Jump to content

My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!


Sledge

Recommended Posts

Hah, yeah my girlfriend ran into the back of a 4x4 the other day at about 5mph. My car was a write off and theirs had a bit of a scratch! Coincidently the day we got the claim for whiplash through from the lady driver there was a feature about the rise in spurious claims for whiplash on Womans Hour. Might be nothing, might be something but it's sad you can claim for a non-existent injury and that insurance companies just shell out rather than trying to fight it. Something like 10% of the cost of peoples premiums cover this in the UK!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 24.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
My solicitor didn't get me anything for PTS. <_<

 

But I actually *did* have fairly serious whiplash, had to have over a week off work, miss a TA training weekend, reschedule a camping trip with my (then) girlfriend, had to have my desk and work ergonomically redesigned when I went back (not that it shouldn't have been ergonomically designed in the first place, but what are you gonna do?)

 

And I still only got two grand.

Now you're getting my goat.

 

Just the fact that you expect something for PTS or the fact that your solicitor would try, is making my blood boil!

 

What was the £2000 actually for? Eh, eh?

 

Did it actually, pay for anything, remotely related to your injury?

 

Did it make your neck better?

 

Once upon a time, an extra weeks holiday was unheard of & missing things was tough! You had a stiff neck & got over it,,,,,,,,,,,,, now, £2000 ain't enough! :angry::angry::angry:

 

Don't say another word, just don't! I'll pull the trigger! I swear I will! :headbutt:

 

 

Greg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hah, yeah my girlfriend ran into the back of a 4x4 the other day at about 5mph. My car was a write off and theirs had a bit of a scratch! Coincidently the day we got the claim for whiplash through from the lady driver there was a feature about the rise in spurious claims for whiplash on Womans Hour. Might be nothing, might be something but it's sad you can claim for a non-existent injury and that insurance companies just shell out rather than trying to fight it. Something like 10% of the cost of peoples premiums cover this in the UK!

That's it, I'm logging off. I can't take any more of this!

 

I'm going to get my blood pressure taken & sue you all for negligently contributing to something that will get me a few quid. :lol:

 

 

Greg.

 

PS. Has anyone else noticed how the 3 angry emoticons in my last post, appear to be shaking their heads? Or Am I so furious my vision has gone funny? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you're getting my goat.

 

Just the fact that you expect something for PTS or the fact that your solicitor would try, is making my blood boil!

 

What was the £2000 actually for? Eh, eh?

 

Did it actually, pay for anything, remotely related to your injury?

 

Did it make your neck better?

 

Once upon a time, an extra weeks holiday was unheard of & missing things was tough! You had a stiff neck & got over it,,,,,,,,,,,,, now, £2000 ain't enough! :angry::angry::angry:

 

Don't say another word, just don't! I'll pull the trigger! I swear I will! :headbutt:

 

 

Greg.

 

 

I take it you didn't get a chance to read all of my post before your red mist came down.

 

I lost over a week's wages from work, lost TA pay, had my car written off for a fraction of its value by the insurance company, lost my insurance excess, lost the deposit on the camp site booking, upset my girlfriend (no money can cover that), had to borrow money to buy a replacement car that cost more then 4 times what the insurance had paid out for mine, etc, etc....

 

But the point I was trying to make was that the solicitor my insurance company sent me didn't tack on anything for PTS or whatever. It was a reply to your post above where you claim people are making false claims. I was trying to point out that in my experience, there wasn't any padding. I ended up settling out of court for about £1700 - maybe I could have got more in court as a result of a totally faultless accident (some dozy woman was driving too fast in the rain and paying more attention to the crying child in her back seat than to the road and didn't stop at the queue of cars waiting for the lights in time) which is *STILL* making my insurance premiums go up today, more than 3 years later. Even though it wasn't my fault, I still have to pay over £100 per year more for 5 years or something, until the claim is too old to have to be declared.

 

In short, £1700 didn't go very far towards covering my total out-of-pocket expenses as a result of one bad driver's actions. So take your high horse, and shove it up your *albartroth*! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Main Dealers. I just spent 50 minutes trying to pay for my car and get a letter to drive to Bahrain. Every time I went to get something, he would ask for another thing. Then it's pay for this, *comes back*, pay for that *comes back* we need this. *comes back* oh and what about this? *comes back*. Right you need to get the letter yourself.

 

I don't think so buddy!

 

I aint paying all that coin for you to make me go see the police and all the other government people I need a stamp from. Means I have to drive to Khobar after work again, wait until it opens at 4pm and then get the letter for some more money. All this because I want to go visit the US Navy base in Bahrain and buy some new boots. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Dealers... Annoying.

 

It cost me over £750 to have the locks changed on my car after theives broke into my house and stole the spare key, amongst other things. Had to go to a main dealer, since third-party garages aren't allowed to order locking systems and recode keys and whatnots. Replacement keys cost £120 each, plus the cost of the locks, recoding the alarm system and about 4 hours' labour. It probably didn't take 'em that long...

 

The house insurance refused to pay for it, saying that the car was nothing to do with them. The car insurance wouldn't pay, saying there was nothing wrong with the car. I asked them if they'd pay if I didn't do it and it was stolen, and they said that if the thieves used the key then I wouldn't be covered.

 

Insurance companies.... Scumbgs. At least burglars, robbers and thieves are honest about being robbers and thieves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Insurance companies.... Scumbgs. At least burglars, robbers and thieves are honest about being robbers and thieves.

 

You and I really need to meet on a skirmish site somewhere.... ;)

 

:rifle:

 

I think we'd get along well. :)

So do I. :D

 

 

Greg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the phonetic alphabet.

 

I once got shouted at by some foolish customer because I had written his initial down incorrectly.

It was N.

 

He had said N for Nike.

 

I had to explain that Mike was the phonetic word for M, chosen specifically to sound nothing like the word November.

 

He just wouldn't accept that it was a valid reason for the mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecution rests.

 

I've had similar mix-ups, I seem to recall, although the details seem to escape me. The story sounds familar though.

 

Edit - oh, and whoever posted the comment about regional variations... There is only *one* correct phonetic alphabet, set out by an international agreement. IIRC, it was last revised in the 1950s, which involved replacing Roger with Romeo, Queen with Quebec (pronounced key-beck), etc. The seemingly American-only version (Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, etc) seems to have been dropped at about the same time.

 

In the unlikely event anyone doesn't know it, the correct version is:

 

Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Uniform, Victor, Whiskey, X-Ray, Yankee, Zulu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceland stir fry packs.

 

Just seen these, thought Id try one. Mistake!

 

Everything comes frozen. That includes the sauce, and it says cook from frozen. So I dumped an S&S flavour ice block into the pan...it melts...slowly.

 

Once thats done, dropped in the noodles that almost completely refused to seperate. The veg included spinach but...its A SINGLE LUMP OF SPINACH! Absolutely inedible. The noodles were flampy and the entire thing was...ugh. Their idea of 'sour' is obviously to make sure the sauce is 30% vinegar.

 

Yeeech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Applying any rules in a stupid manner is, well... stupid. Health and Safety legislation is important but unfortunately seems to fall down to the most officious person available some of the time.

 

That case in particular sparked changes:

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Firefighters...mmon.6149249.jp

Alas, directives like that offered to firemen aren't really worth the paper they're written on.

 

The first time somebody survives but isn't happy and decides to sue the fire service some lawyer will show that the fireman isn't (for example) qualified to decide if it's safe to move an injured person or not, win their client a wheelbarrow full of money and, as a result, more restrictive directives will be enacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is simple.

 

Way back, there was a need for some Health and Safety rules to be put in place to prevent serious problems. Some people were given the job of writing these rules. They wrote them. All was well.

 

Then they needed to keep their jobs, so less essential issues were found that needed new regulations.

 

As time went on, people needed to find more and more spurious justifications for their yearly salary. So now we have rules that say Fire Stations have to have disabled toilets in them (because they're "public buildings" and no-one thought to make an exception) and that hot water taps have to have temperature guages on them so they turn off if the water is too hot, in case someone might burn themselves, etc., and so on...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alas, directives like that offered to firemen aren't really worth the paper they're written on.

 

The first time somebody survives but isn't happy and decides to sue the fire service some lawyer will show that the fireman isn't (for example) qualified to decide if it's safe to move an injured person or not, win their client a wheelbarrow full of money and, as a result, more restrictive directives will be enacted.

 

As a concern this doesn't seem very likely.

 

When was the last time a fire brigade in the UK was sued by someone that got injured by the fire brigade?

 

Also if lax rules could result in the fire brigade being sued then equally overly restrictive rules would result in the same.

 

Hedge - I seriously doubt the hot tap thing is true (it sounds like one of the 'elf and safety myths) and there are disabled people working in the fire service and I'm pretty sure that disabled people visit fire stations:

 

http://www.ndfa.info/

 

Edit: laws for rules as it's not like these things are statutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact here we can see quite sensible advice on where it might be appropriate to limit the temperature of a hot tap automatically:

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/79-5.htm

 

The important points:

- It's for use in care institutions where vulnerable people may burn themselves, in response to actual incidents where this has happened.

- These only need to be fitted if the risk assessment warrants it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a concern this doesn't seem very likely.

 

When was the last time a fire brigade in the UK was sued by someone that got injured by the fire brigade?

 

Also if lax rules could result in the fire brigade being sued then equally overly restrictive rules would result in the same.

 

Not too sure about that.

 

The issue is that when something's left to an individuals discretion they can be liable for anything that occurs as a result of their decision-making.

By contrast, if they follow rules it's much harder to find cause to prosecute anybody.

 

It's an interesting point about taking legal action as a result of negligently poor behaviour.

It might be nice to see a "class action" brought against either the police or a local authority for some failing, although I suspect proving negligence might be something of a minefield.

 

 

FWIW, I don't agree with the whole "H&S people just create more bullsh*t to perpetuate their jobs" thing.

I can say, from personal experience, that the job of a H&S person is NEVER done because, just when you think you've finished whatever you're doing, some *beep* will come along and insist that you consider a new raft of hypothetical situations or that you re-do everything you've already done in a slightly different way.

 

Most H&S people would rather get the written documents done and then spend the rest of their time pottering about in the workplace, reminding people to lift with their legs and keep their back straight, put their hard-hat on and checking the various bits of certification for whatever equipment is in use.

 

Instead they're forced to spend their time in their office responding to random queries for morons who've had some bizarre thought in the bath the previous night and decide that some poor unfortunate H&S man needs to generate a 500 page document that examines every facet of whatever brain-fart the moron had.

 

*EDIT*

Also, FWIW, people seem to have this idea that H&S people just turn up and start telling everybody the way things are going to be in future.

That's not the case at all.

An organisation will only ever hire a H&S person in response to either a legal requirement or because a situation has arisen which needs one.

Most, if not all, of the time when H&S produces "ridiculous" stipluations it's as the result of a bunch of ridiculous requirements which H&S needs to create a solution for.

They don't just pull this stuff out of their asses and insist we do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not too sure about that.

 

The issue is that when something's left to an individuals discretion they can be liable for anything that occurs as a result of their decision-making.

By contrast, if they follow rules it's much harder to find cause to prosecute anybody.

 

Except for the person that made the rules or the fire brigade in general. For example when the Police get sued it's usually the Chief Constable that is the named party. Similarly if a business is negligent in some manner. Interestingly the only cases I can find of the fire brigade being sued are one incident in 1996 where the boss on the ground turned off a sprinkler system and where firemen themselves have been put in harms way due to things like asbestos exposure. Based on the limited research I've done no one has ever sued a fire brigade for causing injury during a rescue in the UK.

 

It's an interesting point about taking legal action as a result of negligently poor behaviour.

It might be nice to see a "class action" brought against either the police or a local authority for some failing, although I suspect proving negligence might be something of a minefield.

 

In terms of dealing with the failings of a fire brigade the HSE in this case or a future body similar to the IPCC seems sensible and a bit less hit and miss than waiting for private lawsuits. Local government is generally covered in a similar manner by the Local Government Ombudsman. Although that doesn't prevent civil cases being bought it seems to limit them a bit more to exceptional circumstances or where there has been a direct loss.

 

Probably a bit in depth for a rant thread though. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

Anyone else remember a good case a while back, where a guy had an accident or heart attack, and a good samaritan came to his aid? The samaritan gave him CPR and revived him, but in doing so he accidently broke one of the guys ribs- as a result the samaritan was sued for causing him an injury ( civil case I believe, but dont quote me on that as the exact details are a little hazy ).

 

Thats the kind of culture we live in these days, aye- I know of someone in my town that did indeed trip over a broken paving slab in the street, and then successfully sued the council for a 4 figure sum. Jesus, just look where you're walking ffs....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus, just look where you're walking ffs....

 

Or don't and get...

 

a 4 figure sum.

 

 

Generally I think people who sue like that don't really care, they see the ads on TV for lawyers and think "If I hurt myself, I get free money" and they're not too fussed who has to give up their money because it doesn't affect them. Apart from the extra money they get ofcourse.

 

We need another law. If you do something stupid, or careless then it's your fault. Sue yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else remember a good case a while back, where a guy had an accident or heart attack, and a good samaritan came to his aid? The samaritan gave him CPR and revived him, but in doing so he accidently broke one of the guys ribs- as a result the samaritan was sued for causing him an injury ( civil case I believe, but dont quote me on that as the exact details are a little hazy ).

 

Thats the kind of culture we live in these days, aye- I know of someone in my town that did indeed trip over a broken paving slab in the street, and then successfully sued the council for a 4 figure sum. Jesus, just look where you're walking ffs....

And yet, by contrast, don't we all cheer when somebody manages to sue a local council when a pothole causes damage to a car?

 

TBH, I'd certainly consider suing my local council if I tripped over the pavement outside my house.

They recently dug up the pavement to install new gas pipes and then re-laid it all in a pathetically shoddy manner.

As a result of their failure to lay hardcore, a watercourse, sand and then compact it all properly rain has eroded the backfill and, after 6 months, the pavement now looks like a scale model of the cairngorms.

If I did trip over and break an ankle I'd have no problem getting a civil engineer to confirm that the pavement had been laid in an incompetant and negligent manner and I'd expect a pay-out equivalent to the wages I lose while I'm recovering from my injuries.

 

Also, it's kinda hard to look where you're going at night, especially since several of the street lights are non-functional.

 

FWIW, I have enough experience of civil engineering to know exactly how a pavement should be laid and I know, for a fact, that the morons who usually do the work these days ignore almost all the procedures they're supposed to follow.

 

The daft thing is that, in this day and age, almost all of this sort of work is carried out by contractors rather than by the council themselves so all it'd take would be for the council to employ a handful of qualified observers to ensure the work was done to a proper standard.

If the observer isn't happy he doesn't sign the work off and the contractor doesn't get paid and/or they make them dig it up and do it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.

 

Anyone else remember a good case a while back, where a guy had an accident or heart attack, and a good samaritan came to his aid? The samaritan gave him CPR and revived him, but in doing so he accidently broke one of the guys ribs- as a result the samaritan was sued for causing him an injury ( civil case I believe, but dont quote me on that as the exact details are a little hazy ).

 

Thats the kind of culture we live in these days, aye- I know of someone in my town that did indeed trip over a broken paving slab in the street, and then successfully sued the council for a 4 figure sum. Jesus, just look where you're walking ffs....

 

 

Such Good Samaritans are protected by laws.

 

Good Samaraitan Laws

 

I believe, under British law, a first aider with a current and valid qualification who acts in accordance with their training, is protected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats the kind of culture we live in these days, aye- I know of someone in my town that did indeed trip over a broken paving slab in the street, and then successfully sued the council for a 4 figure sum. Jesus, just look where you're walking ffs....

 

 

Generally I think people who sue like that don't really care, they see the ads on TV for lawyers and think "If I hurt myself, I get free money" and they're not too fussed who has to give up their money because it doesn't affect them. Apart from the extra money they get ofcourse.

This whole thing has very little to do with H+S.

 

I believe there was a change in the law about 10 years back, regarding entitlement to legal aid. This opened the flood gates for the ambulance chasing style of lawyers. Daytime tv advertising aimed at folk who know no better & need a few extra quid has contributed to the get rich quid society.

 

I've heard it said that our kids now aspire to be 'famous' instead of successful & believe that the only way to get money is to win the X-factor. As ever, the basis human 'efficiency' imperative is working overtime: Why should I go to work for 40 hrs a week, when I can trip over a pot hole & get a months money? The answer of course is pride & a sense of both personal & social responsibility.

 

Taking me back to my original post on this matter: The thing that is *fruitcage* me off is this total lack of personal responsibility! :(

 

 

Greg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Such Good Samaritans are protected by laws.

 

Good Samaraitan Laws

 

I believe, under British law, a first aider with a current and valid qualification who acts in accordance with their training, is protected.

 

Also breaking someones rib is a well known way of telling you are doing CPR right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.