Posted By Chris. R. A situation has arisen that I would appreciate advice from anyone who may shed light on to the situation. A person I know fell over in the car park of a local council run sports/leisure complex causing several painfull injuries to occur. The fall was caused by a hole in the carpark floor.This person works for the council and was on official buisness. The council are now saying that there is no official system for inspection of these areas and rely on their staff noticing any problems as they arrive/leave work. Apparently this hole had been noticed and reported and the repairs were given 28 days for completion (no barriers were put in place). Due to the fall occuring between the reported date and the repair date the council are stating that they are not liable and will not offer any compensation. Their statement says "unfortunately during the repair period your client sustained injury, we sympathise with your client but regret we are unable to offer any compensation". I do appreciate that we need to get away from this 'no win no fee' culture but surely it cannot be right that just because a fault had been noted it releaved the site owners of any liability as long as they complete repairs with the 28 days. Any advice or clarification would be appreciated. Chris

Posted By Robert K Lewis Just think - Occupiers Liability and Public Liability. Most Conditional Fee solicitors will I suspect be happy to take this one on. Bob

Posted By Jack They are hoping you will fall at the first hurdle. Go to a solicitor (through the persons TU if a member); or consider small claims court.

Posted By Robert K Lewis A further rule for occupiers - If you know about it then do something to repair it or protect persons from it. The council were patently aware that there was a trap on their premises, and failed to repair or otherwise make safe. Just get the solicitor going on it. I am sure the disclaimer was intended as a put off. No sensible insurer is really going to fight this all the way to the courts as their costs will increase dramatically - it costs C£5,000 minimum to get into court and they will baulk at that thought unless the case is virtually cast iron. As a matter of interest has the repair been done? If not a short discussion with the appropriate councillor may elicit some faster results. These sorts of situations annoy me enormously, people seem to forget that there can be dire consequences for some people - I suppose the only good news was that it was not a child who was incapacitated as a consequence of a fall. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis John Whoever owns this land is aware of a defect that could trip the unwary - In strict terms this is a trap for the unwary. The 28 day is there for repair but that does not mean that no action needs to be taken to protect people in the meantime. If it had not been previously reported then the facts would point differently. It was however noted and thus needed to be protected to prevent injury to users. Occupiers and/or Public Liability does not provide a window within which we can simply allow a defect to continue to pose danger to persons. I am sure that insurers would wish that it did. Bob

Posted By MarkJAWatkins Hi, I may be reading too much into this but, would you really want to take your employer to court on a no-win-no-fee case!? To me it just doesn't seem right. At the end of the day they are your employer and I know they can't hold any court action against you but how would it look if the person was going for a promotion etc. Also, it may harm future employment if word gets out that you sue your employer. This is not fact and I am not siding with the council on this but it is just a thought. Regards, Mark

Posted By Mark Mace Mark, Your thoughts are relevant ones, however employment law has supposedly been tightened to stop this kind of action from happening. I have had this type of incident affect me directly, and after three years of complaints about a particular piece of damaged roadway I could only effect a temporary repair when i threatened to sue the council for negligence. Speaking from experience with my local council, they are only interested when a problem has arrived rather than dealing with it properly (maintenance), unfortunately councils are run on so called budgets per Department and money is spent for the sake of the budget in some departments, i have been reliably informed by a senior member of my local council that if the budget in a particular department is not spent then next years budget is reduced to fall in line with what has been spent the previous year. This leads departmental heads to spend money they really dont need too just to keep their budget allocation for the next year, someone should instead redistribute this money to the departments that are underfunded. Recently the government i believe passed some LAW/EDICT that required all councils to replace all lamposts accross the country, whether they needed doing or not, its no real suprise that repairs are not carried out when things like this are going on. Unfortunately this incident will not cost the council anything at all as the insurer will end up paying, thay will pass this cost on to the council in the form of increased premium, the council then pass this onto the public in the form of increased council tax. Find out who should have effected the repair and have them sacked for negligence of duty (OH sorry you cant do that can you) Back to the main point, whichever acts apply or do not apply the council should have put in place some type of barrier and signage, therefore they are liable to whatever consequences arise from the incident. regards

Posted By Becks The council under h&s law have to provide safe walkways and areas under their control. They also have a duty under regs to notify hazards and ensure all measures are taken to remove any hazards. In this case they have not even taken 'reasonable or practicable' measures to remove the hazard. If the person is worried about reprecussions from the employer then ask the safety rep to represent them as emp law states that no discrimination or legal actions can be taken against a safety for performing their duties within the regulations. Becks