Poor unfortunate fella

Widdershins

I don't understand the horsemeat one..they would have opened themselves up to a flood of claims, surely, since many people ate the products

Nidom

Yeah I'm a bit puzzled too, doesn't make sense

languagenerd

This is why I think compensation should literally just compensate you for anything you lost. Hospital bills, lost wages for days you couldn't work, whatever it costs to replace your car if it's damaged, and obvious future expenses in the serious injury cases (if you could never work again/needed home renovations for a wheelchair etc).

There is no logical reason why hurting yourself should equal lots of money just because. And the rest of us pay it through our skyrocketting premiums.

Red Kev

Klonker wrote: »

How the hell did he manage to get €7.5k for eating horse meat? What exactly was the compensation paid for? Where did he suffer?

Maybe he claimed the horse kicked him?

ballsymchugh

Klonker wrote: »

How the hell did he manage to get €7.5k for eating horse meat? What exactly was the compensation paid for? Where did he suffer?

Anyway this man is a joke but it's the law system here that allows him to make a living out of this.

as far as i can remember, he never claimed to have eaten horsemeat, he just sued on the basis that he may have unknowingly eaten it. there's no way that it could be proven, but the poor lad was severely psychologically traumatised. the payout is cheaper than defending it in court.

pilly

This is why we are paying through the nose for every type of insurance. And small businesses will be closing down soon because of the costs of public liability.

suicide_circus

I would refuse him admission if I owned a business in the area. Sorry pal, can't afford to have you as a customer.

Widdershins

suicide_circus wrote: »

I would refuse him admission if I owned a business in the area. Sorry pal, can't afford to have you as a customer.

You might be sued for discrimination!

HellSquirrel

myshirt wrote: »

It's called 'nuisance value '.

While the case may be vexatious and frivolous, as long as it is not to the extreme you will get this 'go away' money.

Plain fact is the only people with access to courts in this country are those with loads of money, and those with none. I drop a guy eyeballing my wife, I have to lay him 12 grand. The same scumbag who hasn't done a tap of work in his life kicks the **** out of a pensioner and gets 4 months in jail at the taxpayer expense, and pays no 12 grand, because to award it would be 'good money after bad ' as it is known.

For the bit in bold, I'd bloody well think so!

True on the second statement though.

soups05

to put this in context, i am 45 years old. In the past i have been hit by a car door opened on me while cycling, had a car pull out at a junction and hit me on the bike, injured my back in work while moving large,heavy wheeled boxes, had a woman drive through a stop sign and hit my car.

some would label me as a serial scammer judging by this thread except for a small point....I never made a claim for any of them.

others would call me a fool for not laying down and screaming for a solicitor and then an ambulance.

My point is that some of us are just born unlucky, everyone here can have an accident, some will claim,some won't. But those of us who don't claim should not label those who do as scammers. A judge in each case awarded compensation, we cannot say it was not deserved.

There are plenty of cases where a person gets a large payout for an obviously BS claim, hit out at them, but having more than one does not equal scammer.

If I was in the market for a payout then I would have plenty of opportunity. How many times has anyone here jammed om the breaks to avoid a twit running a red light, or pulling out at a roundabout? if we did not slam on but hit them instead, they are in the wrong but does that mean we don't claim?
They pulled out, but we have a responsibility to the nation as a whole to help cut down insurance rates so we should just suck it up and move on? I wonder how many here would really not put in a claim if they had a genuine accident.

in order to be totally honest I will admit that I did make one claim, two years ago an idiot hit the back of my car while stopped at lights. I injured my back,shoulder and neck and he drove off without exchanging details. I missed work and college and put in a claim for compensation. Still waiting to hear back as my solicitor seems to be really slow. its my only claim so am not even sure how long it should take.

now given the whole story, am I a scammer? do you think I should just drop it? or am i "entitled" to some money?

Klonker

soups05 wrote: »

to put this in context, i am 45 years old. In the past i have been hit by a car door opened on me while cycling, had a car pull out at a junction and hit me on the bike, injured my back in work while moving large,heavy wheeled boxes, had a woman drive through a stop sign and hit my car.

some would label me as a serial scammer judging by this thread except for a small point....I never made a claim for any of them.

others would call me a fool for not laying down and screaming for a solicitor and then an ambulance.

My point is that some of us are just born unlucky, everyone here can have an accident, some will claim,some won't. But those of us who don't claim should not label those who do as scammers. A judge in each case awarded compensation, we cannot say it was not deserved.

There are plenty of cases where a person gets a large payout for an obviously BS claim, hit out at them, but having more than one does not equal scammer.

If I was in the market for a payout then I would have plenty of opportunity. How many times has anyone here jammed om the breaks to avoid a twit running a red light, or pulling out at a roundabout? if we did not slam on but hit them instead, they are in the wrong but does that mean we don't claim?
They pulled out, but we have a responsibility to the nation as a whole to help cut down insurance rates so we should just suck it up and move on? I wonder how many here would really not put in a claim if they had a genuine accident.

in order to be totally honest I will admit that I did make one claim, two years ago an idiot hit the back of my car while stopped at lights. I injured my back,shoulder and neck and he drove off without exchanging details. I missed work and college and put in a claim for compensation. Still waiting to hear back as my solicitor seems to be really slow. its my only claim so am not even sure how long it should take.

now given the whole story, am I a scammer? do you think I should just drop it? or am i "entitled" to some money?

Of course a person can be unlucky but this guy claimed compensation for eating horse meat, he is a scammer.

Widdershins

soups05 wrote: »

to put this in context, i am 45 years old. In the past i have been hit by a car door opened on me while cycling, had a car pull out at a junction and hit me on the bike, injured my back in work while moving large,heavy wheeled boxes, had a woman drive through a stop sign and hit my car.

some would label me as a serial scammer judging by this thread except for a small point....I never made a claim for any of them.

others would call me a fool for not laying down and screaming for a solicitor and then an ambulance.

My point is that some of us are just born unlucky, everyone here can have an accident, some will claim,some won't. But those of us who don't claim should not label those who do as scammers. A judge in each case awarded compensation, we cannot say it was not deserved.

There are plenty of cases where a person gets a large payout for an obviously BS claim, hit out at them, but having more than one does not equal scammer.

If I was in the market for a payout then I would have plenty of opportunity. How many times has anyone here jammed om the breaks to avoid a twit running a red light, or pulling out at a roundabout? if we did not slam on but hit them instead, they are in the wrong but does that mean we don't claim?
They pulled out, but we have a responsibility to the nation as a whole to help cut down insurance rates so we should just suck it up and move on? I wonder how many here would really not put in a claim if they had a genuine accident.

in order to be totally honest I will admit that I did make one claim, two years ago an idiot hit the back of my car while stopped at lights. I injured my back,shoulder and neck and he drove off without exchanging details. I missed work and college and put in a claim for compensation. Still waiting to hear back as my solicitor seems to be really slow. its my only claim so am not even sure how long it should take.

now given the whole story, am I a scammer? do you think I should just drop it? or am i "entitled" to some money?

I *could* have made claims many times. I always wonder if I'm a fool, when I read these threads. I personally think he is much too quick to claim compensation, though.

If you don't mind me asking, did you get his license plate number or was there camera footage? As the same happened to me but I didn't.

soups05

no licence plate, no camera footage, in fact I had written it off as tough luck but I had to visit my solicitor for another reason and she noticed my bad back and asked what happened. Before I knew where i was a claim was being made lol. Something to do with MIBI covering hit and run accidents. am no expert so check the motoring forum.


I was not quiet clear in my last post, yes this guy is most likely a scammer, but I am annoyed that anyone who makes any sort of claim these days is viewed as a scammer. There has got to be genuine cases out there among the many scams.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

No not the law but the insurance companies, if they went on the full offence with all these claims it would kill the majority of them in months, none of the scammers would be willing to go bankrupt over it and no solicitors would go no win no fee if they knew the insurer would actually investigate the claim.

Firstly, there are NO consequences for a scammer who tries and fails to seek compensation and the potential rewards, at law, make it well worth the effort

ALL claims are investigated by insurers. However, if a medical consultant is willing to put his name to a report that a patient has suffered specific physical or physiological injuries, backed by a solicitor who can prove 3 drops of water were on the ground causing his client to fall, what exactly do you think the insurer can do???? The insurer is no angel, but they are not the sole cause of the problem.

fryup

they talking about him now on today fm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

I made the mistake of forgetting to put a box of Tesco burgers I bought into my freezer.

And they're off!!!

Widdershins

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Firstly, there are NO consequences for a scammer who tries and fails to seek compensation and the potential rewards, at law, make it well worth the effort

ALL claims are investigated by insurers. However, if a medical consultant is willing to put his name to a report that a patient has suffered specific physical or physiological injuries, backed by a solicitor who can prove 3 drops of water were on the ground causing his client to fall, what exactly do you think the insurer can do???? The insurer is no angel, but they are not the sole cause of the problem.

A scammer who fails still has to pay his own legal costs, no?

Liam McPoyle

soups05 wrote: »

Before I knew where i was a claim was being made lol.

And that ladies and gentlemen is exactly what the major problem is.

An individual was not going to claim but suddenly a solicitor got involved and a claim is born.

Im not having a pop at you Soups, you are 100% entitled to claim as you were hit by an unidentified person and suffered a loss, that's why there is a levy on insurance.

However for every genuine case there are countless makey uppy cases.

The ONLY group that benefit from higher payouts and longer tail (length of time it takes for a claim to settle) claims are the legal system.

Soups (or anyone) could just as easily have been a complete try on case but I GUARANTEE that the solicitor would take on the case and provide an exhaustive list of horrendous symptoms the victim has suffered.

Absolute leeches.

Venom

Klonker wrote: »

Of course a person can be unlucky but this guy claimed compensation for eating horse meat, he is a scammer.

A bit like this one who maintains she is not a "gold digger".

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/im-no-gold-digger-designer-with-claims-history-including-75k-for-wall-repair-and-83k-for-petrol-station-slip-35222541.html


In 2009, she successfully sued the Avoca shop in Dublin’s Suffolk Street for €12,000 after a pan fell on her head.

In 2011, she failed in an action against client when she sought payment of more than €77,000 from for furnishing apartments he owned in Dublin and France.

In 2012, she lost an action against an Applegreen service station when she tried to claim for €83,000 after falling in the forecourt. She is appealing this ruling.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Widdershins wrote: »

A scammer who fails still has to pay his own legal costs, no?

If a scammer loses a case, it would be throwing good money after bad for his legal team to try & get paid. They assess every case on a risk and reward basis. They can take a few hits in return for the big rewards on the successful ones.

As for an insurer who wins their case and gets costs awarded in their favour, they'll never get to see it. When you have a 'no lose' situation, why wouldn't anyone give it a go.

This case was fought hard by an insurer who obviously felt that the vast amount of previous UNFORTUNATE EVENTS put them in a strong position. Then the honourable judge gives him €10,000 PLUS COSTS.

The report yesterday by the Insurance Commission criticised insurers for settling outside the Injuries Board & the Courts. There's your answer and there is where the problem lies. Our legal procedures are an expensive game of Russian Roulette

HellSquirrel

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Then the honourable judge gives him €10,000 PLUS COSTS.

On that, it's not really the judge's fault if the law is interpreted most faithfully to that conclusion. The issue in that case is to start finding the loopholes and appealing for their being closed off. Judges are not there to create laws or do something against the wording of the law based on a case they are trying. What they can do is make a ruling based on something no-one's quite encountered before which will set a precedent for that sort of situation. But the power to actually change the law lies with knowing what to change and enough political will to get it done.

Not saying that there aren't judges who fail to be impartial and otherwise put a spanner in the works, but that's what appeals are for.

Sue Pa Key Pa

HellSquirrel wrote: »

On that, it's not really the judge's fault if the law is interpreted most faithfully to that conclusion..

My point is that we have developed a legal system where the citizens of this State are entitled to such a high degree of care going about their daily tasks, that it has done away with the concept of personal responsibility. The judiciary enforce the legal precedents that have brought us to this point. In reality, they are powerless to enforce the principle of common sense