CPA Bulletin

44 CPA Bulletin > August 2024 www.cpa.uk.net Q&As: 1 q&a s No, they are not correct. The three clauses within the Model Conditions you should be looking at are 7 - Ground and Site Conditions, 8 - Handling of Plant, and 13 - Hirer’s Responsibilities for Loss and Damage. Clause 7 outlines the Hirer’s responsibility to ensure that the ground conditions are suitable for the plant to work on. If this is not the case, then timbers or other suitable support should be laid on the ground. If the ground conditions result in damage to the plant, (including the tyres), then you should refer to clause 13. Any personnel supplied, including the driver must be competent as stipulated in clause 8, i.e. hold a CPCS/NPORS card or equivalent. That individual is deemed to be the Hirer’s employee during the hire period; and will be under the Hirer’s direction and control. It is the Hirer’s responsibility to ensure that daily/weekly checks are carried out on the plant supplied, which would include the state of the tyres. Ideally, there needs to be facilities on site where any dirt or debris can be cleaned away so that a visual inspection can be easily and safely carried out on the plant. If the plant can only be cleaned once it has returned to the depot, where a proper visual inspection can take place, then any damage discovered will be the responsibility of the Hirer, and clause 13 would apply. Clause 13 will apply if no damage was present to the plant at the point of delivery to site; but was evident once it was returned to the depot, then the Hirer has to make good that loss. It is your prerogative within clause 13(b) to charge an ‘idle-time rate’ (two-thirds of the hire rate) until settlement has been agreed. I would also look at clause 9(c) for further guidance on the matter of tyres. Let me know if you need any further guidance. We had hired an itemof plant to a customer under the Model Conditions. When the plant was returned to the depot, we discovered that the plant’s tyres had excessive wear and tear and one needed to be replaced. We had supplied a driver with the plant, but the customer is claiming that they are not at fault as our driver should have noticed the issue sooner, rather than when it had been returned to the depot at the end of the hire. We feel that due to the nature of the site, tyre degradation was due to site conditions. Is the customer correct in holding the driver responsible? We cross-hired in an item of plant for one of our customers for an indeterminate period. The CPA’s Model Conditions were applicable on the plant we received from our supplier, as well as on to our customer. The plant was off hired at 3pm on Friday, but our supplier could not collect it until the following Tuesday morning, due to other transport commitments. Sometime between Friday afternoon and the plant’s collection, the plant was vandalised to the value of £1,000. The customer is claiming that as he off-hired the plant Friday afternoon, so he is claiming that he is no longer responsible for the subsequent damage. Is this correct? No, he is not correct. If the hire was for an indeterminate period, i.e. a specific start date but no specific end date, then under clause 24(a) of the Model Conditions, the Hirer is responsible for the Plant for the next 7 calendar days after it is off hired. So, if it was off hired on Friday afternoon, then they would still be responsible until Thursday afternoon. As it was vandalised by Tuesday, then your customer is liable. The customer could also be charged two-third of the hire rate until settlement has been agreed - as per clause 13(b). Your supplier will be charging you in exactly the same way. Therefore, any correspondence or queries concerning the vandalism should be forwarded to the appropriate party, from your customer to your supplier, and vice versa. 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. If you look at clause 24(c), reproduced below, then you will see the reference to cancellations. c)If the Hirer terminates the Contract before the Hire Period commences, then the Hirer is liable for all reasonable costs and charges incurred by the Owner or to which the Owner is committed at the time of termination. If you need any further advice on this issue, then please get in touch. Is there a section in the CPA Model Conditions that refers to customers cancelling orders with the owner?