Compo

DWatts

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

Should be ≠ is. And that's where you misunderstand. Financial compensation is given out for personal injuries with no financial hardship attached to them. Stress, for example, can be factored into compensations.

And it doesn't matter if you agree with that or not. You can disagree for all it matters, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what does happen. Therefore the statement that compensation is only paid out for financial hardship is just plain incorrect.

arcon5 wrote: »

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

While 'deformed sense of entitlement' is obviously an opinion (many here have a 'broken Britain compensation culture' hat on, which could be classed as equally deformed), yes it is quite easy to blame them. If you don't have anything useful to say on a help forum, don't say it. People here just couldn't resist the temptation to pass judgement on someone, which is quite pathetic. I'd say that's a worse thing about Britain than some silly concern about compensation culture.

cheesymax

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.

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.

Ah perfect. You've just wandered aimlessly past the whole point and stated exactly what hasn't happened.

The problem was not "rectified with minimal inconvenience" . If it had been the window would have been boarded up by 5pm as agreed.

The glazing company have even agreed to this and provided the refund as deemed appropriate.

So again, why should an insurance company benefit from our inconvience ? The inconvenience of the window being boarded up late ?

arcon5

DWatts wrote: »

If you don't have anything useful to say on a help forum, don't say it. People here just couldn't resist the temptation to pass judgement on someone, which is quite pathetic. I'd say that's a worse thing about Britain than some silly concern about compensation culture.

So because you don't agree with what others are saying, suddenly it's classed as being an unuseful.

Financial compensation is given out for personal injuries with no financial hardship attached to them. Stress, for example, can be factored into compensations.

So do you care to explain how a monetary value will be determined in cases of peronal injury and how you would justify the figure your claiming for to a judge?

arcon5

They couldn't board it up by 5PM, it's not the end of the world and additional inconvenience caused as a result is nothing but that of your imagination.

Your argument is like saying 'lets get 3 quotes and make them pay the most expensive one as punishment'

cheesymax wrote: »

Ah perfect. You've just wandered aimlessly past the whole point and stated exactly what hasn't happened.

The problem was not "rectified with minimal inconvenience" . If it had been the window would have been boarded up by 5pm as agreed.

The glazing company have even agreed to this and provided the refund as deemed appropriate.

So again, why should an insurance company benefit from our inconvience ? The inconvenience of the window being boarded up late ?

cheesymax

arcon5 wrote: »

So because you don't agree with what others are saying, suddenly it's classed as being an unuseful.



So do you care to explain how a monetary value will be determined in cases of peronal injury and how you would justify the figure your claiming for to a judge?

I'll answer that easily. The figure claimed for, would be the figure the glazing company agreed to refund and did refund. And the arguement would be, that out of all the parties concerned, I am the one who has been inconvenienced by the failure to show.

cheesymax

arcon5 wrote: »

They couldn't board it up by 5PM, it's not the end of the world and additional inconvenience caused as a result is nothing but that of your imagination.

Your argument is like saying 'lets get 3 quotes and make them pay the most expensive one as punishment'

Amazingly, you still haven't told me why the insurance company should be the ones to receive the " gesture of goodwill "

You conveniently seem to be sidestepping the fact that refund has already been given by the glaziers.

DWatts

arcon5 wrote: »

So because you don't agree with what others are saying, suddenly it's classed as being an unuseful.

Not at all. Read the last few pages of the topic and try and tell me people were trying to help the OP.

I feel like I'm trying to police the forum or something. I'm just making the point that as soon as people decided they weren't going to get their point across (whether their point was correct or not is irrelevant), they could have just left it and been civil. Instead:

"This is what society has become, just like America. [...] Perhaps society is now too greedy"

"i think i'm done here, cheesymax is clearly a bit radio rental."

"was it not welcome because it didn't say 'OMG I AGREE, SUE EVERYONE FOR MAX COMPO!'?" etc. etc.

It could have just been left alone, but people couldn't resist. That's why this topic is stupidly long and why I'm still wasting my time posting, for some reason.

arcon5 wrote: »

So do you care to explain how a monetary value will be determined in cases of peronal injury and how you would justify the figure your claiming for to a judge?

Not really, because you already know it happens so you don't need me to explain why. You can take a look here if you really want to. I'm done arguing a (pointless) point that you don't even have any reason to disagree with. I've assisted in pushing this topic far enough off topic as it is.

bowdengr37

I asked the question 'Why, when the OP found out that the glazing firm weren't going to board up the window by 5pm, didn't the OP phone another emergency 24hr glazing firm?

Could the OP answer that please?

I don't want to appear confrontational, but at that time the initial glazing firm wouldn't have been able to charge anything as they hadn't done anything. The OP would have been able to get another firm to board up the window. After all, cost didn't really matter because the council's insurance were paying.

arcon5

DWatts wrote: »

Not really, because you already know it happens so you don't need me to explain why. You can take a look here if you really want to. I'm done arguing a (pointless) point that you don't even have any reason to disagree with. I've assisted in pushing this topic far enough off topic as it is.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Thats class! Your backup your points by linking to a 'no win, no fee' website.

It doesn't explain how to put a monetary figure on the claim though so hardly relevant. Even something like emotional distress has to be assessed to decide on a monetary value.

arcon5

cheesymax wrote: »

Amazingly, you still haven't told me why the insurance company should be the ones to receive the " gesture of goodwill "

You conveniently seem to be sidestepping the fact that refund has already been given by the glaziers.

I haven't side stepped anything.

Anything to do with price is nothing to do with you. The glazier has no obligation to you, their contract is with the insurance company. They was unable to perform the required duties at an agreed time and therefore as a gesture of goodwill offered a discount (keeping their customer happy ie the insurance people).