Compo

peachyprice

DWatts wrote: »

I never said there was a legal reason for compensation. The compensation would be, at best, for inconvenience.

If someone drove a van into your parked car, wrote it off, and it took their insurance company a month to replace it - it wouldn't be unreasonable to at least want some compensation for inconvenience, And you would quite rightly be entitled for compensation for the inconvenience for being without your car for a month due to no fault of your own. A completely different scenario altogether.


for example. By the logic of most people here, as long as the situation was eventually resolved (and you were financially no worse off), any attempt to get compensation for said inconvenience is just greedy money grabbing - which is ridiculous. No, just relistic

Nothing happened, fortunately, but he could possibly get the insurance company to 'compensate' him for the increased risk to his family from having an open window which was supposed to be boarded up. No insurance company would give compensation for something that hasn't happened.

Leaving aside the naivety of you beleiving that any insurance company would give compensation of something that didn't happen, this is not what the OP thinks he is entitled to.

He thinks he should be given value of the reduction he negotiated on behalf of the contractors insurance company, which is equally naive.

arcon5

DWatts wrote: »

That's kind of like saying if your windscreen is smashed and the insurer is taking too long getting it replaced, that if you don't fix it yourself then you're just lazy and clearly not that worried about having a windscreen.


Cheesymax, while most people here (such as above) are spectacularly missing the point - they are right. Your claim would not be with the glazing company, it would be with the insurance company. At best you could say that you were left overnight with an open window with a child in the house. You might get some compensation for that, you might not - I wouldn't say there's a legal ground for you to though.

Unless the insurance company specifically said they would have the window boarded up for that night?

No it wouldn't. Any claim would be against the contractor who caused the damage. Its just the insurance company are there to indemnify the contractor and to act on their behalf.

What point are we missing exactly?

DWatts

peachyprice wrote: »

Leaving aside the naivety of you beleiving that any insurance company would give compensation of something that didn't happen, this is not what the OP thinks he is entitled to.

He thinks he should be given value of the reduction he negotiated on behalf of the contractors insurance company, which is equally naive.

You should probably read my posts properly. I'm not saying it's at all likely he would get something from the insurance company, and I'm agreeing that he won't get the negotiated reduction.

In fact, you might just want to go back to my first post where I said everyone who had replied were right, albeit missing the greater point being made that the OP believes he should be paid some compensation for the delay. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to reply to my post saying you're basically correct with "well you're wrong!".

Hintza

cheesymax wrote: »

Brett and Hintza, I take it you're the type of people who take the !!!! behind your computer because you're not happy within yourselves but don't know how to deal with it. Find yourselves. And think of the children !!

What has the presence of an 8 month old got to do with any of this, totally irrelevent but you obviously think using this helps justify you claim for compo.

cheesymax

McKneff wrote: »

If Id been bothered about the security and the telephone call at 5pm (the nights are light) Id have either boarded the chuffing window up
my self or reglazed it myself then sent an invoice to the contractor.

Aye great point. I actually had a number of spare window panes and boards laying about the spare room, but none of them quite fit right !!

Thanks for your chuffing advice though.

bobajob_1966

cheesymax wrote: »

Aye great point. I actually had a number of spare window panes and boards laying about the spare room, but none of them quite fit right !!

Thanks for your chuffing advice though.

Are you honestly saying that you could not find anything to put over the window for the night?

brettcta

if i had an 8 month year old in the house and was suitably concerned about his/her safety, i'd go and get something to cover it over for the evening. i'm sure you'd have done the same if the concern was that great.

y'know, just sayin'

DCFC79

Was good to catch up with the latest on this thread, compo is for when you have been out of pocket from an event so cant see how you have a grievance.

pimento

cheesymax wrote: »

Halibut, I appreciate your post for trying to clear up, the "legal" side of this.

However, no one has explained to me yet why the contractor should benefit from our inconvenience.

I have not asked for compensation. Lets just say, compensation was the only word I could think of to best explain the situation. I do think though that the contractor should pass on the reduction in cost to ourselves , as the reduction in cost was for our inconvenience.

Brett and Hintza, I take it you're the type of people who take the !!!! behind your computer because you're not happy within yourselves but don't know how to deal with it. Find yourselves. And think of the children !!

Wait until he gets his insurance renewal quote. They'll have loaded it for the claim and he'll lose out in the long run.

Just be grateful you were home to see it was the council gardener that did it. You'd have struggled to prove it afterwards.

cheesymax

pimento wrote: »

Wait until he gets his insurance renewal quote. They'll have loaded it for the claim and he'll lose out in the long run.

Just be grateful you were home to see it was the council gardener that did it. You'd have struggled to prove it afterwards.

Very true, which is unfortuate. It is a large company though so I'm sure it won't have a great affect.

Funny you say that because the guy was walking away mind you and claimed he hasdn't noticed it.

I've moved on from the post you quoted mind you and realise that it is insurer who has benefited from the price reduction.

Still doesn't make it right, in fact even worse that it is a probably a large corporation.