Clause 7.5.5 Preservation of Product in a Home-Care Company?

[Jim Wynne]

Doesn't it look strange? A requirement under clause 7 can either be excluded or not excluded. Why should it be 'ignored' isn't understood.

By "ignored" I meant that there's nothing special that needs to be done as a result of the requirement. Whatever is presently done should be sufficient, given the fact that the definition of "product" in this instance is completely up for grabs.

 

[JaneB]

n_ easy, suggest the key thing is not to overwork a clause such as this one and try to twist one's brain into applying it, when generally speaking it can be safely ignored. Advising service businesses is 90% of what I do as a consultant, and over many years of doing this in many many different types of service businesses, in most cases this clause simply doesn't apply. On the odd occasion, it does. But it's almost always more applicable in a 'physical widget' type business.

... my business where the goods come in for service and may have documentation accessories etc that all has to be accounted for from beginning to end.

Yes, you're right that is important and it applies. I do tend to agree with Jim's advice in general about mostly ignoring 7.5.5 for service companies, as explained above, but yes, there are examples, such as this one you give. But then, a system where physical goods are taken/left for servicing is pretty much a no-brainer to apply the requirements of this clause surely?

This company enters a premise and is expected to leave it without doing anything but improve it ...

Yup. Which can be happily done without excluding the clause, but by pretty much ignoring it, as Jim suggests.

 

[JaneB]

A requirement under clause 7 can either be excluded or not excluded. Why should it be 'ignored' isn't understood.

Because it probably doesn't or won't apply 99.5% of the time.

And not claiming exclusion will cater for the perhaps 0.5% of the time when it might, plus avoid spending time on working out a possibly convoluted justification for it, as well as possibly a lengthy and ultimately rather fruitless debate about the validity of doing so. When there are presumably far more fruitful uses of everyone's time, such as focussing on aspects of service delivery?