Son worried

biscuit1_2

Can anyone help with any advice (apart from tell em to shove it) My son is a plasterer has worked for a company for 3.5 years is now 20 works his socks of 5 days a week 7 till 5 everyday is supposed to be self employed but isnt really they pay him the same every week 200 which isnt to bad his tax is paid through the books and he is able to claim it back ok..today he was working as a plumber (not qualified to do ) and burst a pipe and they want to charge him for the pipe at a cost of £75 ...i fully realise they are bang out of order and are probably winding him up but they took the huff last week as he booked a weeks holiday to go away with his girlfriend ..i am after any legal jargon or any paperwork they would have to provide in order to do this ie ..to call their bluff
cheers

Dizzy_Ditzy

you said yourself, he was working as a plumber which he is not qualified to do, and caused damage.

I would be holding him liable as he was not qualified to do the job he was doing.

That doesnt make then out of order

Sconter

If he wasnt qualified as a plumber then he should of told them he cant do this job...You prob wont wanna hear it but he is as much to blame as they are if not a little more...you should be able to while working identify when you cant do a job or need help to do it and he didnt...thats the argument you will get back and it will be very hard to dispute that claim unfortunately.

Sorry if its not what you wanna hear but its the truth...just get him to make sure every job he does in future he is qualified to do...if they ask him to do a job he isnt qualified to do then get him to tell them he cant...they cant make him do something they havent taught him to do.

Scott.

leedsfan_3

I think you should be thankful they only want 75.00.

Di he tell them he was not qualified?

biscuit1_2

oops wrong end of the stick ..he apparently drilled through a pipe while fitting some boarding ready for plastering

ghost_rider

leedsfan wrote: »

I think you should be thankful they only want 75.00.

Di he tell them he was not qualified?

Do people here actually read posts, it has been stated that he is 20yrs old he has worked for the company for 3.5 yrs. I would think this would indicate that they knew he wasn't a qualified Plumber.

Anyway OP is there any contract between him and employer? If so does it state that any damage that is caused by him is to be compensated by him? If not has it been implied/said verbally that this would be the case?

HO87

ghost_rider wrote: »

Anyway OP is there any contract between him and employer? If so does it state that any damage that is caused by him is to be compensated by him? If not has it been implied/said verbally that this would be the case?

It would matter not whether such a condition was included in any contract or not as in law the OP's son is responsible for his actions and having caused damage, albeit unintentionally, would be liable for the situation to be made good.

Boozer

biscuit1 wrote: »

oops wrong end of the stick ..he apparently drilled through a pipe while fitting some boarding ready for plastering

OK, now armed with this new information i think he should pay the small bill, after 3.5 years i am sure he should know that drilling through something there may be something else on the other side, i am sure they have tools to check for pipes and electric cables.

ghost_rider

HO87 wrote: »

It would matter not whether such a condition was included in any contract or not as in law the OP's son is responsible for his actions and having caused damage, albeit unintentionally, would be liable for the situation to be made good.

Not true it would be down to the particulars of the contract between the 2 parties, and more to the point where does it state this in law?

orangeslimes

If they are his employer they should really have insurance

and it sounds like they are his employer. I don't understand what you are saying about tax and him being self employed.

HO87

ghost_rider wrote: »

Not true it would be down to the particulars of the contract between the 2 parties, and more to the point where does it state this in law?

A duty of care in tort is an inherent part of any contractual relationship of the type that would seem to exist between the OP's son and his employers - and can outlast any terms of it.

In the circumstances outlined the OP's son was employed in his professional capacity as a plasterer fitting boards ready for plastering and as part of this he would be expected to exercise a level of care that a "reasonable plasterer" would to ensure that, for example, the boards were of the correct type for the job, he used the appropriate fittings and that whilst doing so he did not damage anything lying under the boards etc.

The damage was caused directly by his actions (cutting through cables or puncturing pipework are foreseeable consequences of fitting plasterboards) and but for them his employers would not have to make repairs.

Tortious liability is an established part of the Common Law and its application and interpretation has been developed through case law. The case held up as the best establishing the modern concept of a duty of care is the well known Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].