Temporary labour provided - liability issue

[Hobo]

We requested the supply of a plumber through a labour agency to work on a commercial building we were undertaking the mechanical works on. The agency (who advertise themselves as the UK's leading one) supplied the person, who worked for approximately 2 weeks undertaking soldering of copper pipework, however when it came to test the said pipework it became apparent he was not able to do so, as each joint failed. At this point we got rid.

We asked the agency whether he was qualified & received an email back stating they had used him on several occasions without problem & held copies of his qualifications on records & that he was indeed qualified to do the position. We requested a copy & were shortly afterwards advised he had no qualifications, nor did they hold copies of any qualifications.

At this point I advised them I would not be making payments of the invoices, and also to put their insurers on standby should there be any claim in respect from leaks on the system which he had installed.

I today received an email stating they do not accept any liability, and that their terms & conditions clearly state they cannot be held liable for the employees lack of skills.

I cannot believe an agency can provide anyone to work on any job without having to check qualifications, and if they choose to place someone without the relevant qualifications then surely they must have liability ? I interpreted the 'lack of skills' statement as that as long as they send someone qualified to do the role in which they were placed then we would not be able to withhold monies for not being happy with them for slow working, etc. I would have no issue with this, however have a big problem with the position I find myself in.

Any thoughts ?

[hedgefinder]

a lack of actual qualifications is a little bit more serious than a lack of skill...
dear god, I hope agency nursing staff are better screened..

[Hobo]

I tend be agree, but wondered if there were operating outside thier rights in doing this ?

[Burrow01]

Hobo said:

We asked the agency whether he was qualified & received an email back stating they had used him on several occasions without problem & held copies of his qualifications on records & that he was indeed qualified to do the position. We requested a copy & were shortly afterwards advised he had no qualifications, nor did they hold copies of any qualifications.

?

Would have thought this this would be gold to you, assuming you kept it, and had asked for a suitably qualified person in your original request /legtostandon .....

[Hughesie]

Sounds stupid, but did you request a qualified and certified plumber at the outset.

At the risk of a conflict of interest happy for you to e-mail off line to see if can help - I'm in the game so to speak.

Regards
Hughesie

[Hobo]

Hughesie said:

Sounds stupid, but did you request a qualified and certified plumber at the outset.

At the risk of a conflict of interest happy for you to e-mail off line to see if can help - I'm in the game so to speak.

Regards
Hughesie

Not 100% sure whether we specifically request a 'qualified & certified plumber', or whether we just said a 'plumber', but we do as a rule explain the types of works we are requiring the operates to undertake to ensure they are suitable for the position.

Therefore, to have been placed an operative with no qualifications to do the tasks we asked seems very wrong. The agencies T&C's state they will provide the qualifications of the placement no later than 3 days after they started, which they have not, and then when challenged they stated that they held qualifications for the operative, only to back down when we requested such & admit they had no such thing.

With what we do for a living it is hard to see the problems until a later date when putting air or water through the system, so to some effect the problems would not be identified until this time. When it did become apparent we got rid & asked for details.