Fuming over accident

DevCoder

If you wish me to clarify any "jargon" then just ask and I'll explain a complaints procedure, resolution and what deadlocked grievances are.

hollydays

krisdorey wrote: »

If you wish me to clarify any "jargon" then just ask and I'll explain a complaints procedure, resolution and what deadlocked grievances are.

I'm not interested.

But it's simple good manners not to try to impress with jargon( I reference the plain English campaign)

DevCoder

So either educate yourself with the terms that most people will use when offering advice, learn the appropriate procedures and laws/ regulations so you can advise people as to what they can legally request or do, or stop giving false advice to people.

hollydays

krisdorey wrote: »

Because what I ( and others) have stated is correct, we may use "jargon" ( you also used jargon when mentioning subject access requests) but at least we have used it in a correct manner to address the op's concerns.

As you will know if the read the thread, I mentioned subject access requests , because others claimed the op had no right to cctv footage.. They do.

DevCoder

If the op's don't understand the jargon used then they will ask for clarification. The jargon is to ensure the op follows the appropriate course for whatever action is required.

hollydays

krisdorey wrote: »

If the op's don't understand the jargon used then they will ask for clarification. The jargon is to ensure the op follows the appropriate course for whatever action is required.

The way the op has been bullied on here, why would they ask?

DevCoder

hollydays wrote: »

As you will know if the read the thread, I mentioned subject access requests , because others claimed the op had no right to cctv footage.. They doo..

We have already been over this, the op has no right to cctv in regards to their post 14. You then decided to insult me and say I was talking rubbish in regards to this and that a dsar could be enforced.

DevCoder

hollydays wrote: »

The way the op has been bullied on here, why would they ask?

By who?

Not me, my advice has been correct and been acknowledged as such by the op. I then proceeded to wish the op the best and outlined a minimum response I would expect to the relevant complaint put forward, that wasn't an all guns blazing complaint approach ( which would cloud the merit able complaint with a lot of things which aren't factually correct).

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

Disagree. A breach of safety is a breach.

I think it's irrelevant the size and " importance" of the company, leisure centres are often privately owned , are you saying incompetence should be ignored depending on status?

Youre obviously very mercenary.

Personally there are certain organisations I would not dream of seeking financial compensation from e.g. A charity, a church, a school etc.

To me a leisure centre that serves the local community is in the same bracket.

The kid seems fine with no lasting damage. Seeking financial compensation for an accident that could have easily been avoided by the parent just holding the hands of their daughter seems wrong.

On a side note to get the damage the kid has got then they must have been running. I'm a bit sick of parents who let their kids run around indoors in public places. It's a reception of a leisure centre not a playground.

DevCoder

To be fair jreacher its amazing how much damage can be done in a normal slip, if the ops child was falling forward then whole body weight is focused on the impact area, so I wouldn't assume the child was running.