Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Accident at a Local Council Leisure Centre


Recommended Posts

My wife had an accident in February this year at a Local Council Leisure Centre. We have filled an accident claim from with the Centre's insurance company but have not heard anything since. I am unable to contact the Leisure Centre or their insurance company to inquire about the status of our claim. Due to the fact I do not know the name of the insurer as there was no contact information given on the claim form. I would like to know how to proceed with this matter. Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The form you completed is unlikely to have gone direct to an insurance company. Usual practice is that the form is used to notify accidents to the council's internal Insurance department.

So contact the council's insurance manager and ask them what has happened to your claim. Contact info should be on their website, if not phone the general enquiries number and ask who it is.

BTW the forms are often just to report an accident, not to make a legal liability claim against the council. Having an accident at a council leisure centre doesn't automatically make the council at fault or entitle your wife to compensation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with the above. 

Looks to me all you sent back is officially reporting the accident, so the Local Authority will do a root cause analysis.

Very much doubt it has gone further than the health and safety officer.

 

And as stated above, to claim, you will need to prove liability. That means negligence in that was the accident foreseeable through the conduct of the leisure centre?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts:

The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled.

I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks

 

PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I agree with Plymouth Council as stated in their letter.  Based on their description of their incident.

If you disagree, exactly why do you believe the Council have been negligent ?  

Does your wife have any disability that the sports centre staff were aware of and they were offering assistance to her during her visit to the centre ?

If you feel you have a case, go to a local no win no fee personal injury Solicitors. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with the above

Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business.

You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip.

As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings.

Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre?

The answer has to be no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...