ForumGarden

Any Idea's as to why Councils being served with lawsuits for negligence hold out for as long as they can?

I've been told why today by some-one In the Council legal department and It makes sense....

What do you think ?

Same reason everyone else postpones it as long as they can - the person suing might die and then the case will vanish.

spot;1402655 wrote: Same reason everyone else postpones it as long as they can - the person suing might die and then the case will vanish.


No It's not that because after the claiment dies, compensation would be sought by the next of kin. In fact, If the claimant dies, compensation Is likely to be greater.

One would need to be seriously in need of either entertainment or cash to carry on a suit in those circumstances. I doubt whether a high proportion of those who could actually go ahead with such a negligence claim do so.

spot;1402660 wrote: One would need to be seriously in need of either entertainment or cash to carry on a suit in those circumstances. I doubt whether a high proportion of those who could actually go ahead with such a negligence claim do so.


So are you suggesting that If a woman with children loses her husband due to negligence of the council, she gives up on seeking any form of compensation If her husband dies of Injuries sustained due to their negligence?

oscar;1402666 wrote: So are you suggesting that If a woman with children loses her husband due to negligence of the council, she gives up on seeking any form of compensation If her husband dies of Injuries sustained due to their negligence?


That's an extreme sort of claim so no, I'd expect it to go ahead. What I wrote was that I doubt whether a high proportion of cases would be continued. Why pretend I wrote anything other than what's there in black and white?

spot;1402668 wrote: That's an extreme sort of claim so no, I'd expect it to go ahead. What I wrote was that I doubt whether a high proportion of cases would be continued. Why pretend I wrote anything other than what's there in black and white?


You are wrong....

Before the lawsuit Is filed against the Council.... detailed forms are sent to all concerned. If the claimant Is married, his spouse would still persue the case for out of pocket expenses such as loss of work whilst caring for him.

Maybe councils delay until closer to the beginning of the next financial year so that they can increase council tax to help pay the higher insurance premiums that they incur by the hundreds of claims for compensation they receive?

theia;1402671 wrote: Maybe councils delay until closer to the beginning of the next financial year so that they can increase council tax to help pay the higher insurance premiums that they incur by the hundreds of claims for compensation they receive?


Good point but not the reason I was given. The reason they do It Is very carefully calculated.

Is it, the money they may have to pay is gaining interest during the waiting period?

YZGI;1402676 wrote: Is it, the money they may have to pay is gaining interest during the waiting period? No but again, that's a good point....

In negligence of the city to maintain safety of a public area, you'd have to prove the thing was essential to safety. So, a burned out light was actually a light required for reasonable safety. You'd also, I'd hope, have to prove that they knew the light was burned out. The passage of time could be used to establish a zone of reference. How often does the light burn out? How long does it take to replace it on average? Do other people take flash lights with them when they find they can't see? Does the roaming pack of wild dogs frequent the area or were they just passing through?

It's been long enough now that you could just tell us what reason you were given.

They stalk any injured parties to ensure they're not being taken for a ride?

It's by all accounts a calculated plan based on the following...

Taking a claimant who Is your average working man, married, kids and a mortgage....

First of all they know any accident Involving a broken limb means the man will not be able to work.

Loss of job, loss of earnings.

Claimant will then have to exist on benefits.

Benefit will only pat the Interest and not his mortgage...

Benefit will not pay for cars, Insurances etc etc.

Approx three months after accident, claimant will start using savings.

Six months after accident, claimant will have used savings.

One year after accident, claimant Is struggling. and begins to get Into debt...

18 months on, claimant will accept extremely low out of court offer to pay debts and stop the bailiffs coming In...

You are right oscar but so are spot & theia. It's a combination of reasons which all work out in (trying) to screw you. They will claim they are guardians of taxpayer money, at least that's what happens over here. They want you to die/give up/settle.

If you kept up the suspense much longer, well, glad you didn't!

AnneBoleyn;1402727 wrote: You are right oscar but so are spot & theia. It's a combination of reasons which all work out in (trying) to screw you. They will claim they are guardians of taxpayer money, at least that's what happens over here. They want you to die/give up/settle.

If you kept up the suspense much longer, well, glad you didn't! That's what I was told by someone In their legal department..... They string It out knowing the average man will use up his savings just to live and after about a year he'll slowly start to get Into debt. When the debts are piled up, then they make a really low out of court offer.

oscar;1402732 wrote: That's what I was told by someone In their legal department..... They string It out knowing the average man will use up his savings just to live and after about a year he'll slowly start to get Into debt. When the debts are piled up, then they make a really low out of court offer.


Even you must be able to work out that you're talking about a minority of negligence claims.

spot;1402733 wrote: Even you must be able to work out that you're talking about a minority of negligence claims.
As you were not party to the conversation I had with a member of the councils legal department which was at length, you have no more Insight Into this matter than anyone else.

I have absolutely no reason to discount anything that we discussed.

I would like to discuss and debate with other members of this forum. Is that possible for the second time today?