Pothole - Personal Injury... claim?

Johno100

Mercdriver wrote: »

So you think that anyone who is kept away from work because a council was negligent should sit and suffer by themselves, take loss of earnings, get near as damn all in sickness benefit (even though they have paid for that through tax and NI) and do nothing about it? Dream on!

He works for the council, do you think they only pay SSP?

Mercdriver

Johno100 wrote: »

He works for the council, do you think they only pay SSP?

Find an employer that will pay unlimited sick pay for an unlimited period of time. When I had an operation and was then knocked from my bike, I ran out of company sick pay fairly quickly, despite having built up 11 years of service with my employer. Company sick pay is not open ended. Mine lasted 26 weeks full pay 26 half pay, then I was on SSP/incapacity benefit as SSP is not necessarily paid beyond a certain period.

In addition, when you put in a claim, this money is taken from your loss of earnings including any incapacity benefit that is paid to you. Until this has been paid back, you pay higher tax through having your tax code amended by HMRC until you have paid back your incapacity benefit. There's no thing as a free lunch, but having contributed via tax and national insurance, you also end up paying back every penny following illness.

For Chumlee, I was responding to the belief that no one should sue government, local or national when that government is negligent. The answer is of course one should. Why should you take 100% of the hit through no fault of your own?

Johno100

Mercdriver wrote: »

Find an employer that will pay unlimited sick pay for an unlimited period of time. When I had an operation and was then knocked from my bike, I ran out of company sick pay fairly quickly, despite having built up 11 years of service with my employer. Company sick pay is not open ended. Mine lasted 26 weeks full pay 26 half pay, then I was on SSP/incapacity benefit as SSP is not necessarily paid beyond a certain period.

Doubt the OP's going to be off work for 12 months plus, yours seems like an extreme example.

ChumLee

Mercdriver wrote: »

Find an employer that will pay unlimited sick pay for an unlimited period of time. When I had an operation and was then knocked from my bike, I ran out of company sick pay fairly quickly, despite having built up 11 years of service with my employer. Company sick pay is not open ended. Mine lasted 26 weeks full pay 26 half pay, then I was on SSP/incapacity benefit as SSP is not necessarily paid beyond a certain period.

In addition, when you put in a claim, this money is taken from your loss of earnings including any incapacity benefit that is paid to you. Until this has been paid back, you pay higher tax through having your tax code amended by HMRC until you have paid back your incapacity benefit. There's no thing as a free lunch, but having contributed via tax and national insurance, you also end up paying back every penny following illness.

For Chumlee, I was responding to the belief that no one should sue government, local or national when that government is negligent. The answer is of course one should. Why should you take 100% of the hit through no fault of your own?

But in this case it's appears to be the OPs fault.

CSales

ChumLee wrote: »

But in this case it's appears to be the OPs fault.

Disagree. I'm not negligent here, and chances are the council is not, so who's assumes liability for the accident? My answer, having read through the replies is 'no one'. It was an unfortunate accident and there appears to be no other reason for it than losing control going over a recently formed pothole. End of, really.

AdrianC

CSales wrote: »

Disagree. I'm not negligent here

You don't believe you're negligent, but you don't recall the actual incident.

and chances are the council is not, so who's assumes liability for the accident? My answer, having read through the replies is 'no one'. It was an unfortunate accident and there appears to be no other reason for it than losing control going over a recently formed pothole. End of, really.

Well, quite. A road user failed to take into account clearly visible road conditions and - as a direct result - crashed and was injured.

If the road user was paying more attention and travelling at a speed more suitable to his vehicle and that road surface, then would the incident have happened? So...?

custardy

AdrianC wrote: »

You don't believe you're negligent, but you don't recall the actual incident.



Well, quite. A road user failed to take into account clearly visible road conditions and - as a direct result - crashed and was injured.

If the road user was paying more attention and travelling at a speed more suitable to his vehicle and that road surface, then would the incident have happened? So...?

Were you there?
You seem to know everything that happened.
The OP cant remember,so where are you getting yours from?

AdrianC

custardy wrote: »

Were you there?
You seem to know everything that happened.
The OP cant remember,so where are you getting yours from?

From what the OP has told us, mixed in with a bit of common sense and reality. No more, no less.

custardy

AdrianC wrote: »

From what the OP has told us, mixed in with a bit of common sense and reality. No more, no less.

Common sense?
So no 3rd party involved? you know that for a fact?

ChumLee

custardy wrote: »

Common sense?
So no 3rd party involved? you know that for a fact?

The evidence suggest not.

Can you ever accept cyclists get it wrong?