Compo

malkyh

How much exactly would they have charged for boarding the window up anyway? What sort of reduction to the insurance company would have been achieved if in fact they did charge for this service even though it was not carried out?

NeilF3485

Squeak where are you? Come and close this ludicrous thread will you? OP has been given many answers to the original post, and as we've descended to insults being thrown around, surely 5 pages is enough?!

Hintza

OP just give up and move on with your life. You claim you aren't interested in compensation BUT the thread is titled compo.......DOH!

Hintza

NeilF3485 wrote: »

surely 5 pages is enough?!

You need to reset to 40 posts a page, it's only 3 pages long....:D

NeilF3485

Hintza wrote: »

You need to reset to 40 posts a page, it's only 3 pages long....:D

Can I reset to 1 post per page to exaggerate my point?

squeaky

Hi all

I'm waiting on a response from the Forum Team.

In the meantime could I ask posters to stay (get back) on topic please? A reminder...

Forum_Team wrote:

GOING OFF-TOPIC

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: While it’s easy to wander off-topic that often prevents newbies finding the information they want quickly and easily (please see this rule). Please keep this thread on topic. If you’d like to discuss non-MoneySaving related topics please continue your discussion in The MoneySavers Arms or Discussion Time. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL='forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com']forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

.

DWatts

somethingcorporate wrote: »

You have not suffered any financial hardship, ergo you should not receive any compensation.

Probably the biggest problem with what you're saying is that you're not relating it to OP's case. You're just saying "no financial hardship = no comepensation", which is of course insane. Compensation is not just for financial hardship.

If someone working for a construction company fails to put proper safety in place and drops a bucket on your head and causes an injury to your neck, you'd probably want some compensation for that. But according to you, that never happens - as long as there's been no financial hardship, you shouldn't get anything.

That's the problem with sweeping, blanket statements. They make you look a bit stupid, so I'd avoid them in future.


And..

NeilF3485 wrote: »

Squeak where are you? Come and close this ludicrous thread will you? OP has been given many answers to

the original post, and as we've descended to insults being thrown around, surely 5 pages is enough?!

Descended? The topic started with insults to the OP.

arcon5

Not really the greatest comparison huh.

On what basis would op ever be entitled to compensation? The problem was rectified with minimal inconvenience and nobody was injured. Yet your comparing it to a situation whereby somebody is physcially injured as a result of negligence -- which would likely involve time of work and therefore suffer financial losses.

If somebody has a bucket dropped on them because no safety procedures was in place, if this person was completely unaffected by it then I would argue they have no entitlement to be financially compensated and the failings of the company should be dealt with seperately and any financial pentalties should necessarily go to the unaffected/uninjured party.

DWatts

arcon5 wrote: »

Not really the greatest comparison huh.

On what basis would op ever be entitled to compensation? The problem was rectified with minimal inconvenience and nobody was injured. Yet your comparing it to a situation whereby somebody is physcially injured as a result of negligence -- which would likely involve time of work and therefore suffer financial losses.

It was demonstrating the point that a blanket statement is utterly ridiculous. I wasn't comparing the situation to OP's at all, in fact I was making a point of it being completely different.

Ignore the time off of work. There's no financial loss involved. Yes, it would result in physical injury as a result of negligence, but 'somethingcorporate' very clearly stated that compensation can only be paid out for financial hardship. Now, you might want to say that people shouldn't be paid out for such claims. That's a perfectly fine opinion to have, but it doesn't really have any relevance to helping the OP (which is what this forum is for), and saying that it just doesn't happen because you don't like it is crazy.

I suppose it's not the greatest comparison if you don't understand it.

arcon5

DWatts wrote: »

It was demonstrating the point that a blanket statement is utterly ridiculous. I wasn't comparing the situation to OP's at all, in fact I was making a point of it.

Ignoring the time off of work - yes, it would result in physical injury as a result of negligence. But 'somethingcorporate' very clearly stated that compensation can only be paid out for financial hardship.

I suppose it's not the greatest comparison if you don't understand it.

The time of work would be a significant factor. If somebody was physically injured then the level of compensation (if any) should be dependant solely on how it affects their life. If they was left with permanent injury it would affect their ability to perform certain types of work in the future, affect their income potential, affect their lifestyle if they had to regularly visit hospitals -- all of which you can have a monetary value estimated.


You can hardly blame people for being hostile to somebody who comes here with a deformed sense of entitled to compensation for a broken window