[big J]

hi
in a past life i was an accident investigator.
without knowing the precise details the following principles generally apply.
1 you will have to prove that you were using a safe metod of work and that work was correctly risk assessed.
2 you will need to write everything that happened down place time dates what was said and by whom
3 were there any witnesses that atually saw the accident other than your self.ask around knock on doors and ask you never know
4 what was she  doing at the time of the accident ie was she riding on the pavement using her phone
5 advise if you have not already done so your insurance provider
6 they will ask you if you have made any admission of liabilty
7 If there are no witnessess other than your self it could come down to your word against hers
8 Insurance companies are pragmatic. They may feel that she was upto 100% at fault but it may be cheaper for them to settle the claim rather than fight it.
9 Was any damage caused to your kit by her inattention ...if you can demostrate this then you may have a counter claim..again discuss with your insurers

hope this helps

big J

[cottonbud10]

thankyou for all the advice,,will see how i get on,,,but what is the answer as to how can we clean a house and get the hose from the van (on the road) to the house, without crossing a parth of some sort,don,t say get a back pack there not pratical when doing house after house,,,,kev

[leapstallbuildings]

thankyou for all the advice,,will see how i get on,,,but what is the answer as to how can we clean a house and get the hose from the van (on the road) to the house, without crossing a parth of some sort,don,t say get a back pack there not pratical when doing house after house,,,,kev

The way I work is as follows.
I lift the hosereel from the van and place it on the work side of the footpath.
I then pull the hose out to the furthest point (usually) as it's easier to pull when it's not under pressure.
I then get a piece of hose that I carry with me to link the van hozelock connector (under rear bumper) to the hosereel.  Immediately after doing this, I then take a piece of rubber matting (I carry two) and place it over the piece of hose.  Wider footpaths require both pieces of matting.
I then place a warning sign on or near the matting.

This has an advantage over fixed reels inasmuch that I can make the footpath safe without leaving unattended hose on the path.  If I were to use a fixed reel, I would need to pullit it out over the path and walk it to the rear of the property before using the matting.  This would mean leaving it unattended for a short while - though a sign can be placed there until returning to the van and utilising the matting.  Obviously there is a bump beneath the matting but there's not much I can do about that unless I get a kango hammer and chase out the footpath.
Obviously, where it ois practical, I can park on a customer's driveway and avoid this but it's not always practical even on an empty drive (no way of knowing if custie is about to come home and need the drive or whether or not there is a car in the garage and they need to go out in a hurry).

It sounds like a lot of hassle but only adds half a minute to the clean once you get into the habit.

[GWCS]

or just close the footpath for 10 mins..LOL   :

[AuRavelling79]

Here is a summary of my post - in a thread about cycling on the pavement (not cyclepaths) - and a solicitors (informal) reply - he is a keen road cyclist and against riding on the pavement "as it gives cyclists a bad name."

My post (in summary):-

I run a small window cleaning business ... use thin hose that crosses pavement to van ... if someone is cycling on the pavement and runs over the hose and wobbles off am I liable to be sued for damages? ... I use trip hazard cones by the hose for the sake of pedestrians ... would absence of a cone(s) make a difference?

His exact reply:-

The fact someone is illegally cycling on the pavement doesn't automatically mean they would not have a claim.

Without seeing the system in operation and knowing more details it is not safe for me to advise. There is clearly a potential liability, but the actual liability will vary from location to location as other factors change.

However, I would have thought that it unlikely that a cyclist cycling in a safe manner ie at low speed on a pavement is likely to fall off riding over a hose. It is more likely to happen to a careless cyclist tanking along. He would no doubt be held to be at least contributory negligent.

[luther1]

Just in case, conveniently have your own witness or two.

[AuRavelling79]

Just in case, conveniently have your own witness or two.

What? That chap that works with him and who saw the whole thing from the custy's garden? Good idea.

[GWCS]

Just in case, conveniently have your own witness or two.

What? That chap that works with him and who saw the whole thing from the custy's garden? Good idea.

from your old post thats still contributory negligence - that will be a split decision, and would still affect your no claims.

However you would only have to pay half ish..

[PaulTh]

So basically any tom dick or harry could take it upon themselves to trip over a window cleaners hose and get a claim in? suddenly wfp doesnt seem so safe or appealing.

[laddermonkee]

As the law stands you have no chance of justice, thats why the claims culture is so prevalent.

 You are deemed guilty until proven innocent, it used to be that anyone who injured themselves whilst breaking the law had no entitlement to compensation, has this changed?

 part of the problem is insurance companies settling out of court to avoid costs even though they suspect that the claim is fraudulent . they then recover their costs by putting up your premiums.

 

[laddermonkee]

Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the way the law works in this country, but in cases like this it doesn't allways work out that way. How do you prove probability, the fact is she admitted that she was riding on the pavement, which is illegal, so she was breaking the law when she had her accident she admitts as much herself, so why should she recieve compensation,

 I would tell her i was going to report the incident to the police, it may not sound like a major crime but she could still receive a fine and a criminal record.

The point i was making anyone who is injured whilst breaking the law shouldn't be allowed to claim compensation, even if the offence is relatively minor.