Self employed with no insurance!

SalonGeek

Help Support SalonGeek:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oh dear, they have since been in touch and are still pursuing the claim against my salon. They are now saying that as the customer came through to the salon phone and the appointment made through the phone then the customer is the liability of the salon. I have looked into it and if the customer was told who the treatment was with, then that becomes a verbal contract not with the salon but between said therapist and customer. The contract then being cemented further when she came in and signed the customer card. The only 2 names on the card being therapist and customer...no mention of the salon. Therefore the contract was between therapist and customer. A written contract supersedes a verbal.
Basically the solicitors are now saying nobody else can take a call on behalf of the customer without becoming liable.
Also they claim its irrelevant who did the treatment! Thats just plain ludicrous!! The whole claim stems from the treatment so obviously its relevant who performed the treatment.
Now though they say I can make a counter claim to save it going to court.
I personally think they are trying it on but I just hope Im right x :|

I wonder if the claimants legal advisors are viewing this as an agency arrangement? for example the principal is the therapist but she operates within your salon so you are acting as an agent for her? By not telling the customer that the therapist was solely self employed the average person walking in of the street believes that they are customers of the "salon" not specifically customers of a therapist. If I walked into a salon in the street then I would assume anyone working there was an employee unless I was told otherwise? If this is the route they are going down then they may be able to sue the salon, but equally you would be able to sue the therapist.

I agree with the comments above that if you are self employed than you are deemed personally liable and any personal assets can be claimed in addition to those of the salon.

However I would be asking what kind of reaction she had, any evidence of reaction etc and whether it had any lasting damage effect, if it was a tinting/chemical treatment was she advised to have patch tests etc, did she fill out a new customer form detailing health problems/allergies etc. this will give an indication of the value of the claim, ie it may just have been short term and non serious and the claim value may be low and it may be easier to dare I say settle it rather than incurr costs and then counterclaim on the therapist, however if it was a serious reaction with permanent damage then you may be better to try to fight it?

It may be worth considering a counterclaim against the therapist, she may have stopped trading but she is still liable?
 
I spoke to the solicitors last year and explained she was self employed and told them to get in touch with her directly. I hadn't heard anything for ages so assumed it had been sorted. Now today I get this letter saying they are taking me to court and she's told them my address and that my house is owned and they say they will take money from my assets if they get no joy through my solicitors but she is liable not me so I dont know how they can do this :sad:

It sounds to me that once all of this is dealt with you should be suing her for stress and putting your business and rep on the line. Also phone all local salons and tell them so she doesn't do it to them.
 
One cannot sue for "stress", "hurt feelings", etc.
The courts would be full of people with wounded souls otherwise!
However, do feel free to contact all the other salons if you particularly fancy a defamation suit against you.
 
I wonder if the claimants legal advisors are viewing this as an agency arrangement? for example the principal is the therapist but she operates within your salon so you are acting as an agent for her? By not telling the customer that the therapist was solely self employed the average person walking in of the street believes that they are customers of the "salon" not specifically customers of a therapist. If I walked into a salon in the street then I would assume anyone working there was an employee unless I was told otherwise? If this is the route they are going down then they may be able to sue the salon, but equally you would be able to sue the therapist.

I agree with the comments above that if you are self employed than you are deemed personally liable and any personal assets can be claimed in addition to those of the salon.

However I would be asking what kind of reaction she had, any evidence of reaction etc and whether it had any lasting damage effect, if it was a tinting/chemical treatment was she advised to have patch tests etc, did she fill out a new customer form detailing health problems/allergies etc. this will give an indication of the value of the claim, ie it may just have been short term and non serious and the claim value may be low and it may be easier to dare I say settle it rather than incurr costs and then counterclaim on the therapist, however if it was a serious reaction with permanent damage then you may be better to try to fight it?

It may be worth considering a counterclaim against the therapist, she may have stopped trading but she is still liable?

I have done extensive research and you cant be held liable for simply taking a call on behalf of someone else. Customers may 'assume' they were making an appointment with the salon but a 'verbal contract is made if the parties are named on inception'. So, the name of the therapist was clearly made when making the appointment and so the verbal contract was made between those 2 parties and the 2 parties on this occasion being the therapist and customer. Then a written contract was made when the same 2 parties filled out the record card and customer signed and therapist was named on the card. Written contracts usually supersede verbal ones and are easier to prove as it's there in black and white. There was never any mention of the salon during verbal or written contract stages and therefore the salon cannot be held liable.

Also, the customer was offered a skin test and flatly refused knowing she had a previous reaction and so is liable herself for any injury due to 'contributory fault'. Again, all clearly written on her card. The lash company we use actually say no patch test is needed and so the therapist actually followed manufacturers instructions so again cannot be held liable. The client had no signs of injury when she left the salon and was driving that night and was fit to see to drive the day after too. She got cream from the Drs and after that she seemed to have a reaction. She was clearly told to avoid creams and I'm wondering if she had a reaction to the cream?! Though in pictures she just has slightly puffy eyes and no signs of chemical burns they are alleging!

I have been through all letters and each time they have made a claim I have come back with my case and now 4 times they have changed their minds what they want to claim for! Can they do this?

If I was in the wrong I would admit it, but I know myself and therapist aren't liable but I have made an appointment to see my solicitors so hopefully get some redress finally...
 
Also, the customer was offered a skin test and flatly refused knowing she had a previous reaction and so is liable herself for any injury due to 'contributory fault'. Again, all clearly written on her card. The lash company we use actually say no patch test is needed and so the therapist actually followed manufacturers instructions so again cannot be held liable.

Have you got this in writing from the lash company? And what did the insurance company say about that?
I'd be very surprised if the lash company would actually write that no patch test is needed!
 
Have you got this in writing from the lash company? And what did the insurance company say about that?
I'd be very surprised if the lash company would actually write that no patch test is needed!

It's Marvel Lash and it's a known fact they teach you that a patch test is not required. Which is ridiculous but true :rolleyes: My insurance company won't have anything to do with me because the claim arises from a treatment by someone self employed so I'm not covered...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top