CPA Bulletin

36 CPA Bulletin > February/March 2021 www.cpa.uk.net Q&As: 1 q&a s We are new into the crane business and would like to knowwhich contract conditions are appropriate to use. I would be grateful if you can clarify the position. There are two sets of contract conditions available to you as a Member. One is the CPA Model Conditions, supported by the Supplementary Conditions for crane hire. The second is the standard conditions for Contract Lifting Services. The Model Conditions should be used when you are hiring a crane and operator to your customer, but they are planning and controlling the lift and all related operations, as required by LOLER. Any individual(s) supplied by the Plant Owner will be deemed the customer’s employee for the duration of the Hire Period. The Contract Lift conditions are for provision of services where you will supply the necessary personnel, the crane, and carry out the necessary planning and control of the lift, so that it is correctly and safely carried out in accordance with LOLER and BS7121. A Contract Lift usually occurs where the customer lacks the necessary expertise to safely plan and control the lifting operation themselves; and therefore contracts with a crane company to do the work. We have guidance on these issues available on the CPA website, under the Crane Interest Group publications section. If the MEWP is being supplied without an operator, then if the customer ‘allows’ people to exit the basket while it is at height, then that is their responsibility. As the customer is hiring in the MEWP, then the customer should complete all the Risk Assessments. So, if there is a serious injury or fatality because of their worker’s actions, it will be the customer who will have to answer to the HSE. To help crystallise the customer’s potential position with the HSE, it would be advisable to provide a highlighted copy of the manufacturer’s manual detailing this unacceptable practice; and explain that the HSE may refer to it should any action against the customer arise. It would also be advisable to inform the customer of the risks of exiting the basket while at height and refer them to BS 8640. If you are going to supply an operator with the MEWP, you should make it clear that the operator will not allow anyone to exit the basket whilst it is at height. This can be incorporated into all contractual documentation so that the customer has not only been made aware, but by agreeing to this, they will comply and be accountable. We had hired MEWPs to customers, and have discovered that on some hires, the customer’s workers have exiting the basket whilst it is still at height. Do you have any suggestions on howwe can remind the customer of their responsibilities? If you have crossed-hired in the access platform from another CPA member, then you will be the Hirer; but as you know, when you supply it on to your customer, you will be deemed the ‘Owner’, provided you had used the Model Conditions when hiring to your customer. If that is the case then clauses 8 (Handling of Plant), and 13 (Hirer’s Responsibility for Loss and Damage) would apply. If the damage to the sign occurred during the hire period, and whilst the operator was manoeuvring the access platform, then the clause defines the operator as being under the direction and control of the hirer. The operator is also deemed to be the servant of the hirer. Under clause 13, the Hirer is not only liable for any loss or damage to the plant during the hire period; but is also liable for any claims raised by any third party who suffers a loss as a consequence - in this case, the owner of the sign itself - if it belongs to another party. The plant owner who supplied you with the machine and operator appears to be conversant with the Model Conditions and would rely on the two clauses I have mentioned. Whether you rely on these same two clauses with your customer is your prerogative. Somemonths ago, we cross- hired in a truck-mounted access platformwith an operator, who would assist one of our clients working on amotorway electronic sign. During the hire period itself, the operator accidentally caught the sign and damaged it. Subsequently, our client has sent us an invoice for the repairs. We contacted the plant company, who informed us that the CPA’s Model Conditions applied, and therefore they were not liable for the damage. From your expert position, could you advise where we stand vis- à-vis the charge sent to us by our client please.