Pcn

poppasmurf_bewdley

Apples2 - I don't know how you will sleep tonight! The stress must be appalling. At least four Mogadon tablets with a glass of hot milk for you tonight.

Then you can dream of all that lovely claims money you could get from Pinochio.

GAZ237

Pinochio has gone quite.

Guess they have tripped over their nose.

alastairq

Personally, I think there is a point here.

Throughout our normal daily lives, where compensation is involved, there are elements that also include stress, worry, anxiety, etc..as well as 'physical' claims, or material damage claims.

Whilst on the one hand we complain about the effect claims for [spurious?] physical and mental damage have on motor insurance premiums....on the other hand, if claiming for injuries, etc, if one slips on the floor at Tesco's is entirely another matter?

I suspect most people probably like to have the opportunity to acquire more cash.

I don't know about any of you lot, but I would view such additional claims reasons, as a form of 'punishment' imposed on an 'authority', for not exercising more care in their dealings with the general public?

Very often, the only way to get systems reviewed in such vast, mindless bureaucracies is to hit them in the wallet.

Consider this?

Most of those who lurk on here at one time or another may well be vulnerable [if in isolation] to simply 'paying-up' regardless, with the attitude of 'it must be right'....

A simple 'apology' doesn't really hack-it, in my view...especially as the 'authority' probably pays someone to deal with that sort of situation, face-to-face? [Customer care/relations?}

Banks nowadays often include a sweetener for 'inconvenience' caused by their mistakes, no matter how trivial.

But Authorities [ or, the management responsible] tend to hide behind a wall of bureaucracy to literally pee complainants off.

In the instance above, the complainant will have been put to inconvenience, simply trying to prove their 'innocence'.....

An inconvenience which should not have occurred in the first place?

It's a bit like 'direct debit?'

One is protected by hte DD rules, against mistakes.

However, in the first place , it is up to the customer to identify the mistake.

Not the bank.

Or the body claiming the moneys via DD.

So, in cases like the above, where an Authority makes a mistake of this serious nature.....an apology and an inconvenience sweetener might have been more appropriate?

smashingyour...

alastairq wrote: »

Personally, I think there is a point here.

Throughout our normal daily lives, where compensation is involved, there are elements that also include stress, worry, anxiety, etc..as well as 'physical' claims, or material damage claims.

Whilst on the one hand we complain about the effect claims for [spurious?] physical and mental damage have on motor insurance premiums....on the other hand, if claiming for injuries, etc, if one slips on the floor at Tesco's is entirely another matter?d

I suspect most people probably like to have the opportunity to acquire more cash.

I don't know about any of you lot, but I would view such additional claims reasons, as a form of 'punishment' imposed on an 'authority', for not exercising more care in their dealings with the general public?

Very often, the only way to get systems reviewed in such vast, mindless bureaucracies is to hit them in the wallet.

Consider this?

Most of those who lurk on here at one time or another may well be vulnerable [if in isolation] to simply 'paying-up' regardless, with the attitude of 'it must be right'....

A simple 'apology' doesn't really hack-it, in my view...especially as the 'authority' probably pays someone to deal with that sort of situation, face-to-face? [Customer care/relations?}

Banks nowadays often include a sweetener for 'inconvenience' caused by their mistakes, no matter how trivial.

But Authorities [ or, the management responsible] tend to hide behind a wall of bureaucracy to literally pee complainants off.

In the instance above, the complainant will have been put to inconvenience, simply trying to prove their 'innocence'.....

An inconvenience which should not have occurred in the first place?

It's a bit like 'direct debit?'

One is protected by hte DD rules, against mistakes.

However, in the first place , it is up to the customer to identify the mistake.

Not the bank.

Or the body claiming the moneys via DD.

So, in cases like the above, where an Authority makes a mistake of this serious nature.....an apology and an inconvenience sweetener might have been more appropriate?

What are you on dude?

CHR15

alastairq wrote: »

So, in cases like the above, where an Authority makes a mistake of this serious nature

You have to be joking?

Your posts demonstrates perfectly the Compensation Culture the rest of us hate so much.
People of your ilk do not affect the companies themselves, you affect the rest of us.
The Company simply hikes costs to cover all the Compo Vultures so we all pay more.

pinochio

pinochio wrote: »

I received a PCN 33e violation of a bus lane. It was a mistake they got the first two letters of the registration of a VW wrong so involving my car which is a Peugeot, and they've cancelled it and apologised.

However the PCN appears to be false as the offence address given and checking the street on google maps it doesn't appear to be the same street as that in the photos and both being in a residential area neither would be suitable for a bus route let alone room for a bus lane. I think the whole PCN has been hashed up. What claim have I for the anxiety receiving this PCN has caused.

The only time I've been in the area of occurrence was way back in 1957/8 travelling by train and bus. I realise I have no claim for a mistake but the PCN appears to be a false submission by the operator as I cannot see the purpose of taking a photo of a moving vehicle in a permit parking area if the offence was for parking he/she would have to have a photo of the vehicle parked not moving away well out of any parking bay to have a case.
=

THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART TO ALL THOSE WITH INANE REPLIES. I JUST HOPE YOU DON'T GET ONE AND ACTUALLY PAY THE FINE THEN TRY CLAIMING BACK. THE GENERAL IDEA IS TO KICK ENOUGH !!!!!! TO GET IT CHANGED ABOUT ISSUES OF FALSE PCN's WHATEVER ISSUED FOR. ONE DAY IT MIGHT HELP THAT I FIGHT YOUR CORNER BUT INSTEAD I'LL PASS ON THE OTHERSIDE OF THE ROAD.

smashingyour...

pinochio wrote: »

THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART TO ALL THOSE WITH INANE REPLIES. I JUST HOPE YOU DON'T GET ONE AND ACTUALLY PAY THE FINE THEN TRY CLAIMING BACK. THE GENERAL IDEA IS TO KICK ENOUGH !!!!!! TO GET IT CHANGED ABOUT ISSUES OF FALSE PCN's WHATEVER ISSUED FOR. ONE DAY IT MIGHT HELP THAT I FIGHT YOUR CORNER BUT INSTEAD I'LL PASS ON THE OTHERSIDE OF THE ROAD.

No need to shout, you may get sued for causing anxiety.

poppasmurf_bewdley

smashingyour... wrote: »

No need to shout, you may get sued for causing anxiety.

I've heard Apples2 has already booked into the Sanatorium for a course of therapy because of Pinochio! Me - I'm stressing out because Pinochio is pretending to be Pinocchio. How much is that worth?

alastairq

CHR15 wrote: »

You have to be joking?

Your posts demonstrates perfectly the Compensation Culture the rest of us hate so much.
People of your ilk do not affect the companies themselves, you affect the rest of us.
The Company simply hikes costs to cover all the Compo Vultures so we all pay more.

Splendid.....and long may it continue.

alastairq

smashingyour... wrote: »

What are you on dude?

Nothing more than cynicism, brought on by age, and reality.

Oh...and I guess I care a lot more for the underdog?