Introduction agency between clients and cleaners

coysters

4 weeks ago I hired a cleaner via homeclean “London’s largest domestic cleaning company”. The deal is that you pay homeclean £189 a year and then direct to the cleaner £7 per hour.

The staff were very friendly and provided a cleaner the same week I contacted them. I was asked if I wanted to interview the cleaners but was told “they all speak excellent English and X (the particular cleaner they had in mind) has excellent feedback” so I decided not to bother – I trusted homeclean. Unfortunately, the service was really poor, I met the cleaner and the first thing she said was “I don’t speak English” so we communicated with pointing etc. Not a problem in itself, I was not after a linguist, but it did mean we could not communicate so when I asked something to be done, it was left.

Another cleaner started last week, I met her briefly and she seemed nice also, with better English. I left a note for her to say “do not bother with downstairs loo”. When I got home it was obvious she had locked herself in the downstairs loo and broken out. I felt awful for her, as it must not have been nice to be trapped in the loo. The door has been hacked away at from the inside and will need repairing, probably replacing.

I contacted homeclean who said that they are only an introductory service so assume no responsibility for accidents, the quality of cleaners provided and, therefore, no insurance for damages. The cleaners are considered self employed so once homeclean have completed the introduction they have no obligations on the client.

Clearly I would not pursue the cleaner for this damage, nor should my home insurance be expected to cover the loss.

Homecleans terms and conditions (below) support this zero responsibility approach but surely there is some implied responsibility? I was promised cleaners with excellent English and let down. Now, an individual sent to my home by homeclean has damaged my property – surely they should have insurance for losses?

Please help??

Thanks

Coysters

introduction agency between clients and cleaners
Terms and Conditions of Business

Homeclean acts as an introduction agency between clients and cleaners. On payment of an annual fee of £189 + VAT the agency will contract to introduce domestic cleaners to the client to clean one property only.
At all times the cleaners are under the clients supervision, control and responsibility. They are not employed by the agency, either directly or indirectly, but are self-employed.
The company does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for any loss, expense, damage arising from any act or omission by the introduced cleaner.
The company will make every effort to obtain suitable references and ensure that the cleaners so provided under the terms of this contract are competent work people but no responsibility is to be attached to the company as a result of a failure of the selection procedure for any reason.
Should the introduced cleaner refuse without cause to comply with the reasonable terms of the client, fall ill, go on holiday or leave for any reason whatsoever, then the company will undertake to supply free of charge a replacement cleaner at the earliest opportunity and in any event within 10 days of notification of the departure of the original introduced cleaner.
The client will be responsible at all times for payment of the cleaner, the supply of cleaning materials and equipment and arrangements for access to the clients home.
This contract shall last for one year from the date of the engagement of the cleaner but should the introduced cleaner or replacement, introduced either by the original cleaner or the agency remain providing services to the client for any length of time whatsoever over one year then the client agrees to pay a further fee to the agency of £95 + VAT for each year or part of the year so covered.
Should the client wish to terminate this yearly contract then they should give the company one months notice in writing of termination.
The agency will offer no refunds once a cleaner has been taken on.

coysters

Homeclean acts as an introduction agency between clients and cleaners. On payment of an annual fee of £189 + VAT the agency will contract to introduce domestic cleaners to the client to clean one property only.
At all times the cleaners are under the clients supervision, control and responsibility. They are not employed by the agency, either directly or indirectly, but are self-employed.
The company does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for any loss, expense, damage arising from any act or omission by the introduced cleaner.
The company will make every effort to obtain suitable references and ensure that the cleaners so provided under the terms of this contract are competent work people but no responsibility is to be attached to the company as a result of a failure of the selection procedure for any reason.
Should the introduced cleaner refuse without cause to comply with the reasonable terms of the client, fall ill, go on holiday or leave for any reason whatsoever, then the company will undertake to supply free of charge a replacement cleaner at the earliest opportunity and in any event within 10 days of notification of the departure of the original introduced cleaner.
The client will be responsible at all times for payment of the cleaner, the supply of cleaning materials and equipment and arrangements for access to the clients home.
This contract shall last for one year from the date of the engagement of the cleaner but should the introduced cleaner or replacement, introduced either by the original cleaner or the agency remain providing services to the client for any length of time whatsoever over one year then the client agrees to pay a further fee to the agency of £95 + VAT for each year or part of the year so covered.
Should the client wish to terminate this yearly contract then they should give the company one months notice in writing of termination.
The agency will offer no refunds once a cleaner has been taken on.

bosseyed

Say what? The cleaner locked herself in the downstairs toilet, was for some curious reason then unable to figure out how to get out so 'hacked' at the door (using her nails? A knife? A can of lemon pledge?), and then finding that of little use, I presume smashed the door from its hinges in a last manic bid for freedom before scurrying off into the night to live a feral existence among the pigeons.

I think a stern letter in the first instance complete with photos to Homeclean. I would also point out you expected not only an english speaker, but also someone clever enough to navigate the typical residential property without being stumped by the concept of a door with a lock on it.

pendulum

You lost me at the point where she locked herself in the downstairs toilet.
How?

Either the lock is a ridiculously bad design or faulty, allowing an ordinary reasonable person to become trapped, in which case you only have yourself to blame for the damage.
OR
The cleaner did something plain stupid, in which case you should forget about "Clearly I would not persue the cleaner for this damage" and persue her, because it was her fault.

I guess Homeclean is a bit like a dating agency. You wouldn't sue the dating agency if they introduced you to someone crazy that ended up wrecking your house, would you?

k3lvc

It could have been worse - you could have come home accompanied by some friends who subsequently found that you'd locked the cleaner in the toilet.

On a slightly more serious note you're suggesting you let an unknown/un-referenced cleaner into your property - you're probably lucky a damaged door is the least of your issues

coysters

Thanks for your responses

What I am interrested in here really is;

1. Are the terms and conditions that homeclean post on their website leagaly binding, or is there an implied duty of care.

2. I am also concerned for the rights of the cleaner here. Someone suggested taking action against the cleaner, which is very unfair. Although the terms a and conditions state that the cleaners are not employees, we are talking about low paid individuals, acting on behalf of homeclean. It is not just their exposure to potential claims that concerns me but their employment rights and social tax obligations. These cleaners are clearly not acting as self employed individuals, I would suggest that they are bound to accept cleaning contracts from homeclean and could not substitute others to provide staff – to key hallmark indictors of an employee, control and substitution. If I caused damage, whilst completing my employment duties, I would not be held personally liable (it might impact promotion etc), the liability would lie with the employer who would be properly insured.

My personal view is that homeclean is avoiding responsibilities to its clients and it “employee” – does anyone have an opinion on that?

maninthestreet

As you are actually paying the cleaner directly for performing the required cleaning services, then this does seem to be a matter that is between you and the said cleaner. I presume you haven't paid the cleaner yet - or maybe you paid in advance?

pendulum

You didn't answer the questions about how she managed to lock herself in the downstairs toilet, so it's still possible you do not have a case against anyone at all.

If she was a reputable self-employed cleaner she would have insurance to cover the damage, if it was down to her negligence. If she was honest, she'd have left you a note or contacted you to let you know exactly how the damage occurred and gone from there. Instead it appears she has simply done a runner, and yet somehow you feel sorry for her!

If you don't wish to persue the cleaner for moral reasons (If you feel that the cleaner was being exploited, I do wonder why you employed her in the first place?), I feel you are either going to have to write the damage off, or incur big expenses getting proper legal advice to take risky action against Homeclean.

paddyrg

Interesting - it sounds like the agency are trying to have it both ways, being an agency, and not being an agency, picking and choosing the law as they please. Try this one on the Employment board, maybe there's someone who can clear up what the legal position of the employee would be.

coysters

pendulum

I didn't answer the door question, beacuse I wanted the focus of this debate to be on the legality, even morality, of homeclean's "service". The door is not a big problem, I have a new one now and I don't see how a blame arguement would be productive, it was an accident after all.

I am genuinely concerned for the cleaners, who I think deserve to be treated as employees with the corresponding protection and benefits offered - equally customers who pay homeclean deserve better.

As self employed individuals they can be paid below the minimum wage, have no holiday pay, no maternity pay, no sick pay, no pension, no national insurance contribution history. When low paid, not being an employee has few, if any benefits that I can see.

Hopefully you see where and why I am trying to steer this debate.

maninthestreet

If using Homeclean you pay them an annual charge and the cleaner, in cash, an hourly rate. I do take your point but surely there are most important indicators of employment than payroll, or the lack of a payroll?

I have done a bit more research and it seems that the below are key;

Control - can they choose when and where to work?
Substitution - can they send someone else?
Materials - do they use their own tools?

Crucially, are they in business on their own account.

Are you an employee? Do you think it would be fair to work under the same conditions as these cleaners? My thouhgts on the tests are

Control - not really - if they don't accept jobs and make themselves available then they will not "win" any new work and the work they have will probably be taken off them.

Substitution - No, I was told who was coming in advance who was coming.

Materials - They use the clients.


Crucially, are they in business on their own account? Yes but only because they are not employees!!!!!

All

Can a company really just list on their terms and conditions that they are not an employer and take no further responsibility for the end product of their service? Surely there is an implied, and enforceable relationship here?

I'll try to get this on the employment board also, thanks paddyrg.