Headline:

Body:

Oh...



Maybe I'm reading too much into that but there seems to be a whiff of accusation there. Surely it occurred to DM Reporter that someone would have checked to see if his ribs were actually broken. Then again, I haven't had as much exposure to the courts as him/her, so I'll defer.

Fair enough, it's a lot of money to pay back, especially when doing so in instalments has been refused. It must be tough knowing you're going to lose your home and your business, which also provides work for her mother and granddaughter*. However...





Paragraph 19 ends things off nicely with a quote from the meter-reading non-rib-breaking ambulance chasing charlatan:



Smart bloke if you ask me.

*So two other people who could have seen to the wet floor other than the owner/manager, who presumably knew the meter-reader was coming, as at least in my experience, they let the premises know in advance.

edt. Just seen this:


I was under the impression it was the Tories who cut Legal Aid, no? Or when they say "direct result of actions by a previous Government" to they mean "Losing an election"?

_________________
"Common Sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

Crafty insurance companies learned long ago that it's probably not feasible to sue God, SB1. And I'm not sure the steps were wet due to the bloke being a "shyter" either...

_________________
"Common Sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

Got to agree with a lot of the commentards here; if she's running a business why didn't she have public liability insurance?

_________________
Si vas a plagiar noticias, no uses un sitio de noticias falsas como fuente.


Last edited by Carlos The Badger on Thu Feb 31, 2021 18:60 am, edited 666 times in total.

Hope both he and the solicitors sue the Mail for publishing that comment.

I'm also amazed.
The picture captures a view into the kitchen with a number of appliances that could be fatal or life altering in the event of malfunction.

Whilst the article is having ago at the large fees charged by the no win no fee solicitors I would love to know how her own solicitors can justify a bill of £3500 for a case which was settled before it even got to court. If the the original claim was for eight weeks lost earnings her lawyers should have pointed out how much it would cost her to contest the case and how she would be liable to the defendants cost if she lost.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

Isn't it a legal requirement?

_________________
"Affirmation sells a lot better than information. Who wants to hear the truth when they can hear that they’re right?"

I don't think it is compulsory by law. Employer's Liability Insurance definitely is but not public.

But, you'd be ill-advised not to take it out, especially if you run a business that has direct contact with the general public - like a… ooh, I don't know… a café, for instance?

As for meter-readers entering a private residence, your home insurance should cover you for that.

_________________
Si vas a plagiar noticias, no uses un sitio de noticias falsas como fuente.


Last edited by Carlos The Badger on Thu Feb 31, 2021 18:60 am, edited 666 times in total.

Public liability insurance isn't very expensive. It's often included in the insurance on contents/stock etc.

Cottage owner facing jail if he doesn't remove £13,000 thatched roof because it is FOUR INCHES too high

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1zmJRmMAC

To be fair, we don't know that they didn't. It may well be that she chose to ignore their advice.

I think £3500 is actually pretty moderate. We don't know at what stage she offered the £3500 - I suspect pretty late, otherwise the other side's costs wouldn't have reached the level they did - therefore her solicitors will have had the work of producing a defence, interviewing witnesses, advising, negotiating with the other side, and at least one preliminary case management hearing. The process of contesting another party's costs is also quite time-consuming, as it involves going through a precisely itemised bill line by line and producing points of dispute, arguing those with the other side and potentially a hearing before a specialist costs judge.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Well I'm scared.

I'm not even sure that's her sad face or just normal.

_________________
"Affirmation sells a lot better than information. Who wants to hear the truth when they can hear that they’re right?"

She claims that she was wearing the make up when she was interviewed for the job and that she has been wearing it for the last 3 years without any problems and the hospital claims that it has a dress code that all employees must abide by. Towards the end of the article it says.



I would guess a previous boss or supervisor has turned a blind eye to the make up but then a new boss or supervisor has been appointed who isn't quite as tolerant.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

Bangles eh? She'll be cleaning like an Egyptian next.



I'll get my sarcophagus.