[William McCafferty]

if you go to a solictor that does this type of work, they will at first say yes, you can sue and you will get between £5000 and £10000.

But the CSM solicitor will simple quote the whad 2005 and 2007 regulations and dismiss the attempt to get money out of them.

The only way to suceed in this action is if you can prove that csm wanted you to use the stepladder instead of wfp.

When your solicitor gets the decision from the csm solicitor, then he will say that they cannot go forward with the case because they cannot get the insurance policy in place to cover the cost of the case, he will though offer to represent you if you decide to go forward and pay for the costs yourself.

If you go down that route, then it might end up with your wife seeing a divorce solicitor.

[dazmond]

dont even think about it mate.IT WAS YOUR FAULT!!!

take it easy if you ve just got back to work.employ a guy to help you out and you go along and collect the money/trad the ground floor windows,write tickets out etc,etc.

best wishes and i hope you make a full recovery.


dazmond

[cat9921]

WHATS A CSM?

dyslexia.. federation Manager 

[pristine window cl]

please dont lay in to hard to me, now that gls lee is about. but.im sure i was told that if you injure yourself on someones property. you can sue. burglars often do this.  it is not down to whos fault exactly just the fact that you were injured on THEIR property.I have allways thought that your insurance, claims on their home insurance.
also that brick arch should have been   SAFE   it could have fallen on someone at any time, then there would have been a claim.you must at least speak to a lawyer for advice . that is what we also pay home insurance for, public liability

[William McCafferty]

You could look at like this

Your washing machine breaks down and you call a guy in to fix it, on the way to your house he gets stopped by the police for speeding.

He has now gone over his 12 point limit and loses his licence for 6 months and cannot work.

Should he be able to sue you for lose of earnings because if you hadn't called him this wouldn't have happened

[edward1]

for gods sake ,the fact that you were dizzy caused this .so hows that the custys liability.

show some dignity .

[Ian Lancaster]

Pristine is right.  There is a legal obligation on the customer to provide a safe working environment.  During the time that you are working at the customer's premises the customer is deemed to be your employer.  This is quite right and proper - a customer should not be allowed to invite someone onto their premises to perform paid work if they are aware of any situation that could endanger the operative. (Like a plate glass window about to drop out of the frame, etc)

Unfortunately the parasites have latched on to this with the 'No Win No Fee' and 'Where there's Blame, there's a Claim' so there have been cases of customers being sued for the stupidest reasons (Failing to point out to the window cleaner that climbing a ladder can be dangerous!!).  It comes down to common sense and fair play by the window cleaner - if he has suffered an injury because the customer didn't tell him she'd spilled a bucket of greasy water on the patio, and he slips in it then he is entitled to be compensated; if he injures himself by tripping over a plant pot, he should have been looking where he was going and ought not to be entitled to compensation.

[DODA]

Hi All

Went out today and done 6 houses before weather stopped play , if not may have done  1 or 2 more . Just good to be out....

My arm is swollen so ice packs are out in force to bring the swelling down before the wife gets home...

It seems that over the last couple of weeks after i have worked i keep the wife awake with constant moving and moaning of pain , i know nothing of this due to the tramadol i take .

But still early days physio tomorrow more exercises and heat treatment
something to look forward to.

Just released money from an isa so thats a couple more morgage payments so thats a weight off my mind...

darren

[pristine window cl]

Hi Doda be carefull dont aggravate the injury,COULD EFFECT CLAIM, get a young lad to work for you nice and cheap and go on round with them,
thanks Ian sounds right to me, that arch was UNSTABLE FACT.
pure hydro. EH
Edward, have some sympathy for god sake this is a serious injury exactly what insurance is  there for, weather it is Dodas or house holders.
If the house holder has no household insurance forget it, but if they do GO FOR IT.
again that is what it is for.
IN MY EYES THE FACT THAT YOU WERE AT WORK AT THE TIME IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME,
One last thing was there by any chance a gas boiler outlet near where you went dizzy. just because you went dizzy does not prevent your claim, more  to the point WHY? The more I think about it the more angry I become.
YOU WERE
INJURED AT WORK       END OF     GO FOR A CLAIM


Alan    Pristine window cleaning

[Bay View WCS]

Ok I've tried to keep quiet but here goes:

This is a clear example of how we have taken the example set by our American cousins and gone down the road of developing a culture where our reaction to virtually all scenarios is to look to apportion blame.  In most cases, it is easier to look to external issues as to look at ourselves would be to admit a certain level of weakness - and lord knows we can't be having any of that can we?

Sometimes accidents happen and I think this is exactly that. 

You lost balance and leant against an archway to stop your fall and in some way you appear to be claiming (or your wife is) that that archway should have been able to sustain your weight - that in some way the householder is liable because they did not forsee that you would fall against it and they did not strengthen it to account for that possibility.

You also said above: "it was quicker to get the steps off ,just not safer" so that clearly shows you have considered the issue and you took the less safe option in a trade-off for speed.  We have all done this I'm sure but the choice was yours, and yours alone.

You do have my sympathy as you are clearly suffering some time after the original incident.  However, the severity should not affect the original situation and where the blame really lies for the incident. I can also appreciate that as things have turned out worse than you expected financially this pressure forces you to consider things that you would not normally do.  I think that had the accident happened and you'd suffered no injury you would have paid for the broken archway and broken slab from your own pocket; so why does that now change if the injury is more severe?

Put yourself in their shoes: you engage someone to clean your windows, they have an accident through their negligence and then they sue you which essentially is blaming you for something you could never imagine happening and was no fault of yours at all.

As for the suggestion by Pristine above, whether the householder has insurance is not really an issue. If they 'are' to blame then by that reasoning shouldn't you sue them anyway then they could be forced to sell their house to pay for your negligence; or is it that to sue the householder is somehow different to claiming on their insurance - I don't see the distinction myself - other that the insurance company will have deeper pockets.

As hard as it seems, in my opinion you should suck it up and deal with it as best you can. I wish I could be different but personal responsibility is a quality that seems to have been lost over the last couple of decades; blaming others for your own actions is not the answer.

[G Griffin]

Go easy easy on him, chaps; he only mentioned seeing a solicitor.
He's had a rough time and if money's tight, I can see why he would consider it.
I didn't realise that insurance companies would get so much sympathy  . 

[Dave66]

i dont think whoever built the archway thought he'd need to stregthen it just "incase" a careless window cleaner happened to fall into it.. it was'nt made to withstand that so how could you sue..crazy

[stuart mc]

I personally would just get rid of my wife, before I would sue a customer for something that was my fault, but that is just my opinion and he can do whatever he wants

[Scrimble]

good reply by bay view wcs, my view is the same suck it up and get on with it,

does the wife not work?

[pristine window cl]

insurance is there for EXACTLY this reason. Bayview your taking it to the extreme.
LISTEN UP FOr XXXX SAKE,
doda was injured at work it does not matter whos fault but WHERE it took place.
Again if the homeowner has household insurance then claim ,that is what it is in place for, doda would only get about £10,000 anyway AND IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE HOMEOWNER, DONT WORRY ABOUT IT, WHEN SOMEONE IS INJURED LIKE THIS I FOR ONE WELCOME THEIR CLAIM.
That brick arch WAS unsafe FACT,  I am an ex bricklayer (maybe I built it)
this is NOT American culture just someone with a genuine claim who needs financial help.
If doda was or is, insured this is what HIS insurance company would do   CLAIM AGAINST THE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE     SIMPLE Not chase them down and sue them personaly. IF YOU GET INJURED, PARTICULARLY AT WORK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.    FOR GODS SAKE WHY NOT

[H S and Son]

IF YOU GET INJURED, PARTICULARLY AT WORK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.    FOR GODS SAKE WHY NOT

Not if you're negligent you're not.

In addition, brick arches aren't built to take weight or force, they're features, cosmetic, not load-bearing.

[William McCafferty]

 CLAIM AGAINST THE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE     SIMPLE Not chase them down and sue them personaly. IF YOU GET INJURED, PARTICULARLY AT WORK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.    FOR GODS SAKE WHY NOT

For a start, he broke the law, he has wfp and used it on this job, but laziness kicked in and he took a short cut and then has a accident.

You keep going on about sueing the insurance company and not the householder, WHY? if the householder is at fault them they should be sued, but instead you insist that he should sue the insurance company.

So why should I and everybody else in this country including you, pay him for being foolish, at the moment we pay more in insurance premiums to cover these stupid claims.

and if you still agree that he should sue the insurance company, then the HSE should go after him for breaking the WHAD 2005  and 2007 regulations, I think their fines and costs will cover the £10k he will get in a pay out.

[pristine window cl]

WOW HERE WE GO AGAIN.
Where are the big players in this ,
AGAIN LISTEN, who said anything about sueing ,not ME .
IT IS A CLAIM NOT A MATTER OF SUEING ANYONE.
if the householder has contents insurance that would pay out under a claim,MAYBE.
BUT IF HE DOESNT AT LEAST TRY HE WONT KNOW WILL HE.
Nobody is sueing anyone it is a CLAIM only.
     

[pristine window cl]

    OH YEAH BROKE THE LAW, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON   
         


 

[Steve Sed]

If the OP had insurance to pay the mortgage in case of being unable to work, should he not claim as it was his "fault" that he got dizzy and lost his balance?