Compo

arcon5

cheesymax wrote: »

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.

You clearly didn't even read the post you replied to.

It all comes down to the fact you have no plausable case to justify you being financially compensated for this.

If the glazier gave a discount/refund to their customer (insurance company) because they failed to do the work at said date then thats between them. Why wouldn't the glazier want to keep their customer happy by offering them a gesture of goodwill and therefore potentially winning more work in the future?

cheesymax

bowdengr37 wrote: »

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.

Can do. In hindsight I definitely should have. But at the time I was led to believe that the contractors credit card had been charged. After discussing the boarding matter with the glaziers, I was unable to get in touch with the contractor rep because they'd left work.

And thinking back. That was actually the 3rd 24hr glaziers i'd rung from the yello pages. The previous two saying they couldn't do the work that day !!

DWatts

arcon5 wrote: »

: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.

Ok, I'm going to take the bait.

1)People get monetary compensation for events that have no financial repercussions to them. You seemed to be disagreeing with that, hence I linked you to a website of a company that does just that.

2)They claim money for things like emotional distress - and you even seem to be agreeing with that now.

3) So the statement that monetary compensation is only ever awarded if someone has a monetary loss is incorrect.

What point do you disagree on? You seem to be agreeing with me yet saying I'm wrong at the same time?