Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
ineedeuro wrote: » Not how it works and not how it should work. The ordinary people are the ones who are wronged. They need compensation. They go to the person that wronged them and get compensation The regulator provides guidelines. That is it. If the company failed to adhere to them they are at fault and the person can sue them because they didn't follow the regulations. If you at a company and get injured because they didn't follow H&S regulations, do you sue Health & Safety authority or do you sue the company and the legal team confirm the company didn;t follow the guidelines?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why 'should' it be? Why when regulation failed here, should the homeowner have to go through expensive court proceedings to get redress?
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » That makes no sense. Companies have insurance in case they make mistakes. The regulator isn't there to go after companies for money.
FrancieBrady wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/business/regulator-sues-google-over-sponsored-links-1.969761?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fregulator-sues-google-over-sponsored-links-1.969761https://postandparcel.info/45491/news/irish-regulator-sues-an-post-over-poor-service-quality/
ineedeuro wrote: » I will make the point again. You have Health and Safety. Is everyone currently suing the Health and Safety Authority? No they are suing the company that didn't follow the H&S. That is why we have a legal system. You can't change the legal system just because it suddenly doesn't suit your point. That's not how it works.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Any links to any successful outcomes? Wouldn't it be nice. Maybe we should all stop paying insurance for our companies seems the regulator can look after everyones issues.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I quoted the law above on Mica regulations. Let the regulator sue and recoup the money. The regulator and by consequence the government have failed ordinary trusting people here. They have every right to protest. The government has given way already that they have that right, by accepting some responsibility.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You were the one making the claim the regulator was not there to go after money. Two seconds to prove you wrong. Now you want proof that they were successful. Deary me. The protestors here are already successful and have made the government accept their responsibilities in securing some redress, they want 100% redress and I think they will get it. Why? Because they are ordinary people who have been failed by state incompetence.
ineedeuro wrote: » We should change our legal system. Everyone should just sue the HSA etc and they can then sue the company. Sure it will only cost billions in legal fee's but sure thats the way it should be
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » It's quite clear this is been turned into another political football by certain people.
timmyntc wrote: » If the FSAI neglected to perform food safety inspections on restaurants and people subsequently got ill - they would be found negligent in addition to the restaurant.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Loads of cases like these where the HSA sues a negligent company.https://www.hsa.ie/eng/news_events_media/archive/press_releases_2013_to_2020/press_releases_2016/company_fined_%E2%82%AC250_000_for_safety_breach.html Company failed to observe regulations and the HSA sued them.
ineedeuro wrote: » Would you sue the FSAI or the restaurant?
timmyntc wrote: » If I knew the FSAI were not conducting regular inspections like they should, then I would sue both. The restaurant wouldnt have enough cash to cover a multitude of claims either though.
ineedeuro wrote: » So in other words you would sue the restaurant. Thank you, I 100% agree
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Are the victims suing the manufacturers and the regulator? They should be.
timmyntc wrote: » In other words, I would sue the FSAI. As I stated - the restaurant would likely fold before having to pay out several claims that would leave it bankrupt. Same applies here with block suppliers. The cost for redress goes way beyond what any block supplier would afford, and insurance likely would not cover gross negligence like this - so the only option is the state pays given it was the states lapse in regulating that allowed this to transpire in the first place.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The government have already accepted liability by introducing a redress scheme. The protestors are saying it isn't enough. If you have an issue with who is liable, then criticise the government for accepting it.
ineedeuro wrote: » If, but's, maybe You would sue the restaurant as you originally said, trying to say now it would fold is irrelevant.
mikep wrote: » Again ..has anyone heard who the manufactures are?? As others pointed out they should be the first call for compo.. They supplied a faculty product where the poor quality has serious consequences.. If during an investigation it's found that the regulator was negligent then go after them by all means but I expect there will be a clause in the legislation to establish the regulator that they can't be liable...
BASHIR wrote: » Government seem to feel different, not going to oppose Sinn Fein motion.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Because they are concerned about the most recent polls, are weak generally, and thinking about the next election. Again, this issue has nothing to do with Government or the taxpayer. These people should be taking this up with their builders/suppliers via existing legal avenues.
