Injured in Tesco's - Advice Please

Becles

I did some mystery shopping work pretending I'd had an accident in a supermarket, then ringing a number of "ambulance chaser" companies to report on how I was treated.

If you do make a claim, the company you use will have to speak to your Nan. She will have to give a statement and then Tesco have a period of time to investigate and give their side of the story. What happens next will be up to Tesco. They may offer payment at this stage or they may want your Nan to have an independant medical and then they might let it go to court.

If you do drop the case part way through due to your Nan not being up to it, you will have to pay all of the fees the solititor has incurred so far. If your Nan isn't sure about claiming, bear that in mind in case you end up with a bill part way through proceedings.

Debt_Free_Chick

I would caution against the idea that Tesco are "clearly negligent". Negligence has to be proved and it generally means that the claimant needs to demonstrate that Tesco should reasonably have known that they were aware of the faulty chair and the risk it presented and chose to do nothing about it.

Negligence will not be proven if Tesco can demonstrate that they had a process to examine the chairs and identify any defects; to assess the risk that those defects presented; and to take appropriate action.

As an example, it might be Tesco's process to examine the chairs, visually, every week. Where damage is identified, Tesco may well take them out of service.

If it can be shown that Tesco had a process; that it was reasonable; and that it was followed, they may not be negligent. Indeed, the damage may have occurred since the last inspection and not notified to Tesco (it's not difficult to see that a chair could be damaged by another customer, with that customer not "owning up" and just returning the chair without uttering a word).

Just be careful about going for negligence. Large organisations generally have procedures and use these to refute negligence claims. And their insurers will step in with in-house legal-eagles to beef up their defense.

So .... just don't go in "all guns' blazing" with an accusation of negligence - ask carefully worded direct questions designed to get Tesco to reveal their processes and then examine whether the process is (a) reasonable and (b) followed.

In this case, Tesco acknowledged that the chair was faulty and immediately offered to find the electric one. Did Tesco insist that the OP use the faulty chair? Or did the OP opt to use it "regardless". If the latter, then Tesco's response will be that they offered a more suitable alternative and withdrew the faulty chair, but that the OP used it - voluntarily - in the knowledge that it was damaged.

I don't claim that any of this is "right" - but just intend to highlight how these things are likely to be argued out; either in Court or via a claim's settlement process.

sarahg1969

OP, if you do decide to pursue a claim on behalf of your Nan, then you don't need the services of one of these accident management companies. Just take a look in the phone book for a local solicitor, who will no doubt be able to offer a free first appointment, or even ask friends for a recommendation.

woody01

Negligence will not be proven if Tesco can demonstrate that they had a process to examine the chairs and identify any defects; to assess the risk that those defects presented; and to take appropriate action.

The employee said the chair was damaged so that argument is negated.

Tozer

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Just be careful about going for negligence. Large organisations generally have procedures and use these to refute negligence claims. And their insurers will step in with in-house legal-eagles to beef up their defense.

So .... just don't go in "all guns' blazing" with an accusation of negligence - ask carefully worded direct questions designed to get Tesco to reveal their processes and then examine whether the process is (a) reasonable and (b) followed.

This is a fairly small claim. Insurers will not be used and Tesco will not instruct lawyers to deal with it.

Tozer

Becles wrote: »

If you do make a claim, the company you use will have to speak to your Nan. She will have to give a statement and then Tesco have a period of time to investigate and give their side of the story. What happens next will be up to Tesco. They may offer payment at this stage or they may want your Nan to have an independant medical and then they might let it go to court.

If you do drop the case part way through due to your Nan not being up to it, you will have to pay all of the fees the solititor has incurred so far. If your Nan isn't sure about claiming, bear that in mind in case you end up with a bill part way through proceedings.

99% of PI cases do not go to Court. Especially for such a small claim.

There are no cost implications in this case as it would be small claims (less than £1,000). Hence it would be difficult to find a solicitor to take it on as a no-win, no-fee.

Even if not small claims, cost implications are only incurred after proceedings have been issued. OP will have 3 years to assess whether case is a good one.

Generally, even if a case is discontinued after proceedings are issued, insurers accept a "drop hands" resolution on costs where each party bears their own costs.

sarahg1969

I agree. Tesco would not even argue about a case like this. They'd settle it in an instant.

hundredk

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Obsessed enough, to have chosen that particular user name.

So what exactly is the association between hundredk and compensation?

pitkin2020

wel you beleive compensation is the MSE way!!

hundredk

pitkin2020 wrote: »

wel you beleive compensation is the MSE way!!

Yes, I do where appropriate and so does MSE Martin, the owner of this site.

But how does that explain the association between the username and compensation?