Rank: Forum user 
|
Recently a utillities company needed to dig a hole on friends path and failed to return it to former state,the postman delivered a parcel and as he was leaving he answered his phone and while talking and walking he tripped on the damaged part of the path and broke his ankle the postal company are now asking my mate to cover the postmans loss of earnings for a period of 13 weeks,i dont believe my mate is at fault,but the postman and utillities company are, him for using his phone while walking and utillities for bad workmanship any thoughts out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Postmen earn around £20k a year so 13 weeks = £5k. That will be the start of it. He will want damages for pain and suffering plus legal costs.
Best idea is for your friend to send this to his household contents insurer who will deal with the matter for him. He should explain the circumstances fully.
They will allege contrib negligence on the part of the postman and seek to involve the utility company and their contractors in any procedings, possibly with a view to taking over the matter completely.
This is bread and butter stuff for any insurer so leave them to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would seek legal advice on this matter.
The homeowner, from what I understand, did not request the work which was carried out, rather the undertaking was that of the utility company.
In a civil court the questions would be asked did the homeowner owe a duty of care to the postman and did he fail in that duty of care. I'm not sure that your mate failed in any duty as they did not act negligently by doing the work themselves, requesting the work, nor performing shoddy workmanship. I would also argue it would be very difficult to even argue that they accepted the shoddy work of the utility company.
On the otherhand a postman does a lot of walking and should be aware of hazards presented by uneven ground.
The whole claim seems to be 'have a go' and I for one wouldn't pay a penny to the postal company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don't go to a solicitor, speak with your insurance company, they are free. Get them to have a look at it and follow thier advise. They may say get a solicitor or rather appoint one for you at thier expense. Insurance companies have vast experience at this sort of thing and as they dont like paying out will fight tooth and nail to prevent paying. All this at no cost to your mate I might add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with Bob, inform the insurance company who should advise best course of action. Do not engage solicitors at this stage. It appears to me on prima facie evidence that the utility company are at fault and not the house owner. I doubt whether the case will go to court and it sounds like the PO are trying their luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with the contact his insurance company line.
If your friend sent any written communication to the utility company complaining about the poor repair then I would tell the insurance company that he has a copy of this and photographs of the poor repair. I would also inform them of the time & date of any telephonic communication had with the utility company after the accident.
Take Care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry last line delete "after the accident".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So - how long would the condition have to have been like that before it was deemed by the utiliies company that the home owner had accepted that the work had been "acceptable"?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The length of time does not matter in this case as the only loss will be covered by the insurance company that is why it is important they are involved from the time the case comes to light. The insurance company may well decide to pay up or come to an agreement on how much they will pay. This is a simple insurance claim and will not need the property owner to go to a solicitor, get the strength of the insurance company around you as they used to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with Bob and Ray (OMG this is getting to be a habit!). I suggest your friend contact their household insurer tout suite.
However, you say that the "..utilities company....failed to return it to former state..". They may not have been required to, although the reinstatement should have been 'acceptable'. Most reinstatement's I have seen do not and often nor can they return something to it's 'former state'.
The 'case' if there is one, is likely to revolve around
1. whether the reinstatement was of an acceptable standard
2. if it wasn't, whether your friend the householder had 'complained' about the quality of the reinstatement, and the subsequent response from the utilities company. In that respect the length of time may well be relevant.
3. Whether the postie being on the phone is likely to be deemed as contributory to the accident
Let the insurance company deal with the 'claim'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=tazz]Recently a utillities company needed to dig a hole on friends path and failed to return it to former state,the postman delivered a parcel and as he was leaving he answered his phone and while talking and walking he tripped on the damaged part of the path and broke his ankle the postal company are now asking my mate to cover the postmans loss of earnings for a period of 13 weeks,i dont believe my mate is at fault,but the postman and utillities company are, him for using his phone while walking and utillities for bad workmanship any thoughts out there. So the Postal Company are now asking the property owner to cover the post mans loss of earnings ||| This sounds odd to me. I have managed work related injury claims for many years but never heard of such a thing. The Insurance Companies involved will sort this out between themselves after gathering all the facts. I am sure that if the property owner received any correspondence on this then it would have come from the injured parties solicitor that would have advised passing this letter on to his / her insurers. This sounds like a NEBOSH question. Discuss. Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I hate to pour cold water on all advice given but has anyone asked if the 'friend' is insured!!!!
- sorry but it is Friday :-)
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, I seem to be agreeing more and more with Bob and Rayrapp. Providing your friend is insured, and he should be if he owns his own property and has a mortgage. If he rents the landlord should have insurance cover.
Having dealt with civil litigation for almost twenty years I would say the following. Firstly, you must contact the insurers. You will almost certainly have legal cover and they will deal with the matter. The only thing they may request is a statement from you, which they can help you with.
Don’t get legal advice via a solicitor or otherwise, it is not necessary. These types of cases go backwards and forwards to resolve who is at fault and the level of liability. But this is for the insurance companies and not for your friend to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RE #11, I have dealt with a number of claims over the years, and on a number of occassions where contratural sick pay has been paid to the employee who has been injured as the result of the 'fault' of a third party, we have claimed for recovery of these costs and/or the costs of 'replacing' the employee with a tempory post, advertising costs etc. It does happen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil
my last post on this could have been worded better. I was not saying that an employer could not recover sick pay etc costs in this case, I know that this can be done dependant on where the liability rested.
What I found odd was that the postal company were having this dialogue with the occupier of a domestic property.
The insurers between them usually sort it out.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve, no problem, but of course how would they know who the householders insurance company was until they had contacted the householder? In essence it's not really any different from any other similar claim; the person writes to claim against the company and the company passes the claim on to it's insurer. In this case they write to the housholder who passes it on to their insurer?????
As an aside, I do know of people who being mortgage free (YESSSS only 2 more months!!!) who chose not to insure! Not the wisest move in my book but hey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.