T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1404.1 | | MARVIN::RUSLING | Hastings Upper Layers Project Leader | Tue Mar 26 1991 09:34 | 12 |
|
I know that ramp. It's actually a broken ramp, the bolts are part
of what used to hold down the missing sections of ramp. Note that the
ramp is made of rubber bolted to the tarmac and that one section is
missing. It's private property and B&Q have a legal "Duty of Care"
to make that area safe to the shoppers (and their vehicles) that they
invite in to spend.
I'd complain. At first firmly but politely and then with more gusto.
I guess that you could always photograph the hazzard...
Dave
|
1404.2 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | RS with the RS | Tue Mar 26 1991 09:44 | 5 |
| I would definately persue it. You mentioned that you spoke to the
staff. Did you take any names ? Keep a record of the incident. Date and
time etc. Worth getting a photo as .1 suggested.
- Roy
|
1404.3 | | SHIPS::SAXBY_M | Smoke me a kipper... | Tue Mar 26 1991 09:54 | 13 |
|
And presumably you've kept the bit of metal. Are there other similar
bits of metal still attached to the ramp?
Try being reasonable before you turn nasty, after all B&Q can probably
afford a legal fight more than you can, but on the other hand are
probably keen to avoid such activities if they can reach a reasonable
settlement without (assuming, of course, that you can show a high
likelihood of the puncture being their fault).
FWIW, I have often thought that that 'half-ramp' is dangerous.
Mark
|
1404.4 | They'll probably deny everything! | VOGON::MITCHELLE | Beware of the green meanie | Tue Mar 26 1991 10:31 | 8 |
|
Yes, I've still got the piece of metal, and I couldn't see any like it
in the remaining bits of ramp - in fact the piece of metal doesn't look
like anything in particular, so I think they could probably say it
wasn't 'theirs'. I just didn't know what responsibilities they had for
keeping the car park free from potentially dangerous bits of rubbish.
The state of the speed ramp is such that things could get trapped in
the remaining bolt holes.
|
1404.5 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | RS with the RS | Tue Mar 26 1991 10:49 | 5 |
| Did the car park have the usual disclaimer "cars parked at own risk" ?
They might use this to get out of it. However, it still sounds to me
like this speed ramp is well dodgy.
_ Roy
|
1404.6 | I hate these notice
| HUGS::AND_KISSES | Why I Like Country Music | Tue Mar 26 1991 10:59 | 16 |
| The presence of a "Cars Parked at own risk" disclaimer does not reduce or in any
way affect their liability to compensate you for damage attributable to their
neglect. In most cases these signs are actually illegal, and should be
ignored.
If you can "prove" the metal was on their property, and was there due to their
neglect (ie it hadn't just been dropped by a passer-by), then they are liable
for the damage caused to your bike, regardless of what notices they may display
or what they may try and claim to the contrary...
Of course, proving this will be virtually impossible, but they may pay you
something out of goodwill, particularly if you stress how much you like spending
money in their store, and that it would be a shame for you to have to go
elsewhere because of the poor quality of their car park ;-)
Scott
|
1404.7 | | VOGON::ATWAL | Don't dream it, be it | Tue Mar 26 1991 11:03 | 5 |
| the speed bump is in quite a bad state of repair - perhaps that could help
base a claim of negligence by B&Q.
...art
|
1404.8 | | SBPUS4::MARK | Life ? don't talk to me about life ! | Tue Mar 26 1991 11:40 | 26 |
| > <<< Note 1404.6 by HUGS::AND_KISSES "Why I Like Country Music" >>>
Good note and I agree with most of what Scott said (But where did he get that
account ? yuk.).
>neglect. In most cases these signs are actually illegal, and should be
No, they are not illegal. However, neither do they have any legal standing. You
are free to put whatever signs up you like provided they are not offensive etc
etc, it just doesn't limit your liability at law.
>If you can "prove" the metal was on their property, and was there due to their
>neglect (ie it hadn't just been dropped by a passer-by), then they are liable
>for the damage caused to your bike, regardless of what notices they may display
>or what they may try and claim to the contrary...
Absolutely. you have to prove that it was due to their negligence. They only
have to show reasonable care plus a bit. For example, if the carpark was swept
every hour and a reasonable man would expect this to be more than sufficient,
then you would have trouble proving negligence even if you could prove that the
piece of metal came from there.
As Scott said, proving anything out of this is going to be virtually impossible
so if I was you I'd follow the advice he gave in his last paragraph.
M.
|
1404.9 | Advise is at hand | SUBURB::LAWSONM1 | | Tue Mar 26 1991 12:50 | 9 |
| Dear Dave,
I am currently on a course at the moment but if you would like to phone
me on RDG 588648 after 7 I can advise you. I used to be the Assistant
Manager in that store in confidence.
Regards,
Mike.
|
1404.10 | Confused..... | VOGON::MITCHELLE | Beware of the green meanie | Tue Mar 26 1991 14:37 | 6 |
|
>> Dear Dave,
Don't you mean me? I asked the original question :-)
Elaine
|
1404.11 | Change of name | SUBURB::LAWSONM1 | | Tue Mar 26 1991 17:09 | 1 |
| You mean you have changed your name to elaine
|
1404.12 | Update.... | VOGON::MITCHELLE | Beware of the green meanie | Fri May 10 1991 10:14 | 9 |
|
An update on what is happening with my compensation claim...
I made an appointment to see the manager, who was very reasonable, and
said I would have to write to 'head office', This I did, and received
an acknowledement letter about three week's later. I have now received
a letter from B&Q's insurance company, saying that they have further
investigations to make, but that I may go ahead and repair the
damage!!!!!.............
|
1404.13 | | COMICS::WEGG | Bath plugs, 95p at B&Q | Fri May 10 1991 22:02 | 5 |
| Just don't let them try and whitewash you. They've got it on special
offer at the moment - and that's the big 5 litre cans!
Ian (whose yesterday received an insurance payout for a claim made
last December).
|
1404.14 | That was quick! | DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR | Purring again. | Wed May 22 1991 18:34 | 8 |
| > Ian (whose yesterday received an insurance payout for a claim made
> last December).
My son, also Iain, is still waiting for a pay-out, although the other insurance
company has admitted liability and agreed a payment. They're arguing about the
hospital and ambulance costs for one thing, and the towing and "parking" charges
for another. The accident was last December, too.
|
1404.15 | | ROCKY::QUICK | ers, to a man. | Wed May 22 1991 18:55 | 8 |
|
B****y insurance companies, I had to wait 4 MONTHS for a claim
from *my own* company for a replacement windscreen; they only
paid up after I threatened legal action and contacted the
Association of British Insurers and the Insurance Ombudsman...
needless to say they are not my insurance company any more.
JJ.
|
1404.16 | Some of us wait longer than others | CMOTEC::HARWOODJ | Judy Harwood RDL 899-5879 | Thu May 23 1991 09:59 | 9 |
| Some insurance companies deliberately drag their heels when it comes
to paying out compensation. It will be three years Saturday that our
accident occured. We've had some of the monies, but the rest, which
has been agreed in writing is still to come.
Our insurance company did warn us that this third party insurance
company are renowned for being bad/slow payers. Ho hum.
Judy
|
1404.17 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu May 23 1991 15:25 | 9 |
|
Whew, 3 YEARS, and I thought 9 months was bad.
Our insurance company are refusing to go knock-for-knock, and are
taking the other insurance company to court.
Heather - we were hit from behind whilst turning right..poor little kit
|
1404.18 | | SHIPS::ALFORD_J | an elephant is a mouse with an oper. sys. | Fri May 24 1991 13:43 | 14 |
|
> Our insurance company are refusing to go knock-for-knock, and are
> taking the other insurance company to court.
Going on my own experience, you could think about having a barrister of your
own to represent *you* and not just depend on the Insurance company's barrister
with you as their "witness".
Things can go badly wrong in court if you depend on their barrister...and
remember *you* are not represented and you can be totally certain that the
other party(ies) will tell lies the whole way, mostly maligning your
character/driving ability/car/mother...etc...
|
1404.19 | 3 years isn't so bad for insurance - in some cases | DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR | Purring again. | Tue May 28 1991 21:55 | 14 |
| My brother-in-law was injured on an oil rig while performing S&R operations.
He was the winch-man, the one who dangles on the end of the rope and pulls
people out of the water/whatever. The other winch man dropped him 15' onto
a pontoon. The company admitted responsibility in not fitting the cable to
the winch correctly. Richard has since had multiple operations on his legs
and has difficulty in walking far, although he can swim like a fish.
Then the insurance company got involved, because that's who's going to pay up
for his compensation claim.
Almost 10 years after admitting liability, the company *still* hasn't paid up,
apart from a couple of thousand towards hospital bills. He and my sister
think there may be a final settlement within a couple of years .... but they're
not holding their breath.
|
1404.20 | They've paid up! :-) | VOGON::MITCHELLE | Beware of the green meanie | Wed Sep 11 1991 11:08 | 15 |
|
re the base note....
I got a cheque yesterday to cover the full cost of the tyre and
fitting! After I had written to the insurance compny in March, I
received an acknowledgement letter, then all went quiet. About a month
ago I 'phoned, just to enquire if there was any progress, and was given
the "we'll get back to you" - nothing happened, so I've just phoned
once a week since then, just asking politely if there was any progress, each
time being told that they would check the file....
Looks like they ignore claims until they decide that you might start making
a bit more fuss!
Elaine
|
1404.21 | Lower lifeform than pond scum ! | JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ | DILLIGAFF | Wed Sep 11 1991 14:20 | 12 |
| I was once told by someone who's father ran an insurance company that
insurance companies (stitch-up merchants) deliberately delay any form
of payment as long as they reasonably (or unreasonably) can.
They earn a large amount of money on the interest doing this. Just to
add to the obscene profits they already make !
Best thing to do is to phone them *every* day first thing in the
morning until something happens.
Jerome the insurance company hater!
|
1404.22 | This is THE real world, isn't it? | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Wed Sep 11 1991 14:40 | 7 |
| � They earn a large amount of money on the interest doing this. Just to
� add to the obscene profits they already make !
A bit like the obscene profits computer companies make while making
people redundant?
Mark
|
1404.23 | | GVA01::STIFF | Paul Stiff, DSSR, DTN:821-4167 | Wed Sep 11 1991 16:47 | 3 |
| ...or our customers waiting 120 days to pay us for equipment
Paul
|
1404.24 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Wed Sep 11 1991 16:48 | 5 |
|
Or us (people, not Digital) not paying a bill until we get the red
reminder?
Mark
|
1404.25 | | UFHIS::TLACEY | A crime in the wink of an eye | Thu Sep 12 1991 11:06 | 8 |
|
Or waiting over a year for DIGITAL to pay its bills !!!
Tim.
|