Might have to go Bankrupt because of a claim bought against me :(

debt_doctor

Seems like you have fallen victim to 'Ambulance chasing' solicitors, who probably text this guy saying"......been injured in the last 6 years, you could be owed £££££"

It seems incredible that the only reason they are chasing you is because they feel they would get nothing from the employer! You can't just fancy having a pop at someone else because the alleged real culprit is a bit skint!

When do you run out of time to file a defence? Did you end up getting the standard claim pack with the admission, defence, counterclaim and acknowledgment of service forms?

DD

shan7-8-6

debt_doctor wrote: »

Seems like you have fallen victim to 'Ambulance chasing' solicitors, who probably text this guy saying"......been injured in the last 6 years, you could be owed £££££"

It seems incredible that the only reason they are chasing you is because they feel they would get nothing from the employer! You can't just fancy having a pop at someone else because the alleged real culprit is a bit skint!

When do you run out of time to file a defence? Did you end up getting the standard claim pack with the admission, defence, counterclaim and acknowledgment of service forms?

DD

I was surprised the Judge actually let them add me to case based on what they had said!

The county court has still to send me out the documents, I went down myself and they said they were running behind with paperwork and that it would be sent out to me soon! I have 10 days to submit my defence (25th July).

debt_doctor

It never ceases to amaze me the strange things that DJ s do.

I'm sure others on here and I will compile your defence by the end of the week.

DD

PasturesNew

Would your business public liability insurance cover any of this?

Mouse1812

To prove negligence they have to prove THREE things. Firstly that you did owe a duty of care, secondly that you breached that duty and thirdly that the injury was a direct result of that breach. ALL three must be proved.

This is quite a big subject, so I will just add bits over the next few days

Starting with Duty of Care:

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure someone. It is insufficient that someone is injured, it must have been reasonably foreseeable that they might be.

Some risks are blindingly obvious, others are remote. The test of reasonableness is measured against what an ordinary competent person would foresee.

Therefore the first question must be:

Did you know, or ought you have known, that injury was likely?

This is possibly where the risk assessment requirements of the quoted regulations come in. I had a quick look at the regulations and for now lets assume they do impose a duty of care - we can dispute that later.

I do not see however that you would have been required to write this down, just to have considered it.

Think about it, I bet you did. You were concerned about the weight, you and a big strong mate went to help and you used pallet trucks. Why did you do all that? I would have just employed the firm and left them to it... You did so because you assessed the risk, subconsciously perhaps.

If you develop your defence along these lines you may end up with “yes” I owed a duty, but “No” I did not breach that duty because we did xyz the minimise the risk.


There are three components to “duty of Care” which we should explore before moving on the breach however. I’ll come back with these later.

In the meantime, lets leave the iffy doubts we have about the “injury” to last.

PippaGirl_2

Mouse its like a gripping novel I can't wait for the next installment

kation

Reading the paperwork, and this forum - I would say that it is quite a complex situation that needs knocking on the head with a shot or two from a well aimed solicitor.

Sorry to say this will cost you a few £.

However better to spend a few £ now, than potentially many thousands later (+costs!). Especially as these may not be included in any bankruptcy you may be planning.

FWIW - my take is that it is the rental firms liability 100%. If they hire their staff out then either:
(1) they are negligent in ensuring that they are not covered by their own liability
(2) negligent in now ensuring that their staff are covered by yours (e.g. by taking a photocopy of your insurance cert.)

shan7-8-6

PasturesNew wrote: »

Would your business public liability insurance cover any of this?

I didn't have business insurance, that was a one off my brother in law told me about (he's a dentist). I'm hoping my home insurance will cover it (since it has public liability), they are going to ring me tomorrow and let me know if I'm covered, hopefully I am, I'll keep you all posted!

Mouse1812 - The only reason we went to load the stuff ourself was because we didn't think they would be willing to load and unload for us (since they would have to be taken into a storage unit and moved from a joinery), hence me and my friend getting our hands dirty to to speak lol I was a student at the time (I dropped out, but might go back this September hopefully!).

Kation - If I had some £££ I would have spent it, but trust me I'm broke as a joke lol

Mouse1812

shan7-8-6 wrote: »

I'm hoping my home insurance will cover it (since it has public liability), they are going to ring me tomorrow and let me know if I'm covered, hopefully I am, I'll keep you all posted!

Any news? before I give you (and pippa) chapter 2.

Mouse1812

In seeking to make you a joint defendant they claimed that “The duties” in the provisions of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 “are not solely directed towards employers”.

The duties are here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/3/made

Virtually every line starts with “Every employer shall...” These regulation relate to employers and self employed individuals.

The Regulations start with

3(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of ...
3(2) Every self employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of ...

Both go to

a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

Now, I think we are all happy that you were not an employer, so you can strike out regulation 3(1).

However were you “Self employed”? If you were, then you could be caught by b) under Regulation 3(2).

Hence my post last night - did you have a duty of care?

Mouse1812 wrote: »

Did you know, or ought you have known, that injury was likely?

This is possibly where the risk assessment requirements of the quoted regulations come in. I had a quick look at the regulations and for now lets assume they do impose a duty of care - we can dispute that later.