[Ian Lancaster]

Smurf's comments and SeanK's reply got me thinking.   

That's a whole new meaning to builders cleans 
    I take it the roofer chap was not insured properly then hence why has not provided his insurance details so they are trying to put the blame on you now.  I'm thinking a Solar Panel Cleaning Waiver springs to mind on that one Steve and I'm sure you got them to sign one.


There's more to this story than meets the eye, Smurf a cleaning waiver has about as much legal value as a car parking waiver
in other words none, they're only there to deter a customer claim.

There is an obvious risk in removing cement, limescale, baked on bird droppings, paint etc etc of damaging the property.  Where we regard this as a 'high' risk - removing cement or paint by using a scraper we usually ask the customer to sign a Damage Waiver.  If SeanK is right, this doesn't protect us from being sued if consequently there is damage to the property. 

To try to clarify the situation I phoned the FSB Legal Advice service.  The reply I got was that if the Waiver states clearly the risks involved in us cleaning off the foreign matter and if the customer understands and accepts that they will be forfeiting any claim for damages resulting from us undertaking the work at their request then we would not be liable.  The only way we could incur liability would be if the damage were due to our negligence, not the circumstances specified in the Waiver.

The solicitor's advice was that if we were in any doubt as to the wording of the Waiver then we should have a solicitor look at it prior to getting the customer to sign.

A properly worded Waiver is a valid and necessary means of protecting yourself from a possibly very expensive claim for damage to someones' property.

[SeanK]

That's where the problem lies, properly worded and knowing what you legally allowed to ask of your customer.
Example, a car park owner can put up a sign saying you park here at your own risk, straight forward enough and easy for the car
owner to understand but unfortunately its not legal.
Just like the car park owner you are providing a service and are liable for any risks or damage that might happen due to that
service, now if the damage is already done then you wont be expected to put it right so if the window has been damaged
because of the concrete then you cant be held responsible for that but if you damage the window removing the concrete
then you may be liable waiver of not.

[Ian Lancaster]

That's where the problem lies, properly worded and knowing what you legally allowed to ask of your customer.
Example, a car park owner can put up a sign saying you park here at your own risk, straight forward enough and easy for the car
owner to understand but unfortunately its not legal.
Just like the car park owner you are providing a service and are liable for any risks or damage that might happen due to that
service, now if the damage is already done then you wont be expected to put it right so if the window has been damaged
because of the concrete then you cant be held responsible for that but if you damage the window removing the concrete
then you may be liable waiver of not.

That was exactly the scenario I put to the FSB solicitor and she was quite clear that provided the risks were pointed out to the customer and the customer accepted them we would not be liable.  The difference between this and the car park is that damage may be caused in a car park by any number of unspecified occurrences but cleaning off concrete is a specific occurrence, the risks of which are explained to the customer and he can then decide whether he wants to accept the risk or not.

[SeanK]

That's where the problem lies, properly worded and knowing what you legally allowed to ask of your customer.
Example, a car park owner can put up a sign saying you park here at your own risk, straight forward enough and easy for the car
owner to understand but unfortunately its not legal.
Just like the car park owner you are providing a service and are liable for any risks or damage that might happen due to that
service, now if the damage is already done then you wont be expected to put it right so if the window has been damaged
because of the concrete then you cant be held responsible for that but if you damage the window removing the concrete
then you may be liable waiver of not.

That was exactly the scenario I put to the FSB solicitor and she was quite clear that provided the risks were pointed out to the customer and the customer accepted them we would not be liable.  The difference between this and the car park is that damage may be caused in a car park by any number of unspecified occurrences but cleaning off concrete is a specific occurrence, the risks of which are explained to the customer and he can then decide whether he wants to accept the risk or not.

So lets say some cowboy who hasn't got a clue gets the customer to sign something like this just to cover their own backside
incompetence, are you saying the customer wouldn't have a case because they signed a waiver ?
You will still have to prove that there was no way you couldn't do the job without damaging the glass.
Don't get me wrong a waiver is a good thing and will put off most if not all from taking it any further but I would say the
majority of them wouldn't stand up in court especially if they are a one waiver fits all affair.

[CleanClear]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. If we are talking about builders cleans and cement/mortar removal then you don't need a waiver. A simple Method statement should suffice. I.e ............

Cement/Mortar will be removed from [glass] by means of hand held blades. There is a very real risk of scratching the glass worked on using this method. This risk will have to be accepted and borne by the customer. We make no guarantee there will be no marks or damage caused by the the removal of the debris on the glass.
               Sign only if you accept our Methods and Terms......................

Just rough, but you get the jist of it.

[johnwillan]

"You will still have to prove that there was no way you couldn't do the job without damaging the glass"

I imagine it would be down to the customer to prove you were negligent as the waiver would outline the possible risk of damage.

[Smurf]

If that is the case seank that roofer (cowboy or not) would have got off scot free if he got the customer that was stupid enough to sign a open waiver whilst working on their roof that would exclude all liability to any damage whatsoever.

The point Ian is trying to make is that a glass cleaning waiver should be written in a way to be very specific outlining the risks involved to the property being worked upon before attempting to clean damaged glass be it using a scrapper, chemical or any other glass restoration product.

It’s then upto the customer to sign the wavier knowing the risks involved and to be honest if they don’t then alarm bells should start ringing.

This is a good example below of what can happen when you don’t have a waiver signed beforehand.

I'm also betting that chap was so relived he was also properly insured too unlike most window cleaners that are NOT covered for property being worked upon etc.

Type of claim: Damage to Property Worked On (Window Cleaner)
Outcome: Claim Paid

A window cleaning customer of GLEAMING INSURANCE contacted us to advise that he had recently completed a builders clean of a new commercial development and that his customer had now alleged that 62 of the window were showing evidence of minor scratches. This damage was holding up the opening of the new development and urgent attention was needed.
Our client was worried and didn’t know what to do, he was concerned at the possible cost of rectifying the problem and he was also concerned that his customer would hold back monies due to him for other works carried out.

A normal liability policy from many other insurers would have an endorsement with an exclusion for “damage to property worked upon” meaning that scratching or breaking glass would not be covered, but this is core cover on our policy and something that sets our cover apart, so we were firstly able to reassure him that this kind of damage was covered with GLEAMING INSURANCE.

We then immediately involved our insurers and their liability claims team and we were able to get a specialist repairer and loss adjuster to speak with the customer and his client and arrange prompt repairs to rectify matters. The insurers were able to ascertain that the scratches were not deep enough to warrant replacement, but that they could be repaired and polished out to exactly the same level as a brand new pane of glass – most other insurers would have simply paid for a replacement.
Our client not only kept his customer happy, but received his monies on time and more importantly for the future didn’t have an over-inflated claim on his record for years to come.

[SeanK]

No he wouldn't Smurf because it doesn't matter how stupid you are you cant sign away your consumer rights.

[Smurf]

Oh yes you can 

[Perfect Windows]

Sean,

"That was exactly the scenario I put to the FSB solicitor and she was quite clear that provided the risks were pointed out to the customer and the customer accepted them we would not be liable."

I'd be reasonably happy to trust a solicitor to have at least some idea of what you can and cannot do under the law.

[Nick Day]

Just a small input.
None of us know the full details of cases mentioned.
But can I point out.. there are no laws!! It is all about going to court and hoping to get a result.
It is also an interesting point, that every day hundreds, if not thousands of people go to County Court to settle financial disputes. Many, if not most, go with. or with the advice of lawyers, yet only halfof them win.
That is rubbish odds, but the lawyers still have to be paid. So the waiver you need is the one you sign for them!!

[Smurf]

Just a small input.
None of us know the full details of cases mentioned.
But can I point out.. there are no laws!! It is all about going to court and hoping to get a result.
It is also an interesting point, that every day hundreds, if not thousands of people go to County Court to settle financial disputes. Many, if not most, go with. or with the advice of lawyers, yet only halfof them win.
That is rubbish odds, but the lawyers still have to be paid. So the waiver you need is the one you sign for them!!

Oh you mean the "NO WIN, NO FEE GETS PAID" waiver