CPA Bulletin

56 CPA Bulletin > February 2025 www.cpa.uk.net Q&As: 1 q&a s I am sorry to hear that your customer failed to use the MEWP correctly; but it shows that they are not complying with the Model Conditions - particularly clause 32(a). Within that clause, the customer has to comply with all government regulations which includes the Health & Safety at Work Act, as well as all associated legislation, regulations, etc. As it is their site, they are required to have a safe system of work. From your email, it shows that the customer had failed to comply with legislation. Consequently, clause 32(b) states that the customer will indemnify (cover) all losses - which would include loss of hire - as a result of customer attempting to misuse the plant during the hire period. If the customer tries to attribute blame onto your operator, then clause 8 states that the operator is deemed the customer’s servant or agent, and under the customer’s direction and control; but the over-arching duty of the customer is to comply with clause 32(a). On a separate point, as the hire agreement – which falls under contract law - was for a fixed period - two days - so if the customer told the operator to leave on the first day, they are still liable for the two-day charge. We are looking for some advice. A customer hired a truck mounted MEWP from us, which was for a weekend (2 day) hire. We had to cross-hire in a machine from another plant company, where the machine and an operator arrived on site. The customer wanted to use the MEWP’s basket for lifting a large/heavy item. The operator deemed that activity as unsafe and refused to complete the task. The customer then told the operator to leave site on the first day and told them not to come back. The company we cross-hired the machine fromwants to be paid for both days; however, the customer states he will pay for the first day, not the second. Which clause covers this CPA hire contract the best? We hired in a machine from another plant company under the Model Conditions, but after a few days on site, it broke down. The other plant company is continuing to charge us the full hire rate for the machine while it is ‘out-of-action’. Is this correct? If a machine had been hired in, but unfortunately had broken down – through no fault of your own - then the matter of hire charges is covered within clause 9(b). To summarise the clause - it says that the Hirer (customer) would not be charged if the cause of the breakdown was the result of an inherent fault or a fault not ascertainable by reasonable examination, or fair wear and tear, or for all running repairs. If those criteria apply, then you should not be charged. I hope this answers your question, but if you need any further clarification, then please get in touch. Whilst every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the answers given within this section of the CPA Bulletin, no liability for any damage, liability, cost, loss and/or expense which the reader has incurred can be accepted by the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA). The reader should obtain independent legal advice on any issue reported within the CPA Bulletin, before proceeding with a course of action. The CPA’s Model Conditions are under copyright, and so cannot be amended or changed in any way. The second point to note is that it is at the discretion of the owner whether they wish to enforce any of the clauses. So, the suggested amendment to clause 6 does not need to occur, if the owner does not wish to charge their customer for any visits covering inspections or for maintenance. Therefore, there is no need to apply a caveat whereby any charges would only apply due to the customer’s negligence. If the customer had damaged the machine, then charges could apply under clause 13 - Hirer’s Responsibility for Loss and Damage; as well as clause 6. Lastly, the issue of jurisdiction should a dispute arise, does state that if the site is outside of the UK, then jurisdiction would rest where the [Plant] Owner’s Head Office is located - if that is in England and Wales then there is no need for the change. If the site is elsewhere in the UK, e.g. Scotland, then if there is written confirmation between the parties that English/Welsh law/jurisdiction will apply, again, there is no need to amend clause 36(a). We have had one of our customer’s review the conditions and would like to make a couple of amendments. As the supplier, we are happy with those changes, but thought I should inform you, and take your views into consideration. The CPA has a generic ‘Modern Slavery’ document on our website which you could use, and it can be found at www.cpa.uk.net/legal-insurance-plant-theft/legal/ employment . If this is not sufficient to your needs, then please let me know, and we can discuss this further. We have been asked by a customer to provide a ‘Modern Slavery’ form. We do not have one, and wondered if you have one or know where we could obtain one?