CPA Bulletin

www.cpa.uk.net CPA Bulletin > August 2018 47 q & a’ s I am seeking some clarification with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2018. As a business, would we be in breach of GDPR if we sent an introductory email and company brochure to potential customers whom we have ‘connected’ with through Linkedin?   There is a danger with sending out marketing information, particular to contacts who have not expressed an interest to receive them. If you are going to send out marketing information, any recipients who receive this initial email must have the opportunity to decline receiving future emails. One way of dealing with this is to include an ‘unsubscribe’ button at the bottom of the circular and alerting the reader to this. If they ‘unsubscribe’, then their contact details must be removed from the list. If you fail to address this, and further emails are sent to those that have unsubscribed, then a recipient could complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). a We are looking to offer some form of insurance cover to our customers who don’t have “hired- in” plant insurance. Is this something you offer within the membership?   The CPA doesn’t offer insurance, but we have developed a subrogation waiver scheme. Details of the scheme can be found on our webpage - www.cpa.uk.net/insurance . Within that webpage, the insurance brokers’ contact details can also be found. You would have to contact each broker to ascertain whether they offer this scheme; and if so, how their policy works in conjunction with the waiver, and what the premiums would be. a Q&As: 1 We hired in a 360° excavator with an operator under the CPA’s Model Conditions. During the hire period, the operator - through his own negligence - damaged the cab’s screen. Under the conditions, who is responsible for the damage, us, the Hirer, or the Plant Owner? a If you hired in a machine and operator under the Model Conditions; then any damage to the excavator during the hire period will be your responsibility under clause 13(b). Under clause 8, the Plant Owner would have to provide an operator who is competent - and by holding a CPCS or recognised equivalent would show that he is competent. The operator would be deemed to be your employee for the duration of the hire period, and would be under your direction and control. As the Hirer, you would be solely liable for all claims arising out of the operator’s use of the plant. This would include the damage to the screen. With the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2018, will the CPA’s Model Conditions of hire have to be updated? a No. The Model Conditions are not being updated to incorporate GDPR. The use of personal data is not applicable when outlining the responsibilities and liabilities of both the Plant Owner and Hirer under the Model Conditions, and so the conditions do not need to be updated. I have a client who is a small sole trader undertaking paving operations. My client’s son has set up a company and trades in similar work. There is no other connection between the two businesses. My client hired out a whacker plate to his son’s business. The son’s accountant has advised the son that he is unable to settle the hire bill as his father is not established as a plant hire company. The father has traded for a number of years and has “never heard anything so ludicrous”. I am unaware of any regulatory requirements that prevents the payment of the hire. Can you provide any insight why this shouldn’t be paid? I cannot see why payment cannot be made. This is purely a contractual matter - where the price has been agreed and services were provided, and the sum for those services is now outstanding. It is irrelevant whether either party is an established plant hire company or not. For an accountant to suggest that the son is not liable for the debt that he has incurred appears to be very strange indeed. It would be prudent for your son remind his accountant that services that were accepted and that the debt needs to be settled. a