We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Rights against a consumer..
Comments
-
The customer is not the one to be chasing (apart from anything else, they may be penniless!)
Go for compensation from the employer.0 -
this is spot onThe employer has a duty of care to its employees, .
the employer has a duty to provide safe working conditions for employees; moreover it is reasonably forseeable that this type of event may occur therefore the employer should be ensuring the health and safety of employers using appriate technology eg sound limiters.
As there is no contractual relationship between the employee (your friend) and the customer the customer is not liable; the employer, however is.
Union?
and, as DOUGLAS (rough username) says in post 10 the technology is there...
Have to disagree with Arcon on this one - it's all down to contractual relationship IMO - it really is up to the employer to use all the avauilable technology to protect employees!Don't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily Dickinson
Janice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0 -
Actually they should do both. Contact the police so they can go after the caller for the alledged assualt and also look into some sort of action against the employer.The customer is not the one to be chasing (apart from anything else, they may be penniless!)
Go for compensation from the employer.0 -
this is spot on
the employer has a duty to provide safe working conditions for employees; moreover it is reasonably forseeable that this type of event may occur therefore the employer should be ensuring the health and safety of employers using appriate technology eg sound limiters.
As there is no contractual relationship between the employee (your friend) and the customer the customer is not liable; the employer, however is.
Union?
and, as DOUGLAS (rough username) says in post 10 the technology is there...
Have to disagree with Arcon on this one - it's all down to contractual relationship IMO - it really is up to the employer to use all the avauilable technology to protect employees!
Nonsense. If I attack somebody in a bar there's no contractual relationship -- i'd still be arrested and dragged through the courts. This is a personal injury case, no contract needs exist. This has nothing to do with contract law, somebody has suffered a permanent injury as a result of this individuals actions.Its wrong that the customer gets protection for what you guys say is a criminal offence
Ive worked in the same call centre before moving on, they use softphones and awful headsets, they use these http : / / www . plantronics . com/us/product/supraplus-wideband?skuId=sku4780014
Ive suggested to my friend that she go to the police, but she is scared of getting sacked.
You may be able to go after the employer as others suggest.. in the meantime she better start finding alternate employment as i'm betting she won't last long in the workplace0 -
The customer is not the one to be chasing (apart from anything else, they may be penniless!)
Go for compensation from the employer.
The customer was the one who thought nothing of assaulting someone. In my opinion we need to stop taking pity on them and punish them for their actions. Regardless of how much money they have.0 -
The customer was the one who thought nothing of assaulting someone. In my opinion we need to stop taking pity on them and punish them for their actions. Regardless of how much money they have.
I agree.
It's all well and good going after the employer, but not only is it likely ops job will disappear in the not so distant future, the darn customer who has done this is likely to continue doing it until she is stopped!
I'd be working with the employer (this could also include having them install said hardware/s'ware to prevent this in future) to pursue the individual for everything they have! With any luck they will be a home owner giving op more enforcement options.0 -
The customer was the one who thought nothing of assaulting someone. In my opinion we need to stop taking pity on them and punish them for their actions. Regardless of how much money they have.
Don't see any one urging "pity" for the culprit here!
The question asked by the OP was which party to take action against.
Assuming the action wanted is compensation for the deafness, then the employer needs to be pursued for that, and as a secondary, by all means see if the customer can be dealt with by the police on the assault allegation.0 -
She works for an inbound only call centre, Basically you call in about your accounts. She says many people swear at her and get kids screaming down the phone at her.
As for the employer they give her "Ear muffs" like covers the the phone headset.
From what she says the doctors think its permanent.
Hang on. I was with you until this point. What was the actual damage to her ears?
Noise induced hearing loss is rarely permanent. If it had been sustained, over a number of months, even years, then it is possible, but not as a one-off. The loudspeakers in telephone headsets have a limited capacity and are unlikely to cause serious damage. Even people close to large explosions have the hearing back with a week or two, at the very most. In rare cases, it might take up to eight weeks for the tympanic membrane to heal itself. Yes, in some circumstances it might be permanent, but we are not talking about explosive sound. Such damage is caused by a sudden and severe change in air pressure, it is unlikely that a telephone headpiece would cause that much damage. The other aspect is nerve damage or damage to the fibres in the ear canals, this damage is caused by impulse sound and the air horn blast is not impulse noise, but that rarely happens from one sound burst, it typically has to happen over a sustained period. Any effects from an air horn blasted down the telephone is most likely to cause immediate, but temporary, pain in the ear and may leave the victim with a slight headache for a day or two at the most.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Hang on. I was with you until this point. What was the actual damage to her ears?
Noise induced hearing loss is rarely permanent. If it had been sustained, over a number of months, even years, then it is possible, but not as a one-off. The loudspeakers in telephone headsets have a limited capacity and are unlikely to cause serious damage. Even people close to large explosions have the hearing back with a week or two, at the very most. In rare cases, it might take up to eight weeks for the tympanic membrane to heal itself. Yes, in some circumstances it might be permanent, but we are not talking about explosive sound. Such damage is caused by a sudden and severe change in air pressure, it is unlikely that a telephone headpiece would cause that much damage. The other aspect is nerve damage or damage to the fibres in the ear canals, this damage is caused by impulse sound and the air horn blast is not impulse noise, but that rarely happens from one sound burst, it typically has to happen over a sustained period. Any effects from an air horn blasted down the telephone is most likely to cause immediate, but temporary, pain in the ear and may leave the victim with a slight headache for a day or two at the most.
That's a good point actually.
With regard to the bit in bold... if the employer did defend any action against them, I wonder if this could be a basis for their defence..0 -
The route would be vis the empolyer.
I was involved in anasty accident at work. NOT the fault of the company i worked for but a contractor on site.
COSH and H&SE were involved and i was advised to claim from my empolyer as they had the overiding resposibility for me while at work and insurance to cover these matters. My employers (who i had only been working for a week or so) were fine, they didnt care as it was not them that had to pay out... was the insurance.
They then took the third party to court to cover the losses. (which i belive were not recouped as the contactor just bankruped himself to get out of paying) But as my emplyers said... thats what the insurance is for.
However this being said i do thing the level of noise transmitted would not have confirmed perm hearing loss as perv posters have stated. This would need to be looked into.
(please excuse my spelling today word is not working and being severely dyslexic i normaly only post after typing in word, spell checking and then pasting in..so sorry)Please note I have a cognitive disability - as such my wording can be a bit off, muddled, misspelt or in some cases i can miss out some words totally...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards