Compensation Culture

I dont think you can compare the two, the banks recorded record profits once again last year and have been overcharging us for years.

So?

Surely you jest? The bank charging £20-£30 for a letter sent out and returning a payment, when it only costs them a few quid, which is against the law?

A company who provided a worker with the wrong type of ladder is hardly doing anything illegal??

The bank charges are unfair, but you think that people who claim compensation after tripping over while they happen to be at work then claiming thousands, possibly reducing the amount of genuine claims going through, or the amount of money the genuine claimer gets is FAIR???

/bite

If a company doesn't provide you with the correct or safe equipment/protection to do your job, then it is illegal.

And to be honest I'd rather have a legal system that protects people from potential serious injury than a couple of thousand in charges. I know the charges are illéegal, but a lot of people claiming have run up the charges not giving a shit, and they've been dumb with money the way you said people are dumb for using the wrong equipement in your original post.

Also, you're really just generalising small claims based on a few stories you might have heard. Tripping over at work doesn't lead to a claim for thousands. You'd have to prove that tripping was the employer's fault (wet floor, cables lying around, uneven surface) and then you'd only be paid damages based on the injury you suffered. Say for example a sprained wrist, with no long-term or significant joint damge would probably only get you a couple hundred. If that.

Another point, why do assume that these kind of claims aren't genuine? Don't you think that if the court decides to pay damages that's a fairly good assessment that they ARE genuine? And even though there's an increasing number of no-win-no-fee work cases going on, although it means things go through an already archaic system slower, it still won't prevent what you call 'genuine' cases passing through. And moreover whatever amount of money is paid out in these cases won't affect pay-outs in your so-called 'genuine' cases, becasue the defendant is almost always going to be a different person/company, so isn't related to different cases. As I said above, the payment is based on the injury/damages suffered, and there's many decades of precedent to decide what the amount should be*.

Anyway, I'm just trying to make a point really, that too many people complain about these kind of cases without really knowing anything about them. I do agree that some of the shit people try to sue for in America is outrageous though.


*(there's actually a book/binder about 2ft thick in the Sutherland Building at northumbria detailing almost every kind of injury you can imagine, and listing a case precedent with how much the damages were- we used to look up stuff like 'nob cut off by grinder' to see how much you'd get )

But if you know that it is wrong to use that ladder, this is the common sense I was talking about.

Yes, I am making generalisations about small claims, as obviously I havent dealt with every one, but so are you when you say that people run up huge bank charges on purpose. I know of no-one who does this simply to 'spite' their bank, its absurd - oh, i dont really care about having to fork out on my overdraft charges now, ill get them all back, in fact, why dont I make myself more overdrawn and get myself a poor credit history in the process.

I have an overdraft as im a working student, and have to pay for essentials like food every now and again. Yeah, im really dumb with money, I'm more bothered about having running water in my house than an excess fee. How dumb am I?!!

I do however, know of people who have lied and cheated their way to some compensation, obviously others on the board do too.

"You'd have to prove that tripping was the employer's fault (wet floor, cables lying around, uneven surface) and then you'd only be paid damages based on the injury you suffered. Say for example a sprained wrist, with no long-term or significant joint damge would probably only get you a couple hundred. If that."

I understand your point here although its the very fact there are more people who are willing to do this than EVER before. Claims in the workplace have shot up over the last 5-7years or so, there is a general attitude of where there is an accident, there is someone to blame.

Its like the playground of a school that featured in the news the other week where there was a rule of "no playing tag" or similar, This was through the schools (quite right) fear that people will claim if their child is hurt in regular play. Do you really think that this is the best way forward for our society? Employers and Schools treating everything and everyone with kid gloves to avoid being stung by some snotty brat who broke their wrist?

I think it is disasterous, and it changes the way we live our lives, from our parents "licking toys painted in lead paint" to us "playing tag" to our children, who will no doubt either be wrapped in bubble wrap when playing in the school yard, or prevented from being outside at all for fear someone will sue.

Taken from the Dept for constitutional affairs

"So what else fuels the perception of a compensation culture?

Undoubtedly, I think advertising can.

There is no place for advertising that raises false hopes of unrealistic or unachievable personal injury compensation awards. Practices which basically encourage people to 'have a go' are distasteful and pernicious.
For example, it is unnecessary to include in such advertising that the benefits of making a successful claim could be "… a relaxing sunshine holiday …", "… buying a new home".

In our response to the BRTF report new guidance has already been issued about personal injury claims advertising in hospitals. It may be that such guidance needs to go to other public bodies. This morning I was shown an advert for a personal injury firm of solicitors on a police accident report form - there is no place for this. It is wholly unacceptable.

There is a place for legitimate advertising - it can provide a means for people with genuine claims to find the help they need.

But some of the advertising oversteps the mark. I do not want to see public services - whether that's a poster in a hospital waiting room or an advert on a police accident form - used as a means to encourage spurious claims

And this goes beyond public services. The quantity and quality of much of the personal injury advertising we see on our TV screens, hear on the radio and read in the newspapers is, quite simply, unacceptable.

Much is now from solicitors, some is from claims management companies, but it's not always clear to the consumer which is which and what they are entitled to.

Touting for personal injury business on our TV screens doesn't serve any public good, let alone helps people secure access to justice.

I will be looking at how we can bring the claims companies in line. The advertising codes must be strictly adhered to.

But, I am prepared to go further. We need to look closely at the practicality and the process for how we could do this, but we may need to take legal powers to stop some of this advertising.

I feel very strongly about this issue, as I do not want my children growing up in a world where they cant play a simple game in the yard, where activities are restriced in education and the world in general for health and safety bullshit.

We are human, we fall over, we have accidents, things happen out of our control, this may put us out of work, unable to pay bills, so yes, if you need it claim it.

If you got pissed the night before, hurt your hand and then lied and said it happened at work, you are dishonest scum.

I know of someone who chopped their finger off on a saw whilst at work, got about £20k for it, as there was no guard on, then when he went back, he did it again on the other hand and got £20K more.

Lying cheating thieves like this are the downfall of society, this is why our children cant go on a school trip to the beach any longer. What if they fall or cut thier foot?

Get caught jumping a train and the fine is the maximum cash fare (up to £300+) which costs them the same amount to implement as a bank charge, a letter in the post.. everyone knows the penalty so the vast majority don't do it - how is that any different to bank charges and is it unjust? You are abusing the agreed terms, end of.

People know they will be fined £30 for going over their limit so it's hardly 'unfair' ....if a mistake is made then fair enough, but most people are just doing it for their own gain because they know they can do it quickly with little fuss.

What's the difference?

I'm no solicitor, but bank contracts are bound by common law, which prevents them applying penalties - ie, they might say in their contract that if you miss a payment, they're going to punch you in the face and lock you in their back office for a week......this would clearly be an illegal penalty, and they're not entitled to apply it any more than a charge that includes a fine on top of their costs.

Why this doesn't apply to the train, I'm not sure - are they covered by separate bylaws maybe?

Surely it's part of a contract you sign with the bank that clearly states that you WILL BE CHARGED £30 for going over your limit, therefore, you have signed a contract in full knowledge that YOU WILL PAY £30 if you go over your agreed limit, the admin cost has nothing to do with it in my mind, they are charging you for breach of contract which you knew when you signed the contract?

What if PPP/FI's started turning around and saying (I wouldn't be suprised if they did sooner or later), 'you know what Gord, fuck your penalty for not delivering this hospital on time it only cost you a few grand of your time to make the necessary admin arrangements, so we're not gonna pay'.. is this a covered by a different kind of law? Chris/Andy?

On a similar note to the train query, what's the difference between this and a landlord / utilities supplier charging a penalty for late payment? is that illegal too? If so it appears to pretty much make the whole idea of having rules to protect against late payers etc. pointless..

No contracts for any type of service are allowed to have overly punitive and unrealistic penalty clauses. The charges the bank impose are unlawful (not illegal!) which is why everyone is quite rightly claiming the charges back. And also why every bank is bending and refunding charges before any case gets within sniffing distance of a judge. In the case of trains, you've boarded a train without a ticket, so you are charged the price of a ticket. Just because ticket prices are stupidly high, doesn't mean this is an extortionate penalty because you're just being charged what you would have had to pay if you wanted to board the train legitimately when you did.

Maybe the bank charges wasn't the best analogy, and I wasn't trying to defend the bank charges at all, but anyway, going back to the point...

Lucy, any part of the legal system is open to abuse by dishonest people. You have to rely on the system to be able to weed them out. And although I don't doubt your story about the guy cutting his thumb off, you've got to think that that kind of case must be pretty rare. And even, rare as it is, not all of them will get paid out. And also, why, when the company had already had to pay £20k for not having a guard on the machine, did they STILL not put one on, meaning the guy even had the opportunity to do it again??? I don't agree with what the guy did at all, but that's some major stupidity on the employer's part.

You can't prevent dishonesty in these claims by just not advertising the solicitors' services, or somehow reducing/tightening claims. That's like saying we can prvent/reduce theft if we close all shops and public spaces.

I do agree with your point about becoming an overly cautious society. But I think it's a necessary evil. In your example you say you don't want your children growing up in a society where they can't play tag in case you get sued. What about if it was your kid that came home one day with leg/arm in a cast or worse? Would you just put it down to a bit of a rough kids' game, and one of those things that just happen, bad luck etc? Or would you want some help/damages towards the cost of caring for your child, or some kind of recompense for his health, use of a limb, life quality?

And the adverts showing a someone having won a settlement then enjoying a holiday/house are definitely wrong morally, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed. At the end of the day, they are the possible results of a successful claim, so why should solicitor's be restricted in the advertising of their services just because the system isn't to everyone's liking?

Basically, with penalty charges you aren't supposed to profit from them. Which is why the banks' charges are unlawful- they're a major line of revenue (or were) for every bank. As for the government fining for hôspitals not being ready on time, I've no idea what area of law this would come under, but doubt it would be a simple issue of contract law.

It's the same with a landlord. Although they can charge for late payment, if you challenged it they would have to prove the charge only covered costs reasonably incurred by them becasue of your late payment (such as interest, or charges on missing a mortgage payment etc.) If not, or if they were extortionately/disproportionately high, you could challenge them as unfair terms and have them overruled. Unfortunately not many people know this, and even if they did, the hassle of going to court, or even just getting legal advice, means most people would opt just to pay the charges and draw a line under everything rather than make a fuss.

Unlawful and illegal mean the same dont they??

It absolutley depends what had happened to my child. If they had fell over playing/tripped up/fallen off something on a school trip to the beach and broken a bone, i very much doubt I would sue someone, its an accident. I would be caring for my child anyway, so I wouldnt need extra money.

If they plummeted from the side of a cliff with no handrail after a teacher told them to go that way, and were paralysed or had a limp for the rest of their life then I probably would look into it yes.

However, all im saying is that the clowns who claim and lie to get more money are ruining it for others, I mean, the amount of health and safety forms that have to be filled in anywhere if you do anything - its out of control. Soon, we will just sit in our pod all day, be able to log online, go to work, play some games etc etc, and we wont go outside at all. No danger of hurting ourselves then is there?

Advertising is far more powerful than you think like, it doesnt just promote products, it sells ideology and gives ideas. We learn our role in society through the media rather than our parents/careres increasingly, and I strongly feel that this kind of false promise that the advertising industry provides is very dangerous.

Think I agree largely with what you're saying, but your probelm seems to be with the people who try and con the system, rather than with the system itself. As for advertising, I've no doubt the impact it has, but why should it be restricted becasue it gives people an idea? I'll bet there are as many honest people benefit from having seen something they didn't know they might be entitled to, rather than dishonest people who see it and think ?I'm gonna cut me finger off and sue Nissan on Monday'.

If something is illegal it's a criminal offence (ie. assault, theft, murder etc). Bank charges are unlawful because they're a civil matter, not criminal.

my sister was at the galleries on Friday night, she slipped on a wet floor, has fractured her wrist and could be off work for up to 6 weeks. She wont get paid for it. all the galleries said was, ''ok we'll put a sin up now'' surely that should have been done in the first place!!!

she is gonna try and put a claim in though for lost earnings.

plenty people do try to play the system though and its shit for the people who genuinly hurt themselves.

a lot of people complain about things like this yet if they were to be in a position to make a claim out of something im pretty sure the vast majority of people would do so.

there are lots of people who play the system just like with everything ie when i was in hosital there was a guy who had been in for an xray and was told there was nothing wrong with him and as he walked out he accidently dropped a card for one of these no win no fee solicitor things.

if you do have an accident and lose out in some way because of it i think you are entirely entitled to claim for whatever you have lost out on ie lost wages but some people expect far too much.

she'll easily be able to claim for that as the galleries wont want any publicity. as soon as they get wind of a claim they'll make an offer.

Depends if shê's done basic stuff like report it to the Galleries site management, got the accident noted in the accident log etc.

whey he said that she'd reported it to the galleries as they were gonna put a sign up. plus if it was that serious they should've made some sort of record.

depends if she reported it at the time it happened.

i wish it was as simple as that! i have had a claim in for almost a year now and havn't had any word back at all and have bene told not to expect to in the near future either! that was for breaking my elbow