[dai]

I lost a client yesterday. He wasn't happy about water running down the wall.
He had no complaints about the job, just said that the water was messy.
I tried to explain, pure water,same as rain etc, but he wasn't having any.
He said he could understand using WFP for second floor windows, he thought that using WFP on the first floor unnecessary. He said that he would be happy for me to continue cleaning if I did the first floor windows with the ladder.
NOW HERE'S THE QUESTION. If I was to use the ladder when I had WFP, I would be breaking the law. Is the client then guilty of complicity? And to take it further, isn't every customer guilty of complicity, that knowingly allows his windows to be cleaned in any way that would contravene the WAHL? It's an interesting point.
I AM NOT STARTING ANOTHER BORING WFP against TRAD post here.
I'd Just like to clarify the legal position. Dai

[windows_chepstow]

I lost a client yesterday. He wasn't happy about water running down the wall.
He had no complaints about the job, just said that the water was messy.
I tried to explain, pure water,same as rain etc, but he wasn't having any.

This sounds like he didn't want to pay for a window cleaner and just came up with a naff excuse.

He said he could understand using WFP for second floor windows, he thought that using WFP on the first floor unnecessary.

Does he think that falling from a first floor window won't hurt?  He's obviously stupid.

 

NOW HERE'S THE QUESTION. If I was to use the ladder when I had WFP, I would be breaking the law. Is the client then guilty of complicity? And to take it further, isn't every customer guilty of complicity, that knowingly allows his windows to be cleaned in any way that would contravene the WAHL?

Dai,

I've read a post here from a window cleaner who fell from a ladder on a residential property, then tried to sue the home-owners.  He tried a few 'No Win, No Fee' lawyers but didn't get anywhere.

But that was before the new Working at Height Directive; so circumstances maybe different now.

However, I THINK there is a difference between Commercial and Residential work.  With commercial I know the contractor shares some responsibility for the manner in which you work, but with Residential, I believe you are 'invited' to do the work, which absolves the house-holder (quite correctly in my opinion) of any responsibility.

Can anyone else give a better clarification?

[steve k]

Dai, it`s 1 customer...tell him how you do it...if he doesn`t want it done like that then walk away...you are YOUR boss.

[Moderator David@stives]

The home owner technicaly could be sued if you fall due to there neglect .i.e  dodgypaving etc

[dai]

The guy is already history as far as being a customeris concerned. Nobody tells me how I do the job.
The complicity laws are sometimes a bit of a grey area. COMPLICITY= One assisting in the wrong doing of another. I once worked as a superviser on a job creation project. I was advised that although I was just supervising and doing the paperwork I had to wear safety boots at all times. If I did not wear them myself, and  one of the lads was working without them. I would be guilty of complicity if he were injured.
If a tradesman breaks the law with regards to the WAHL. And the person he's working for knows he is then that person becomes an accomplice.
Say for example, a client goes for a cheaper quote from a guy that will render his gable end off a ladder, instead of a higher quote from a guy that wants to use scaffolding. The client would be complicit in any offence commited.
he same thing could be said for allowing a window cleaner to work in a manner that would breach the WAHL.
I'm not a lawyer, but in would be interesting to know how one would view it. Dai

[rosskesava]

And to take it further, isn't every customer guilty of complicity, that knowingly allows his windows to be cleaned in any way that would contravene the WAHL?

Hi Dai

The answer is just a phone call away and involves tons of waiting. Phone up the H & S and ask them (for verification) rather than go by what's written here. But ..... you would not be breaking any law unless you were not taking reasonable precaution for the job being undertaken.

If you had looked at the alternatives and decided, taking into account all factors, that the best way to do the job was with a ladder plus a stabilisation device, then that is 100% legal in terms of the WAHL's if under 9m.

That will probably change at some point soon but for now, that is the law.

Also, complicity does not apply to a simple 'yes or no' answer.

In general, health and safety is the responsibility of the person doing the job provided he has been made aware of H & S for the job being undertaken. If a manager knows a person is in breach of those laws, then he is liable. If the employee has been trained in H & S, then he is liable also.

They are complex laws and there is no easy answer as each situation depends on numerous factors that only apply to each workplace requirment. Some employers goes for the safest options and they tend to be the bigger companies. Some employers state the extremes of WAHL's as the only option and fact. Especially those that have a vested interest in WFP.

Hi Tosh

Does he think that falling from a first floor window won't hurt?  He's obviously stupid.

I don't think that makes him stupid at all. He's expressing a preferance. People speak according to their frame of referance and sets of values and beliefs.

Going up a ladder does not neccesarily mean a fall will occur. It's rather like saying do not drive a car because accidents including fatalities will happen.

I've had a few of these situations and each time we've ended up loosing, or rather declining, the job. I've always explained it though and most times the person(s), who are usually elderly or have had bad previous wfp experiences, just don't get it.

Hi Dave

The home owner technicaly could be sued if you fall due to there neglect .i.e  dodgypaving etc

Only if they knew, and it could be proved, that dodgey paving would come to be a factor in the fall. Then there is the question of why didn't the w/c realise that the paving was loose? If the w/c thought it was safe i.e. it didn't move untill up a the ladder and the force of weight on it, etc, then why would the owner not similarly think it was safe? Negligence is a legal mine field.

Cheers

[gaza]

DAI:GET RID OF CUSTOMERS LIKE THAT CUS ON A SMALL ESTATE THEY CAN CAUSE A LOT OF STREET CRED LOSS..do it nicely like " do you want to see your Grand kids grow up?" yeah!  so do I, ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY PAL.


 GAZA

[rosskesava]

Hi Gaza

Mate, you do have that certain style that is definately 100% you.

If you posted under another name I'd know it was you.

Really good point though.

One of the other's I work with was recently really sarcastic to a customer who didn't think much of wfp and a few days later we lost 2 other jobs who the customer had refered us to.

I went nuts about it. If it kills me, I will always be polite and diplomatic.

Cheers

[dai]

Thanks Ross, It's what I've being saying from the start. The WAHL is a legal minefield. I really cannot see the day when a sole trading window cleaner will be successfully prosecuted. Unless of course  they do something really stupid.
A good defence lawyer would drive coach and horses through it.
I Have changed my mind about working off ladders since I've gone onto WFP.
When I started I thought that if a client wanted the job doing traditional, I would do it. I have realised though, that if I did this for one on an estate others may follow suit. I will only use ladders now if I consider it the best option for me, not the client.
The new work continues to expand without canvassing. Too much to do in a month really. But, I am now in a position that I can afford to lose 20% of my clients without it having any affect on my income. DAI

[Ian_Giles]

I'd kind of like to see Philip Hanson's take on this one, both Philip and Ross are very well versed in WAHD, but both have a different take on many of the issues, I'd be very interested to see how they differ.
I know that Philip's view is usually that if there is a safe, practical and economical way of doing the job rather than having to climb and work off a ladder, then that is the way it should be done.
Should that viewpoint be the more accurate one, then it will become very easy to prosecute sole traders, window cleaners or any other trade that use ladders, no matter where they work, domestic or commercial.

I would agree with Tosh's rather blunt way of putting it though, the guy is a muppet if he thinks it is any less dangerous to clean a 1st floor window than a 2nd floor window.

Like you Ross I am unerringly polite to customers, they never get an arguement out of me, at worst I just smile, thank them for their custom and wish them luck in finding another window cleaner.
And that is something that has only happened on a handful of occasions over the last 22 years too.

As I understand it, just because you don't know your flagstone is loose, or your patio is slippery when wet, or the flat roof is rotten etc, is no real excuse when it comes to blame and litigation.
Bad enough to apportion blame on a foot through a flat roof as regards to repairs, but if you are the window cleaner and end out hurting yourself badly as a result of your foot going through the roof, you'll be sueing the householder, they'll be suing (or is that sueing ) you, your public liability will say it's the householder who should be claiming of their household insurance, odds are they'll be saying it should be the public liability and the lawyers will have their noses in the trough of plenty


Ian

[Moderator David@stives]

Ross

I know of a neighbor who sued another neighbor for tripping in their garden and breaking his leg.

No ladders in sight whatsoever