Having a cleaner in

adam88

Thinking of getting s cleaner in 2 hours a week. How do I stand if something happens her while in the house ?

s7ryf3925pivug

I've started doing this already and have been wondering the same thing.

4ensic15

You should have public liability cover on your house insurance. You should talk to your insurance broker.

Guy:Incognito

Would it not be the same as having anyone else in doing work in the house? Plumber, electrician , deliver person etc?

4ensic15

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would it not be the same as having anyone else in doing work in the house? Plumber, electrician , deliver person etc?

It depends on whether they are a self employed contractor or an employee.

s7ryf3925pivug

4ensic15 wrote: »

It depends on whether they are a self employed contractor or an employee.

How do you make sure they are a self-employed contractor, and not considered an employee?

punisher5112

Musa Dirty Rifle wrote: »

How do you make sure they are a self-employed contractor, and not considered an employee?

They would want to be legit and fully insured themselves oh and tax compliant.

Payton

Either you would be required to have public liability or the person you hire would have to carry their own insurance which you should request to see.

adam88

punisher5112 wrote: »

They would want to be legit and fully insured themselves oh and tax compliant.

Tbf I don’t think Mary from no.27 is fully legit

Guy:Incognito

adam88 wrote: »

Tbf I don’t think Mary from no.27 is fully legit

You never said you were just going to pay some woman off the road to clean the house.

If you just ask about "getting a cleaner in" , I'd assume you meant booking it through a company.

punisher5112

adam88 wrote: »

Tbf I don’t think Mary from no.27 is fully legit

Think about it though, she could make a nice payout for burning herself on the iron or getting bleach in her eye and sue you for it....

Peregrinus

punisher5112 wrote: »

Think about it though, she could make a nice payout for burning herself on the iron or getting bleach in her eye and sue you for it....

Not if you don't have the right insurance cover, she can't.

And she'd have to be pretty desperate for money to pour bleach in her eyes on the off-chance that you're insured.

s7ryf3925pivug

We used an online service. It describes itself as:

“X acts as an agent on behalf of the principal (the cleaning provider) “

Its terms say:

“X has a Public and Employer's liability insurance. The policy will cover any accidental damages caused by an operator working on behalf of X”

Does that mean they have insurance that would cover the cleaner getting hurt?

Peregrinus

Not necessarily. They may have a policy which covers any loss or injury caused to you by the cleaner, but not any loss or injury caused to the cleaner.

And of course there's also the possibility that they don't have such a policy at all - they are lying - or, a bit more plausible, that they have a policy now but by the time an accident occurs they no longer have it.

Of course in those events if you found yourself exposed to liability because they didn't have the insurance cover that they claimed you could sue them for misrepresentation. But they might not be worth suing.

The only way to know for sure that insurance cover is in place is to effect it yourself, and to maintain it yourself. So ask your broker or your insurer if your household policy covers you for liability to a cleaner or similar who is injured on your premises and, if it doesn't, what extra premium you would have to pay to get that cover.

4ensic15

Musa Dirty Rifle wrote: »

How do you make sure they are a self-employed contractor, and not considered an employee?

You have to have a contract for services, not a contract of service.

NUTLEY BOY

Most household insurance contracts would provide cover for the public liability risk or the employers' liability risk.
I say "or" because an accident could fall in to one or other category.
There are qualifications in the wordings so read the insurance contract carefully.

Whether a party is an employee or not turns very much on the facts.
There is no unique legal definition of an employee.
There are a number of tests for the existence of the master/servant relationship the main one being that of control.
In context, control means retention of the legal right to direct how the work is done as distinct from the intended end purpose of the contracted work.

Does it make any difference if there is a master/servant relationship in place ?
Yes.
Why ?
If a master/servant relationship exists a number of additional and specific duties arise within the ambit of that relationship which would not otherwise exist. e.g., a safe place of work, a safe system of work, sufficient and proper plant and appliances and a few more.
This is why employers' liability claims can be harder to contest on the liability issue because the plaintiff has more targets available to plead :rolleyes:.

You need to check the contract with the cleaning company to see what you have agreed to.
Assertions to the effect that contractors are "fully insured" are not always correct and may mean precisely what peregrinus says at post #14 i.e. the contractor's legal interests are protected not yours.

You need to be careful that you have not - in the small print - agreed to provide any form of indemnity to the contractor in respect of injury to the cleaner.
Most liability insurance contracts will exclude liabilities incurred under agreement unless a liability would have existed anyhow in tort.

Generally, if the cleaner is not an employee, OP would still owe a reasonable duty of care to that person.

Eggs For Dinner

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not if you don't have the right insurance cover, she can't.

And she'd have to be pretty desperate for money to pour bleach in her eyes on the off-chance that you're insured.

The existence or absence of insurance does not have a bearing on whether a person can sue you for injury or damage.

Mrs OBumble

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The existence or absence of insurance does not have a bearing on whether a person can sue you for injury or damage.

True.

But the absence of insurance reduces the chance that someone will bother sueing.

Peregrinus

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The existence or absence of insurance does not have a bearing on whether a person can sue you for injury or damage.

I know. But it does have a bearing on their prospects of recovering anything, which is the point I was making.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know. But it does have a bearing on their prospects of recovering anything, which is the point I was making.

If they sue and you are not insured they will get judgement for their damage. If you can afford a cleaner it is most unlikely you have a nil or negative net worth. the judgement creditor can put a judgement mortgage on your house, get an instalment order in the District Court and garnishee monies dueto you. You won'y get credit such as another mortgage, car loan or even a mobile phone account as long as you have an unsatisfied judgement. I wouldn't be blasé about it. People who get in a cleaner would be wise to ensure that there is proper insurance in place.

vargoo

It was around 2005/2006, lots on this site were beyond cleaning their own sh1te and were all getting cleaners in and then boom they were the cleaners.

2 in one thread here.

Wonder will it be deja vu.

This aswell - https://www.npr.org/2019/06/30/737476633/what-just-happened-also-occurred-before-the-last-7-u-s-recessions-reason-to-worr?utm_source=pocket-newtab

s7ryf3925pivug

I pay a cleaner so we have more time for our kid.
Providing paying work so you have more time for other things is a good thing for all involved.

4ensic15

Musa Dirty Rifle wrote: »

I pay a cleaner so we have more time for our kid.
Providing paying work so you have more time for other things is a good thing for all involved.

What happens if the cleaner is injured whilst in your home?

ted1

Musa Dirty Rifle wrote: »

We used an online service. It describes itself as:

“X acts as an agent on behalf of the principal (the cleaning provider) “

Its terms say:

“X has a Public and Employer's liability insurance. The policy will cover any accidental damages caused by an operator working on behalf of X”

Does that mean they have insurance that would cover the cleaner getting hurt?

Irrelevant, if it happens on your property x’s policy may pay out be it could comeback to you looking for the money.

E.g I have car insurance but if you cause a crash mine will pay out but ultimately they’ll chase you to cover the pay out

Dante7

I'd say most domestic cleaning jobs of a couple of hours a week are cash in hand with no official employment contracts. People earning a few quid like this are unlikely to claim as it would draw attention to their unreported income.

I have a cleaner who comes in once a week. €25 for two hours and she is brilliant. I'm a single parent and also a full time carer for my terminally ill parent. I don't have the time or energy to stay on top of my own cleaning, and while money is very tight, €25 for my cleaner is the next most important outlay.

That being said, my cleaner is exceptional and is a family friend who you'd trust 100% in your home and who would never slip and injure herself.

4ensic15

It need not necessarily be a slip and fall. A domestic applicance could malfunction and cause injury. Something could fall. In any case this discussion is about the lagl consequences for the householder if the cleaner is injured. If someone is injured such that they cannot work for a long time or ever again they will certainly claim. That is so, friend or foe. A householder having a cleaner in is exposing themselves to a risk. This is an insurable risk and sensible householders get proper insurance cover.

s7ryf3925pivug

4ensic15 wrote: »

What happens if the cleaner is injured whilst in your home?

Well that's the point of the thread. The consensus is that public liability insurance is required in case this happens.

4ensic15

Musa Dirty Rifle wrote: »

Well that's the point of the thread. The consensus is that public liability insurance is required in case this happens.

You have only said why you have one.

SmartinMartin

adam88 wrote: »

Thinking of getting s cleaner in 2 hours a week. How do I stand if something happens her while in the house ?

Like, if you drop the hand or something?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Has there ever been a case where a cleaner sued a householder?

4ensic15

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Has there ever been a case where a cleaner sued a householder?

It is impossible to know. There are no statistics kept of such incidents. What is well known is that many employess sue their employers.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is impossible to know. There are no statistics kept of such incidents. What is well known is that many employess sue their employers.

Is it really impossible to know? Or is that a cop out. I mean there must be legal cases to search.

I don’t think that somebody paid to clean is an employee of the householder with the exception of live in maids for the very rich. They are sometimes employees of other companies or sole traders.

Can they sue you for damages due to an accident in your house. No doubt, but so could any service service provider like a plumber, electrician or pizza delivery guy who falls on the porch. So could any person who calls over and slips on the rug.

So as to whether you need the public liability house insurance depends not on whether someone comes in to clean but the probability of any or all of these things happening.

4ensic15

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Is it really impossible to know? Or is that a cop out. I mean there must be legal cases to search.

I don’t think that somebody paid to clean is an employee of the householder with the exception of live in maids for the very rich. They are sometimes employees of other companies or sole traders.

Can they sue you for damages due to an accident in your house. No doubt, but so could any service service provider like a plumber, electrician or pizza delivery guy who falls on the porch. So could any person who calls over and slips on the rug.

So as to whether you need the public liability house insurance depends not on whether someone comes in to clean but the probability of any or all of these things happening.

Only 2% of personal injury cases ever get to a hearing. There is no way of searching cases which do not go to hearing. Anybody can sue and it is much more likely that public liability cover will operate in the case of a plumber, electrician or pizza delivery guy or any person who calls over and slips on the rug.
In any event even if no cleaner has ever sued in the past is irrelevant. They could sue and there would be legal consequences. It is not a defence to a suit that no one in similar circumstances ever sued before.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

4ensic15 wrote: »

Only 2% of personal injury cases ever get to a hearing. There is no way of searching cases which do not go to hearing. Anybody can sue and it is much more likely that public liability cover will operate in the case of a plumber, electrician or pizza delivery guy or any person who calls over and slips on the rug.
In any event even if no cleaner has ever sued in the past is irrelevant. They could sue and there would be legal consequences. It is not a defence to a suit that no one in similar circumstances ever sued before.

Actually if that 2% (source?) that go to court is representative of the entirety of of all cases then it would show the odds of a cleaner suing.

The op is wondering whether to get insurance in this case or not. If there’s a negligible risk of being sued he probably shouldn’t bother even if it is true that a case could be taken.

4ensic15

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Actually if that 2% (source?) that go to court is representative of the entirety of of all cases then it would show the odds of a cleaner suing.

The op is wondering whether to get insurance in this case or not. If there’s a negligible risk of being sued he probably shouldn’t bother even if it is true that a case could be taken.

The o/p is asking what the legal implications are, not whther the risk is negligible.
If 2% of cases get to hearing even fewer of those will give rise to any kind of searchable report. You could equally ask ahas any farmhand ever sued their employer. Just because I ccan't find a report of a case doesn't mean it never happened and certainly doesn't mean it could never happen.

Atlantic Dawn

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Has there ever been a case where a cleaner sued a householder?

No but burglars robbing houses have sued the owners as they were injured in the process so I'd say it's certainly an option.

4ensic15

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

No but burglars robbing houses have sued the owners as they were injured in the process so I'd say it's certainly an option.

How do you know ther has been no case of a cleaner suing a householder? Not that it matters as it is a complete red herring in a legal discussion.

Dante7

Most of this kind of nixer work is part of the black economy, and by its nature is exempt from insurance. I'll pre-empt the posts which will say that legally and technically they can sue - cos they won't. You could argue for fully indemnified and taxed regulation of these jobs, but the reality is that my cleaner would not thank you for it. She is happy enough with her cash in hand on the understanding that there is no insurance or sick pay. She knows that if I had to indemnify her, there would be no job.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

4ensic15 wrote: »

How do you know ther has been no case of a cleaner suing a householder? Not that it matters as it is a complete red herring in a legal discussion.

He didn’t say they was no such case. Neither did I. I merely asked was there any case where a cleaner sued a householder.

4ensic15

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

He didn’t say they was no such case. Neither did I. I merely asked was there any case where a cleaner sued a householder.

His first word was "No" which clearly means he says there was no such case. The answer to the question you asked is of no legal significance. Domestic cleaning is not a dangerous activity when it is carried out by fit and healthy adults who are keeping a proper look out. It might well be expected that the number of injurioes are small and resulting claims are fewer. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.

NUTLEY BOY

I don't know either of any specific case where a cleaner sued a householder for personal injuries sustained on the premises.

On first principles, a cleaner would be entitled to succeed in a personal injuries action if there has been a breach of a duty of care by the householder (as well as the other tests to be satisfied relating to proximate cause and losses).

If the cleaner is an employee it is probably an employers' liability case [for the householder].
If the cleaner is not an employee it is probably a public liability case [for the householder].

NUTLEY BOY

SmartinMartin wrote: »

Like, if you drop the hand or something?

In that event you might have to deal with the case without the backing of household insurance.

Insurance underwriters get a bit fussy about being asked to provide indemnity for an act if it is a criminal offence.
They usually argue that contractual legality of objective would be lacking.
They might also argue that such an act would not be "accidental" - a concept and a word that appears regularly in contracts providing liability cover.

Claw Hammer

If the cleaner is employed by a contracting firm, both the householder and the employer could be liable if they are in breach of the duty to provide a safe place of work.