, and then has the option of coming after *you* to reclaim their payout (plus costs, of course!), at which point you can try to redirect their legal attack dogs at the immediate or ultimate supplier of the dodgy fitting, with or without the help of your own liability insurance providers. Ah, networks of lawyers - you gotta love em!

Stefek

[Tim Mitchell]

In article , David Hearn writes

B&Q will have conditions of sale excluding liability for this sort of thing. Whether those conditions would stand if you took them to court, is another question.

[Owain]

"Witchy" wrote | Question: | Now if this had happened over any of the other rooms the potential for | damage is huge, so who would ultimately pick up the tab for the damage | and repair? Me for not being around when the heating was used in anger | for the first time, B&Q for selling dodgy fittings or the | manufacturers of SpeedFit?

'Ultimately' doesn't really matter. You installed it, so you will be liable, including for any damage to your tenants' posessions. A neighbour had a rotting floor caused by a slow leak; it took out his floor, the joists, the downstairs neighbour's ceiling, and displaced two sets of tenants whilst the repairs were carried out. His insurance covered all the repair and redecoration costs to both flats (the insurers used their own contractors who were in and out job done in about 4 days) and I think covered putting the tenants up in hotels.

You could try to sue B&Q or Speedfit but (a) they can afford big lawyers (b) unless you get expert witness in to examine the component in situ - which will delay repairs and increase your incidental costs - where is your evidence?

Insurance is the moral, and it's because water leaks can do so much damage that plumbing and heating insurance can be comparatively expensive.

Owain

[Witchy]

Eep! Makes me wonder why people go into business at all if there's a possibility of a pack of lawyer attack dogs biting yer arse off when something that isn't your fault happens!

I remember summat on the news a while back that liability insurance had rocketed this year and driven a lot of smaller businesses out of work or risking it without insurance.

What about the electrical work then? That's been passed as safe for occupation by a qualified inspector so if something breaks is liability with him or me?

That hasn't happened of course but the question was the first thing that landed in my head!

Same with the smoke and heat alarms. I had to install mains-fed detectors in approved positions in the kitchen, downstairs hall and upstairs hall and it was recommended I use a spare way on the CU explicitly marked as the smoke detector circuit, which I did. I asked the inspector what happens if the occupants turn the circuit off and the house burns down. He said that was their liability because we had provided the required detection systems and the occupants had disabled them so we were in the clear.

cheers

witchy/binarydinosaurs

[Paul Roman]

SNIP

You would IMHO. Part of the fun of being in business on your own account. Hopefully the greater risks will bring greater rewards (if you set your prices right).

BTW I would never trust a pushfit joint for that sort of role. When I put in the pipework for the 1st floor rads I originally used pushfit but found serious leaks from the un-equal tees when I pressure tested with air. In the end I replaced all the Speedfits with compression joints. If there is any sort of tension/twist on Speedfits the seal is more easily compromised whereas compression joints get a much stronger mechanical grip on the pipe. Just my experience.

Paul (also another out-of-work IT contractor)

[Martin Pentreath]

IAAL sort of. I would say without doubt the liabilty would lie initially with the person doing the work. The houseowner has a contract with you to supply goods and services and is relying on your expertise. You are responsible for the job and must face the music if it goes wrong. If you were held to account, you in turn could look to B&Q (or whoever supplied you with faulty merchandise) to cough up, but that would be your battle, not the houseowner's.

Martin

[BigWallop]

This is correct. The end user has the right to call you on the fact that you had provided the end product, which in the eyes of the consumer protection act, was not up to the job it was intended to do. It is then up to you to call on the equipment manufacturer for selling you a product which did not do the job it was intended to do.

Whether you get back from the fitting maker, what you've had to shell out on putting your part of the job right, is another matter. This is where contracts and terms of sale statements come into play. If you are thinking of carrying out business for others, then you most definitely need to cover yourself with all kinds of insurance's and assurances, just in case the unexpected does happen.

I did learn this the hard way when I first started. I nearly set fire to whole tenement building, don't ask, and from then on I realised that it could have cost me everything if the circumstances had gotten any worse be being dealt with so quickly to limit the outcome. The very next morning I found someone silly enough to give me liability insurance for both personal injury, you can't work when your badly hurt, and for property cover, because you never know when the unexpected might happen.

So covering your own ass, as they say, is the safest way to do things for others.

[Owain]

"Witchy" wrote | What about the electrical work then? That's been passed as safe for | occupation by a qualified inspector so if something breaks is | liability with him or me?

You.

The inspector certified it as safe on the date of inspection. You would have to show that he issued a certificate in error.

But if Something Bad Happens you will have to show that you were not negligent. Did you conduct a visual inspection of the installation before letting to the current tenant? (In case the outgoing tenant altered the installation or bashed a socket with the hoover etc) Did you check the RCD operation at the start of the tenancy? (etc)

| Same with the smoke and heat alarms. ... I asked | the inspector what happens if the occupants turn the circuit off and | the house burns down. He said that was their liability because we had | provided the required detection systems and the occupants had disabled | them so we were in the clear.

Well... I was reading Being A Landlord for Dummies today; they have a sample Smoke Detector Agreement which becomes part of the Tenancy Agreeement. Basically both you and the tenant sign that all the smokes are working when the tenant enters the property, that the tenant will not disable them, the tenant will test them monthly, and the tenant will inform you immediately if one fails the test.

I disagree with the inspector on this point: I say it is also your responsibility to *maintain* and keep operational the fire detection system, so you should not rely on the tenants doing so on their own initiative, but test (and record, and have the tenant's signature that you did so) the detectors on your periodic inspection of the property during the tenancy.

Owain

[PoP]

This is an area where operating as a sole trader can be troublesome, because as a sole trader you are more or less putting everything you own (home, etc) on the line. And sole traders are often not trusted entities because all it takes is for you to say "I'm a sole trader" and you are in business - and you can disappear just as quickly.

A limited company is better, because it limits the liability. If there's 50 quid in the company bank account then that's all a claimant can get at - UNLESS the proprietor/director has acted fraudulently or intentionally to use the limited company in a way which causes hardship to others, in which case the high court judge will move the limited company out of the way to let personal possessions pay the bill. A limited company cannot be set up overnight and various checks and balances are in place - and it can't be closed down without the Inland Revenue agreeing that the company can be struck off.

For anyone who might be interested, there's probably no value considering limited company status unless the numbers add up. It's a bit more expensive running an operational limited company because of the returns that need to be made to companies house and so on.

I am operating as a sole trader presently - but I bought the limited company name a short time ago and made it dormant with companies house, on the basis that that prevents someone else grabbing the name. My general plan is that if business picks up enough then I will transmogrify myself to limited company status.

Holy shit batman, I am managing director of two different companies and a sole trader to boot! Wahey! ;)

PoP

[Witchy]

Right. I'm not sure whether that puts me mind fully at rest or not, but it's helping :) Ta!

-- cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

[Witchy]

Thanks everybody, insurance it is!

Personally I've never had bother with speedfit up until now but like you say, YMMV. Where this leak was I couldn't have used compression anyway, not without being more destructive to the flooring.

It's all experience in the long run.

Heh. "Welcome to uk.d-i-y, the source for all your out-of-work IT contractor needs :)"

-- cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

[Jonathan Curtis]

In that situation how could they prove it WAS you that fitted it?

Jon

[BigWallop]

Eggs are not all in one basket. Clever man !!! After a year of trading I also went limited and VAT registered, mainly to get myself in with the big boys. I noticed that I was not getting anywhere with tenders for larger companies because they didn't trust a one man bands, as you said earlier, so I thought I'd go the whole hog and get in there to step on some toes. Now there are days when I wish I'd just continued blowing my own trumpet. :-)) Ah Well. (sigh)

[BigWallop]

It's only meant as pointer Witchy, and not as rule, but when it comes up and bites you in the botty, you get a fright and then begin to think a bit more seriously about getting proper coverage. As you said at the start, your own incident could have been much worse, and as PoP points out, you face losing even more than your shirt.

[BigWallop]

ROFL !!!

[PoP]

Now you've got me thinking.....

I've done some local marketing with letting agents and in the local newspaper, cards in shop windows, joined a business referrals group, and even gone so far as to put a new wheelcover with advertising on the back of the car.

I'm finding I still have a lot of spare time and wondering if the effort and expense was really worthwhile.

When I set up my first Ltd company 8 years ago I attended a local business centre for a free setting-up workshop. The chap who was running the workshop stated that getting VAT registered was a jolly good thing, because it gave corporate buyers a warm and fuzzy feeling that you weren't going to disappear overnight (customs and excise have very long sticky tentacles and you ain't gonna get away from then very easily).

By the sounds of it I should be considering moving up a gear in the near future rather than putting it off. One of the advantages is that I could reclaim all the VAT I have spent recently. Downside is that my domestic customers get stung for VAT.

Thinking cap on.....

PoP

[PoP]

Three methods come to mind:

1) You left a paper trail behind, as in receipt or payment by cheque. 2) Unlike that car accident you had, witnesses will be queued up to give statements. 3) If life or limb was lost then scientific evidence (e.g. DNA and fingerprints) might be used.

Overall my belief is that the best defence of something like this is not to go there in the first place. If the job is worth doing then it is worth doing well.

PoP