Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

LuasSimon

https://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/were-absolutely-heartbroken-dozens-of-jobs-lost-as-play-centres-forced-to-close-over-300pc-insurance-hike-37957163.html

Where will those so inclined go to slip or hurt their finger now to get a handy 15 Grand ? The old reliable I suppose , trip on a kerb etc .

_Brian

Local one here closed recently for same reason. Six jobs lost.

Wheeliebin30

We like to think we’re a great nation.

But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

JMNolan

Rest assured OP, the only thing we'll do about this is to vote the same shower of fools into the Dáil again to ensure nothing changes

mrhappy42

A no fault scheme is doable. When we were in NZ I saw it up close and it changes everything. Kids can climb a tree at a birthday party or use school playgrounds after school.

https://www.acc.co.nz/about-us/who-we-are/what-we-do/

Comes down to one thing - the legal profession.

Guy:Incognito

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

We like to think we’re a great nation.

But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

Yeah but it only counts as bad if a politician does it. Normal day to day scamming and cheating is ok cos it's just "small" stuff

Pinch Flat

A consequence of the compo culture that’s a cancer in this country

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

Sounds like we re just like any normal country then

F34

Too many vested interests keeping the claims culture alive here. Insurance companies and the legal profession equally to blame and funnily enough both have very strong lobbyists to maintain the status quo.

One eyed Jack

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."


One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

s7ryf3925pivug

F34 wrote: »

Too many vested interests keeping the claims culture alive here. Insurance companies and the legal profession equally to blame and funnily enough both have very strong lobbyists to maintain the status quo.

Insurance companies don't benefit from lots of claims. The opposite would be in their interest.

Radharc na Sleibhte

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."


One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

You are not a business person and you have no kids...

Crèches too. Our local one was closed by an insurance hike resulting from a claim. If the accident had happened at home, the kid would have been picked up, brushed off, given some chocolate and that’d be the end of it. But because it happened in a crèche a couple of lawyers and the parents make a buck and the end result is crèche closed, jobs lost and now fewer crèche places in the area.

theteal

I don't understand. The whole point of those places is for the little 'uns (and me!) to barrel around and burn off energy. A few knocks and bruises is expected, no? Who claims for these things???

The article mentions the claim in the Carlow place was an adult. Any details available on that? Cup of tea too hot???

Phileas Frog

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

We like to think we’re a great nation.

But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

But it's their culture!

s7ryf3925pivug

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."


One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

It affects non-profit community organizations too though. My wife set up a parent and baby group. Had to pay a significant amount for insurance up front, then hope people engage and contribute enough to pay it off over the year, after paying for the weekly community hall rental.

One eyed Jack

Radharc na Sleibhte wrote: »

You are not a business person and you have no kids...

Are you telling me, or asking me?


You’d be incorrect on both counts if you were telling me.

Del2005

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."


One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

Kids play and if you make something so that it's 100% safe then kids won't play there, they like a bit fun. So we either except that people will get minor injuries in play centres and have fit active healthy kids or go with the current ligation system where we have obese children with no where to play.

Radharc na Sleibhte

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you telling me, or asking me?


You’d be incorrect on both counts if you were telling me.

Somehow i doubt it. You certainly know very little about both.

JMNolan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you telling me, or asking me?


You’d be incorrect on both counts if you were telling me.

No one believes you

F34

Jaiden Dazzling Barley wrote: »

Insurance companies don't benefit from lots of claims. The opposite would be in their interest.

No but the amounts they are getting to raise premiums by are feeding into even bigger profits for them.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/fbd-to-double-dividend-after-strong-2018-1.3807974%3fmode=amp

Radharc na Sleibhte

Del2005 wrote: »

Kids play and if you make something so that it's 100% safe then kids won't play there, they like a bit fun. So we either except that people will get minor injuries in play centres and have fit active healthy kids or go with the current ligation system where we have obese children with no where to play.

For every rational speaking and thinking person, theres somebody else who likes to tear their neighbour down and stop people enjoying themselves.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years

You are having a laugh..

I know of 2 cases where the parents received massive payouts.

In one case the child put his arm through a window and lacerated it. His fault. Not the school or the window.

In the second case the child fell while running at playtime and chipped a baby tooth as many of us did when we were children.

Both received very significant payouts and one family has recently returned from their "trip of a lifetime to Florida" on the proceeds.

Very proud about it they were too.

We can't rely on the government or the legal and insurance industries to sort this because they won't bite off the hand that feeds them.

The less greedy among us do need to start treating these people like the social pariah's they are though.

They're just leeches feeding off the rest of us.

Greedy Scum.

One eyed Jack

Jaiden Dazzling Barley wrote: »

It affects non-profit community organizations too though. My wife set up a parent and baby group. Had to pay a significant amount for insurance up front, then hope people engage and contribute enough to pay it off over the year, after paying for the weekly community hall rental.

It does, absolutely, but what we’re talking about here are the play centres having to wrap up their businesses because they are no longer a viable business due to rising insurance costs, which arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims. The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone, especially when a play centre apparently designed with children’s safety in mind is the last place one would expect a child could be injured.

King of Kings

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."


One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

You are talking out your hole.
It cant be profitable as you say given they are closing due to costs. Your statment makes no sense.

Granted I cant vouch for all play centres but the ones ive been in were fine. I've been in quite a few.

The issue here is that accidents happen esp with kids but for some reason a lot of accidents seem to result in not just finiancial rewards but significants rewards.

Sure these places are businesses but they offer great services to the community.

If you cant see that there is something wrong with the current situation...then you are either blind or just a crank on a wind-up.

One eyed Jack

Rennaws wrote: »

You are having a laugh..

I know of 2 cases where the parents received massive payouts.

In one case the child put his arm through a window and lacerated it. His fault. Not the school or the window.

In the second case the child fell while running at playtime and chipped a baby tooth as many of us did when we were children.

Both received very significant payouts and one family has recently returned from their "trip of a lifetime to Florida" on the proceeds.

Very proud about it they were too.

We can't rely on the government or the legal and insurance industries to sort this because they won't bite off the hand that feeds them.

The less greedy among us do need to start treating these people like the social pariah's they are though.

They're just leeches feeding off the rest of us.

Greedy Scum.

I’m not having a laugh at all. One would expect that precautions to ensure children’s safety would be of paramount importance to every parent when they entrust the care of their children in someone else’s hands. If the school, or a business cannot do that, then I for one wouldn’t have any issue with them being shut down, no matter how many jobs were lost. If they don’t want to face high insurance costs as a result of insurance claims, the onus is on the owners of the business or the management of the school to ensure the safety of the children in their care.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, absolutely, but what we’re talking about here are the play centres having to wrap up their businesses because they are no longer a viable business due to rising insurance costs, which arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims. The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone, especially when a play centre apparently designed with children’s safety in mind is the last place one would expect a child could be injured.

Unless you wrap children in cotton wool they will injure themselves somehow, when at play.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

which arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims.

Except a rise in insurance claims does not follow that children are increasingly at risk. So your claim the latter part of this quote above supports the assertion in the first part is simply false.

There are plenty of ways the quantity of insurance claims can go up _without_ a rise in risk or incidents. Hell you could get a rise in claims even with a _decrease_ in both.

So no - a rise in one does not automatically imply a rise in the other.

Radharc na Sleibhte

F34 wrote: »

No but the amounts they are getting to raise premiums by are feeding into even bigger profits for them.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/fbd-to-double-dividend-after-strong-2018-1.3807974%3fmode=amp

Precisely. That NZ system above looks like a great idea on the face of it. Why dont they regulate it like electricity etc. If they want to increase price, let them apply and prove they need it. Two centres close to us closed down. I know one of the owners very well and i am worried about her. She has young kids, a mortgage and everything else. She was just getting by. Now....? Nothing. She couldnt get insurance even though she had no claims. Her insurer pulled out of the market.

Yet somebody above reckons they were incredibly profitable?
Yeah, they are all closing even though theyre incredibly profitable.

s7ryf3925pivug

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, absolutely, but what we’re talking about here are the play centres having to wrap up their businesses because they are no longer a viable business due to rising insurance costs, which arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims. The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone, especially when a play centre apparently designed with children’s safety in mind is the last place one would expect a child could be injured.

If the place is at fault then they should be held accountable. The thing is that it's common for large payouts to be awarded where there isn't fault, and excessive amounts for minor injuries. The cost of contesting them is great as well.

I'm not a fan of those pay centres because they seem to result in a lot of kids making each other sick. Strangling businesses isn't good though. Small business is generally a good thing.

There's an abbey near me that has large, very scenic grounds, open to the public. They have warned they might need to close them because of the number of claims being made - if I go for a walk in the woods and trip on a branch then that's on me. It's not on the owner of the woods, but that's the sort of thing they are facing.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One would expect that precautions to ensure children’s safety would be of paramount importance to every parent when they entrust the care of their children in someone else’s hands.

They already are.

They're also paramount to the business's because as we know, all it takes is one claim to shut them down.

But kids will still find ways to hurt themselves and greedy parents will continue to see these as opportunities to get some free cash.

You clearly know nothing about the childcare sector if you think these business's don't take this seriously.

Radharc na Sleibhte

King of Kings wrote: »

You are talking out your hole.
It cant be profitable as you given they are closing due to costs. Your statment makes no sense.

Granted I cant vouch for all play centres but the ones ive been in were fine. I've been in quite a few.

The issue here is that accidents happen esp with kids but for some reason a lot of accidents seem to result in not just finiancial rewards but significants rewards.

Sure these places are businesses but they offer great services to the community.

If you cant see that there is something wrong with the current situation...then you are either blind or just a crank on a wind-up.

They are only on a wind up.
Exactly the type of person who thinks everything must be someones fault and exactly what is wrong with this country.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Iwhich arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims.

Cite?

You say that a rise in insurance claims is evidence that children are at risk, but that logic is nonsense.

That logic would be faulty even if the number of claims were increasing, yet the businesses linked in the article have had none or minimal claims over 10/15 year periods. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed despite a low number of claims, not because of a high number.

If you are going to state that children are at risk in these places, that they are not safe, please provide some evidence for this opinion or I'll assume you are taking a contrary position just for the sake of it.

Reati

That's the second case of that in carlow. A community playground that was fundraised through the community and ran by volunteers was fenced off after a similar claim off insurance. Terrible form.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they don’t want to face high insurance costs as a result of insurance claims, the onus is on the owners of the business or the management of the school to ensure the safety of the children in their care.

You haven't even read the article, have you?

"We've ran this business for five years and have only had one claim in that time, which involved an adult, not a child," she said.

"My insurance went from €8,500 a few years ago to €47,000 and I've endured months of stress over all this, it has tormented me.

"Maybe the government will care when thousands are unemployed and everyone has to sign-on. There is no future for people in the play centre business at the moment.

"I've had two claims in 15 years so why would my insurance go up so high?

Other play centre owners who have had no claims against them say they are "living in fear" as "it can be the difference in getting a quote and not getting a quote."

Elaine Mullally opened Clown Around in Portarlington, Co Offaly in 2008 and has had no claims in 11 years of business, yet her insurance increased from €3,500 to €14,500.

Radharc na Sleibhte

bucketybuck wrote: »

Cite?

You say that a rise in insurance claims is evidence that children are at risk, but that logic is nonsense.

That logic would be faulty even if the number of claims were increasing, yet the businesses linked in the article have had none or minimal claims over 10/15 year periods. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed despite a low number of claims, not because of a high number.

If you are going to state that children are at risk in these places, that they are not safe, please provide some evidence for this opinion or I'll assume you are taking a contrary position just for the sake of it.

My car insurance went up. I didnt make a claim. Im the same driver i was 9 months ago. My house insurance went up for no reason. I had to find a new van insurer when setanta went bust. Some people dont get it.

They dont understand the fine margins most businesses operate on.
Nobody looking to make millions, just make a living and get by.

One eyed Jack

King of Kings wrote: »

You are talking out your hole.
It cant be profitable as you given they are closing due to costs. Your statment makes no sense.

Any business increases their profits by reducing costs. If reducing costs means putting children’s safety at risk, then accidents won’t just happen, they will be caused by negligence on the part of the business owner. Therefore, it is the business owner who wants to increase their profits is ultimately responsible for rising insurance costs being applied to the industry as a whole.

Granted I cant vouch for all play centres but the ones ive been in were fine. I've been in quite a few.

Any I’ve been in were fine too, primarily because at least my child didn’t injure themselves on any of the equipment. However that simply means my child wasn’t injured, it doesn’t mean they weren’t at risk of injury, and they could have been injured as I was able to observe plenty that would give a health and safety inspector cause for concern.

The issue here is that accidents happen esp with kids but for some reason a lot of accidents seem to result in not just finiancial rewards but significants rewards.

Sure these places are businesses but they offer great services to the community.

If you cant see that there is something wrong with the current situation...then you are either blind or just a crank on a wind-up.

The issue here is really that accidents are caused, as a result of negligence on the part of the business owner, in circumstances which often could have been foreseen (that’s why these claims are often successful and result in significant financial rewards) and prevented. I’m not denying that these places offer a great service to the community, but I’m not forgetting the fact that they also have an obligation to the public when they’re offering their services, to ensure the safety of their patrons.

I can see that there’s plenty wrong with the situation alright - business owners cribbing that they’re facing the same issues every business owner faces when they’re not making the same profits they were able to previously due to their own prioritising cutting costs and increasing profits over their patrons safety, and then cribbing when the inevitable rise in their insurance costs happens. The people who are actually to blame are themselves and the members of their own lobby group.

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

Cite?

You say that a rise in insurance claims is evidence that children are at risk, but that logic is nonsense.

That logic would be faulty even if the number of claims were increasing, yet the businesses linked in the article have had none or minimal claims over 10/15 year periods. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed despite a low number of claims, not because of a high number.

If you are going to state that children are at risk in these places, that they are not safe, please provide some evidence for this opinion or I'll assume you are taking a contrary position just for the sake of it.

You understand how insurance is calculated and applied to an industry? Whether or not an individual business had no history of insurance claims is only one factor in how their insurance costs are calculated. It’s insurance against claims, not insurance against members of the public being injured on the premises.

Fr_Dougal

Parents will have to bring their kids out to parks now, no more throwing them into play centres. It’s outrageous!

Feel sorry for the owners of these centres, their customers are looking for easy money.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If reducing costs means putting children’s safety at risk

due to their own prioritising cutting costs and increasing profits over their patrons safety

More rubbish pulled from your ass, you have no evidence of any of this.

Clearly you are not posting in good faith.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand how insurance is calculated and applied to an industry? Whether or not an individual business had no history of insurance claims is only one factor in how their insurance costs are calculated. It’s insurance against claims, not insurance against members of the public being injured on the premises.

You stated without evidence that the businesses were putting children at risk, and now that they are doing so by cost cutting. Both claims pulled from your ass.

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

More rubbish pulled from your ass, you have no evidence of any of this.

Clearly you are not posting in good faith.

I’m posting in good faith. The most salient points in your contributions so far have been that I’m talking out my hole and pulling rubbish from my ass.

Any time you feel like making an actual contribution I’m all ears.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m posting in good faith.

No, you are not.

Have you read the article yet?

eagle eye

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

We like to think we’re a great nation.
But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

And you can blame your government for that.
The social welfare system in this country is set up that if a decent person ends up out of work they have to jump through hoops to get paid. Meanwhile the dregs of our society get everything from the state quite easily because they lie, cheat and steal.
So the best way for the ordinary decent guy to go is just like them because you get everything easier. Once you start down a path it just becomes more tempting to find easy ways to get a few quid.

whisky_galore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone

Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility.

Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

You stated without evidence that the businesses were putting children at risk, and now that they are doing so by cost cutting. Both claims pulled from your ass.

The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards. Implementing adequate health and safety standards costs an absolute fortune, and will eat into the profits of any business, but in the long run, they’ll save a fortune on their insurance costs.

If there are 10 play centres and one of those play centres is costing their insurance company their profits, then the insurance company is going to raise the cost of their premiums for that industry as a whole, because the risks of providing insurance for that industry have increased, exponentially it would seem, in the last couple of years.

irelandrover

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards. Implementing adequate health and safety standards costs an absolute fortune, and will eat into the profits of any business, but in the long run, they’ll save a fortune on their insurance costs.

If there are 10 play centres and one of those play centres is costing their insurance company their profits, then the insurance company is going to raise the cost of their premiums for that industry as a whole, because the risks of providing insurance for that industry have increased, exponentially it would seem, in the last couple of years.

Can you show some proof of this?

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility.

Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.

What’s this “we” business? Let’s keep things in perspective at least.

The people who will claim against a business in the event that their child is injured are in a minority. Like every other patron, they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.

whisky_galore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s this “we” business? Let’s keep things in perspective at least.

The people who will claim against a business in the event that their child is injured are in a minority. Like every other patron, they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.

Is that you, End of the Road?

One eyed Jack

irelandrover wrote: »

Can you show some proof of this?

Some proof of what, that with adequate health and safety standards in place, the risk to children’s health and safety is mitigated? In other businesses where they have adequate health and safety standards in place to prevent injuries to children, children don’t get injured.

Very simple really.

Kivaro

whisky_galore wrote: »

Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility.

Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.

They should be prosecuted.
If that happened, I guarantee you that the number of claims would drastically decrease, and the quality of life for a lot of us would increase.
But no, that doesn't happen. Wonder why (rhetorical)?