For if by using LAMS or LAMP the MO misses something and there is an incident, YOU the owner are responsible
I wonder how that squares up with that other weird concept: the law? Surely, in cases of negligence... Also one cannot expect the owner to remove all the inspection covers etc after the firm has done the Annual.
I wonder how this is supposed to work in practice.
Whatever happens don't try to maintain your aircraft using LAMS/LAMP if you are not an experienced engineer. for you will surely miss something vital. Type specific makes it easy to achieve proper maintenance.
LAMS is a ripe area for all kinds of practices, ranging from minimal (but legal) maintenance, all to way to outright cowboy practices.
For example I have a TB20, for which the Socata maintenance manual specifies a huge long list of stuff to be done. I am sure nobody in the UK does that whole list. It would take "too long". Most UK MOs do the inspections listed (they are quick) and the lubrication is done with an aerosol can instead of dismantling/re-greasing (bearings with grease nipples are done with a grease gun, but many don't have nipples). This is OK if you don't fly in the rain too much, or keep the plane outdoors... but it complies with LAMS.
Now, on the N-reg, I do all the real lube on the pilot maintenance; the 50hr checks. The Annual is just a legal requirement on which little is done beyond the inspections.