I raised a dog attack on my cat earlier ("Terrier Attacks?" June 4th.) and ended "the owner... later offered to pay the fee. That was before I got the bill, for £482.38 ..."
I sent it on and he referred it to his insurers who reject it, saying the dog could not have got out as the property where the owner was staying was surrounded by a high fence. However there is a large low-level gap, quite large enough for the smallish dog (of which I have a photo) to get through. Indeed, the property's owner said through the fence while the attack was going on that he didn't realise it was big enough, showing that he knew the hole was there. It any case, it obviously did get out as it attacked in my garden.
I have now photographed the gap and will send a copy, with a photo of the dog at cat in my garden and a copy of the dog owner's written offer to pay up, to the insurer. (Unfortunately, I don't have a photo of the attack in progress.) I will point out the misstatement on security. If they still refuse, what would forum members do next? .
-Sue the owner as he has legal responsibility? Try the Small Claims Court? Look for a "No win No fee" outfit with this specialism? As a pensioner, and a "Co-op victim to boot", I can't afford to get landed with a steep legal bill of my own.
|
|
Small Claims Court if you have the evidence. Easy peasy.
|
My guess is they will pay up if you send them the evidence you have, and tell them they have been misinformed. The dog owner's written admission should be the clincher.
He could deny it I suppose, but why then did he refer it to his insurers in the first place?
They may of course not be disputing the attack so much as denying that their client has been negligent and is therefore not liable. But your photo of the hole goes a long way to counter that.
I had a car accident some years ago after which the third party and I both signed an account of the accident, which was indisputably his fault based on the account. His insurers refused it, saying that as I had driven into their client they weren't paying. I sent them the contemporaneous account with signature and they paid up without any more argument.
As PU says, small claims if it comes to that. He'll fold.
Good luck.
|
Forget about his insurers, claim off him.
He can deal with his insurers.
|
Yes to be clear, small claims court against him not the insurer.
But if sending copies of what you have to the insurer gets a result, it will be quicker and less trouble.
|
Yes, you must sue the dog owner.
I had a problem many years ago when my car was struck from the rear. The miscreant didn't have his insurance details so I contacted him the following day. It was quite a bad shunt: his engine dropped out and the rear end of my car was concertinered. He told me where to go.
My policeman brother recommended a solicitor and I took it from there. Ended up at the County Court, and his insurance company paid up. He had obviously contacted them when he got the summons.
|
Section 154 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act closed a loophole whereby drivers of vehicles involved in damage only collisions did not have to furnish insurance details which sometimes necessitated civil claims:
Duty to give information as to insurance or security where claim made.(1)A person against whom a claim is made in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act must, on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim—
(a)state whether or not, in respect of that liability—
(i)he was insured by a policy having effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act or had in force a security having effect for those purposes, or
(ii)he would have been so insured or would have had in force such a security if the insurer or, as the case may be, the giver of the security had not avoided or cancelled the policy or security, and
(b)if he was or would have been so insured, or had or would have had in force such a security—
(i)give such particulars with respect to that policy or security as were specified in any certificate of insurance or security delivered in respect of that policy or security, as the case may be, under section 147 of this Act, or
(ii)where no such certificate was delivered under that section, give the following particulars, that is to say, the registration mark or other identifying particulars of the vehicle concerned, the number or other identifying particulars of the insurance policy issued in respect of the vehicle, the name of the insurer and the period of the insurance cover.
(2)If without reasonable excuse, a person fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) above, or wilfully makes a false statement in reply to any such demand as is referred to in that subsection, he is guilty of an offence.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 22 Jun 13 at 16:49
|
|
With any luck he'll pay up, then go round and kick the vet's second-best Porsche...
|
Section 154 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act closed a loophole whereby drivers of vehicles involved in damage only collisions did not have to furnish insurance details which sometimes necessitated civil claims:
Yes, too late for me though, I collected a dozy motorcyclist in the back who dented the tailgate of my car in 1983. He would not tell his insurance so they didn't pay.
I actually found out who his insurer was (pre t'internet) despite him not saying and they said they'd pay if he told them of the accident. I found out his address despite his having moved (did some private investigator type work and hit lucky). Given his refusal and the fact he was in credit terms, a man of straw (I got him credit checked too), I gave up and moved on.
|
>> I raised a dog attack on my cat earlier ("Terrier Attacks?" June 4th.) and ended
>> "the owner... later offered to pay the fee. That was before I got the bill,
>> for £482.38 ..."
You buy 10 new ones for that. I'd have written it off.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Jun 13 at 14:16
|
|
The dog's insurer has now agreed to pay up, although not without a tussle.
|
>> The dog's insurer has now agreed to pay up, although not without a tussle.
Well done.
Now stick 'em for whiplash and traumatic stress!
|
|
You are a nasty piece of work when you want to be Zero.
|
|
You what? Get a sense of humour clog face.
|
"You are a nasty piece of work when you want to be Zero."
Z can certainly be "difficult", Dutchie, but this is English humour - although pretty dark, I admit.
|
|
Or hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Generally the conduct of a weak and bullying persona.
|
Yeah, Zero, you big bully.
He sends me abusive and mocking emails as well.
|
|
That's a bit strong, accusing Zero of having a sense of humour.
|
>> That's a bit strong, accusing Zero of having a sense of humour.
Yeah whatever 2
|
|
Yeah, he had a go at me too about 2 or 3 years ago over WW2, or something or other!!!
|
>> Yeah, Zero, you big bully.
>>
>> He sends me abusive and mocking emails as well.
Yeah whatever 4 I enjoyed that.
|
>> Or hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Generally the conduct of a weak and
>> bullying persona.
Yeah whatever
|
youtu.be/Mz61xPVpDnI
There a whole series of these things.
|
>>Or hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Generally the conduct of a weak and bullying persona.
So let me understand, given that you are implying a negative about someone else, and you are doing it with the anonymity of the internet, that means that you are ................. ?
Or does it more apply to those who Thumbs Up or Scowly with anonymity?
Just trying to understand, you see.
|
>> Or does it more apply to those who Thumbs Up or Scowly with anonymity?
I often use the thumb and occasionally the scowly...and am well prepared to 'fess up to every one...but there's no facility for that unless I were to bore the pants off everyone each time and bother to write something. Using them can hardly be hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
What I think Woodster means is someone having an unpleasant pop at someone else, safe in the knowledge they are anonymous...and perhaps they wouldn't do that if they were known...and that he feels that on occasions that is a form of bullying.
There has been some of that on here occasionally...(not aimed at me, or if it was it went over my head).
|
I know what Woodster means, but I saw no reason to treat his note any differently.
Annoying, rude, wrong, maybe. But bullying? Hardly?
That's becoming as frequent a battle cry as Nazis and jealousy.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 1 Jul 13 at 23:27
|
|
no-one had a pop at anyone in this thread.
|
|
'scuse me. I did. I said you were a bully. Wasn't I clear?
|
|
So did I, implying that you were lacking in the humour department, (or maybe I am too thick to appreciate it).
|
|
The way you lot go on reminds me of a cat and dog fight.
|
This thread is positively polite by the standards of some websites I visit........
|
>> (or maybe I
>> am too thick to appreciate it).
correct.
|
>> 'scuse me. I did. I said you were a bully. Wasn't I clear?
thats was just a pathetic "ooo ooo me too" "can I be in your gang - please" I don't want to be left out effort. I wasn't going to embarrass you any more by mentioning it, but if you are that desperate then.....
|
''So let me understand, given that you are implying a negative about someone else, and you are doing it with the anonymity of the internet, that means that you are ................. ?''
Avaiable for a meeting anytime.
|
>>Avaiable for a meeting anytime.
My 'Internet Warrior' Bingo Card is almost full.
Keep going everyone.
No-one has mentioned anyone's mum yet...
|
|
I'm mentioning Lygonos's Mum and I claim my £5.
|
>> ''So let me understand, given that you are implying a negative about someone else, and
>> you are doing it with the anonymity of the internet, that means that you are
>> ................. ?''
>>
>>
>> Avaiable for a meeting anytime.
>>
backed up a van full of your mates probably.
|
Will you all behave please.....think what impression you give to newcomers wondering whether to post or not!
Pat
|
>> Will you all behave please.....think what impression you give to newcomers wondering whether to post
>> or not!
>>
>> Pat
Wasn't me it was Dutchy. He started it.
|
|
I don't think I've got any track record of being an internet warrior. Since I accuse others of hiding behind the 'net it's only right that I put my money where my mouth is. Might I suggest that a few contributors meet at a public location (services for example) and we could simply get to know the personalities behind the posts. On the point about bringing a few mates with me: it really won't be necessary. It never has been.
|
>> it really won't be necessary. It never has been.
You're that tough or you haven't got any?
As for meeting, there's a great bar on Isidora Goyenechea, Las Condes. Let's meet there? We can go some place closer to you next time.
|
|
I take it you won't be coming then?
|
I think the whole thing is hilarious. There are a number of "internet people" I could name (here and elsewhere) who, if they spoke to people in real life how they do online would get their lights punched out on a pretty regular basis by sheer weight of odds of upsetting the wrong person. But I suspect they wouldn't, and don't talk to real people in the same way.
The internet is the internet. Real life is real life. Internet forums everywhere are a reminder that we should never confuse the two. :-)
|
>>The internet is the internet. Real life is real life
But I think that's true about more than just the internet; I wouldn't talk the same way in the office, in a pub, in a letter, in business, socially, on the internet etc.
The difference about the internet is that you usually have no other information; no body language, no joint experience, no verbal communication etc. etc.
You are correct that one always needs to bear in mind the environment, but there are more than just the internet and the not-internet.
And one needs to remember that one is in a motoring/discussion forum for recreation and fun and not get too carried away.
(As an encore I can also help pots and kettles understand that they're black)
|
>>
>> (As an encore I can also help pots and kettles understand that they're black)
>>
That's nice. :-)
|
I will...in my role as peacemaker.
Pat
|
|
No flounces so all hot air so far..
|
>>No flounces so all hot air so far..
Don't bring Stu into it FFS!
|
>> No flounces so all hot air so far..
>>
Ah, the public flounce. The equivalent of stropping out of a room muttering "I'm not playing any more". :-)
|
>>I take it you won't be coming then?
To take you up on your rather peculiar offer of meeting in some services? No, I think we can assume I won't be bothering.
Aside from the fact that services are at best necessary evils and not the sort of place I would go out of my way to visit socially, I doubt if the company would be the most fun I've ever had.
|
Dragging this rudely back on topic, despite my "you can buy 10 of them for that price" jocular jest, there is a real and serious side to it. One that I will be juggling with sometime within the next 18 months. The cost of keeping a loved pet alive.
Got no insurance for Fifi, its simply too dear when they get older, 600 quid a year or so. The dear ole girls back legs are going, appears to be getting deaf, and getting anxious (dog Alzheimer). One has to make a delicate balance between ones desire to keep a loved dog alive at all costs, the dogs quality of life, and the sheer expense & cost - I wont for example shell out another 500 quid for a procedure, but would shell out 20 quid a month for meds for two years of extended reasonable quality of life.
Its a difficult dilemma.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Jul 13 at 14:06
|
And as you know I've just been through it for the second time.
In the case of both of mine it was slightly easier in that the point where they stopped enjoying life arrived before the point that the money became unacceptable.
It may be stating the obvious but you need to remember that your dog is trusting you to do the best for them, not the best for you. And as well as being able to look back and believe that you didn't have them put to sleep too soon, you also need to believe that you didn't wait too long either.
I might shell out £500. Depends how much the dogs life would improve for how long against the risk & potential suffering.
I think to a large extent we know when the right time is. We just struggle with doing something so sad, and convincing others that we're doing the right thing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 2 Jul 13 at 14:22
|
>>
>> Its a difficult dilemma.
>>
Agreed. We have an 11 year old Collie/Lab-x who, although in good health now, is noticeably slowing and greying as a testament to his advancing years. We were quoted £420 to renew this year, which we haven't taken up. Like all insurance, it's too much money until it is needed.
|
>> I think to a large extent we know when the right time is.
Cats seem to know and so long as they are not in pain, just pass calmly away. Wood pigeons are the same. Some get worn out at this this time of the year and simply stand so still on the ground that they can be picked up. If I find one I wring its neck, to prevent it becoming a cat or dog plaything.
|
|
If I was a pigeon I wouldn't be landing for a rest round your way.
|
>> Some get worn out at this this time of the year and simply stand so still on the ground that they can be picked up
Well I'll be doggone ... bout a year ago I looked out of the window and saw my R/Ridgeback swallowing a collared dove, whole - feathers, beak, feet, the fracking lot!
I was so, well, shocked really, but angry as well, to think that my pet dog had 'king eaten one the the birds I feed on a daily basis.
But, he's never done that before or since, so, I can only presume that the dick was on his way out anyway, and that Milo sensed it, and sort of did him a favour, like.
|
Two weeks ago today I had to have my old Cocker Spaniel put to sleep, and I was broken hearted. He was fifteen and a half years old, suffering from dementia; deaf and blind; and doubly incontinent. I thought that I might have been relieved because he has been hard work for the past two years almost. I was not. The vet was brilliant, and I even got a sympathy card from the practice. Nice to know that some vets really do care. Charley is now resting in the garden with four other dogs.
When Charley was ten, M&S insurance wanted £799 at renewal. I also had to pay an excess of £70, plus 20% of the remainder. Needless to say I never renewed.
|
Insuring older dogs or cats is almost impossible to afford, that's why we always re-home older cats....not many want the risk of bills so they are left in cat's homes for ever.
We put a small sum away each month as if it was the insurance premium and pray we can afford it when the time comes but I can always drop down to one ciggie a day for a few weeks.....
I would willingly do that for an animal and it's one of the *few* benefits of being a smoker as I found many years ago when my son needed glasses at 5 years old.
He was adamant he wouldn't wear the then horrible NHS ones and wanted a pair of 'Star Trek frames. My ciggie budget got those for him, while my temper and need for nicotine suffered!
Pat
|
"... it's one of the *few* benefits of being a smoker..."
Eh? Are you saying one of the benefits of being a smoker is that you can give up/cut down to save money? That is a "benefit"? If you gave up completely you'd save even more and reap other, real, benefits, too.
|
The non smoker has no pleasures to cut down on when times are hard FP...I had, and made my son happy.
I saw that as a benefit, and still do.
Don't forget, many smokers are like me and don't actually want to give up and consider the money they earned to be spent on any pleasure they wish to spend it on.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 2 Jul 13 at 17:15
|
>> The non smoker has no pleasures to cut down on when times are hard FP
Er, well, I do. Drinking, Sky TV, football matches, cheese, Indian takeaways............
|
>> Don't forget, many smokers are like me and don't actually want to give up
Quite a few use this defence to deflect the fact that they may be addicted.
That's not to say you don't enjoy a cigarette, it's just that if you actually did try to stop for a few days "to show that you could" you might find that it's not as easy as you expect.
|
>> Quite a few use this defence to deflect the fact that they may be addicted.
>>
>> That's not to say you don't enjoy a cigarette, it's just that if you actually
>> did try to stop for a few days "to show that you could" you might
>> find that it's not as easy as you expect.
I agree. The idea of enjoying a cigarette was comprehensively dismantled by the stop smoking method I used. And it made a lot of sense to me. You are setting fire to weed and breathing in the fumes. It is no more a pleasurable activity than sticking your head down a chimney. The pleasure comes from the alleviation of the need for nicotine.
I thoroughly enjoy a few beers or a bottle of red wine, and consider these a genuine pleasure but if I don't indulge for days or even weeks at a time, it's no big deal. If I went without a cigarette for more than a couple of hours it affected my personality, concentration and mood. That's the simple difference between pleasure and addiction.
That said, I also firmly believe that if people feel they want to continue smoking, it is not up to society to make them stop. It's taxed to the hilt and pays for itself. I personally wanted to stop, but realised that I couldn't. And that is when I made the decision to end my relationship with the stuff. Forget the health stuff - we all know that.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 3 Jul 13 at 11:53
|
I stopped smoking around 40 years ago. i used to puff around 20 Benson & Hedges Silk Cut per day at around 6s 5d a packet.
One day I worked out that this was costing me close to 10% of my income (my wife had given up her 30+ per day a couple of years earlier when UTD).
Blooming 'eck it's serious money down the drain, thought I!
I stopped, cold turkey, and have never smoked since.
I like a drink of alcohol - wine & spirits both, but would not really miss it if I never had another one.
My addiction and yes, it is an addiction, is to food.
Which proves that if you want to stop you can - trouble is I don't want to stop noshing, ENOUGH, to eat less.
|
>>trouble is I don't want to stop noshing, ENOUGH, to eat less<<
You must be addicted to food then Roger:)
I am addicted to nicotine, and quite happy with that situation, so why does it become a problem for all and sundry as soon as one of us smokers mentions smoking?
...and don't tell me you are paying for my healthcare.
One annual BP check up a year for the last 20 years and nothing else.
I knew when I threw in that remark the original topic would be forgotten and the thread would take a predictable direction...it really does get tiresome.
Pat
|
>> I am addicted to nicotine, and quite happy with that situation, so why does it
>> become a problem for all and sundry as soon as one of us smokers mentions
>> smoking?
I suspect for most of us the addiction to nicotine is, of itself, not an issue. If however you're adminstering the dose by inhaling tobacco smoke than unless you're doing it in privacy of own home it potentially affects others.
It's not possible to walk round the block from work without encountering smoke and dropped fag ends in large quantity. At least we can now go to the pub or travel on the bus/train without going home stinking of smoke.
|
>> At least we can now go to the pub or travel on the bus/train without going home stinking of smoke.
This isn't especially aimed at you Bromptonaut, but one of the advantages of smoking is that it desensitises the nostrils which otherwise are assailed by the stenches of aftershave, scent, face powder, hair oil and so on from non-smoking passers-by. 'The great smell of Brut' may be repellent to non-users, but splash-on types don't care: the pong is a toiletry product, so morally acceptable unlike the stench of filthy addiction.
People are funny as well as deaf, dumb and blind. I think so anyway.
|
|
I don't smoke anymore and I'm pleased to say I don't really miss it now. Although an unforeseen side effect is that giving up tobacco has lessened my enthusiasm for alcohol. A pint is just far too wet without a cig for some reason and I never did develop a taste for pork scratchings. Hey ho.
|
"I knew when I threw in that remark the original topic would be forgotten and the thread would take a predictable direction..."
Precisely, Pat. And that's why I shut up at that point, even though I'm a rabid anti-smoker - I never have smoked, don't understand why anyone smokes, hate the smell of it, etc., etc.
Life's too short...
|
>>...and don't tell me you are paying for my healthcare.
Good Lord no: smokers pay their dues several times over.
And long may it continue.
I bet non-smokers are afflicted with the same smugness that cyclists feel riding on roads (over)paid for by motorists ;-)
|
>>I bet non-smokers are afflicted with the same smugness that cyclists feel riding on roads (over)paid for by motorists ;-)
I wonder what proportion of cyclists are NOT motorists?
|
>> the simple difference between pleasure and addiction.
Not that simple in my opinion, but you are right DP: pleasure is one thing, addiction is another. There is little pleasure in tobacco. It's unpleasant stuff whose toxic effects are immediately apparent the first time you try it. Damn hard to give up once you have the habit though.
Of course there is a relationship between addiction and pleasure, but it's something that can change substantially over time. What may once have been pleasurable can become a necessary, tedious, expensive chore. Brains, privilege and money don't make you immune. Remember the Rausings? Closer to home, I don't like to be without any cigarettes and I imagine Pat is the same.
Sweet of her to cut down to one a day to buy food for her old moggies though. I don't think I'd do that.
|
|
I can't agree that there is little pleasure in tobacco. During my smoking career, from small beginnings before age 10 and ceasing at about age 42, I would have said that the greatest pleasure obtainable from a small outlay was to be found in a packet of fags. It took no great effort to stop. I just didn't care for it any longer. (I, too, found alcohol less appealing at the same time).
|
|
I only ever puffed a few cigs in my youth, never saw the appeal. However, cigar and pipe tobacco can smell nice. It's the nasty, cheap coffin nails that smell unspeakably awful.
|
The Frogs used to have some truly awful smelling fags...Gauloise & Gitanes, are they still about?
Luckily for me, when about 14, my mate and I nicked 80 cigarettes from his father's stache (Black Cat they were called) and we disappeared off and smoked the lot in one go...put me off for life.
|
>> The Frogs used to have some truly awful smelling fags...Gauloise & Gitanes, are they still
>> about?
When we first met Mrs B smoked gauloise rollies. Oddly enough that was the only sort of ciggy smoke I could ever abide. Although smoking is still quite prevalent in france the overwhelming majority smoke 'American' tobacco. The whiff of Gauloise is now rare indeed.
The odd proper tobacconist in UK still sells Gitanes Filtre I think. The last one local to work, Shervingtons in Holborn, closed down several years ago.
|
|
No-one's smelt anything stinky until they've suffered a Soviet summer breathing in other people's papirosi smoke, mingling with the consequences of an underdeveloped deodorant market. (I suppose those who lived through the 40s and 50s can probably imagine this, however.) The worst fags over there were called "Baku", self evidently from Azerbaijan, even hardened smokers I knew would choke on them as if being strangled. I wonder if they still exist.
|
this thread is a delight of drift. From dogs attacking cats, via playground bullying and willy waving threats to smoking and cyclists.
superb
|
>>superb
My wife bought a toffee cheesecake last night. It was bogging. Who's ever heard of a toffee cheesecake?
|
|
thats cheating, a deliberate attempt to create thread drift, has no flow.
|
>> has no flow.
It's true that traditional caramel toffee, if straight from the fridge where all good cheesecakes live if they know what's good for them, will be hard and brittle.
But there are techniques or ingredients that will enable it to flow rather slowly even at low temperatures.
Was the toffee on yours like that or brittle Humph? Or was it just, you know, toffee-flavoured, without a layer of toffee above or below? We are agog to know.
|
|
Runny toffee AC. Disgusting runny toffee. Can't imagine what she was thinking.
|
Oh I dunno. I thought 'bogging' meant terrific.
I agree runny toffee isn't always nice. But it can be.
|
bogging -
Similar to minging.
You are bogging.
That shirt is bogging.
|
>> bogging -
>>
>>
>> Similar to minging.
>>
>> You are bogging.
>> That shirt is bogging.
..and there was me thinking it meant something akin to 'cottaging'.
|
|
They do a lot of that in the West Country I gather. Some of them even advertise themselves as dog friendly. Don't think I like the sound of it myself.
|
|
Rum toffee is better than runny toffee. Except it does nasties to fillings...
|
|
Anyone else discovered Turkish delight flavoured yoghurt?
|
I had coconut yogurt poured over strawberries for me pud tonight..........Yumsville City, Wyoming !
Ted
|
>>this thread is a delight of drift.
OK fellas, you've had your fun. Now, back to the OP. Why do I now feel sorry for the dog's owner? I have never met him, but have clobbered him with a £482.38 bill, he has had to pay the policy excess up-front, he will lose his no-claim bonus and he will almost certainly have his premium increased at next renewal.
|
Because you acted in a moment of anger instead of sleeping on it first?
Pat
|
Disputed Animal Attack Claim - R.P.
