No win, no fee related question.

[TooMany2cvs]

chilistrucker said:

The CCTV issue came up within the first couple of months, 3 months iirc

Still far longer than they're likely to have kept it for.

chilistrucker said:

NOT 2 years down the line.

But that's where we are now.

chilistrucker said:

Bear in mind the nature of the incident that night, customer falls, customer unconscious on bar floor, ambulance called, paramedics on scene i'd have thought that the manager may have thought the CCTV from that night may have been worth holding onto for a while.

The standard retention would probably be a week or two. If they'd been contacted in that time, it would probably have been fine.

If they're so adamant in their non-liability, they're probably wishing they still had it just as much as you are, adamant in their responsibility.

[chilistrucker]

I was in hospital for a week. Was then at home for about a week before contacting the solicitor. Solicitor told me they would contact the 3rd party and that they would have 3 weeks to respond to his initial letter. They took 4 weeks.
Approx 3 months on from this, the lady who was dealing with the case for the 3rd party, went on holiday and never returned. A few more weeks passed before the 3rd party had someone else in charge of the case, and upto speed dealing with it.

[Mr Tidy]

To be honest these sort of claims tend to drag on, mostly because the compensation awarded is obviously hugely affected by the length of time you are likely to have to suffer from the injury.

Your solicitors will argue that the injury will affect your enjoyment of life forever but the other legal team will argue it is relatively short-term, or at least improving.

End result is it drags on while both sides get medical opinions which will hopefully support their opinion.

Both sides are quite entitled to ask you to undergo a medical examination, but it would have been useful to know which side had commissioned the one you went to!

But regardless of the compensation aspect I hope you do make/have made a decent recovery.

[GC8]

TooMany2cvs said:

You fell over, nearly two years ago, and have no proof of anything. Alcohol may well have been a factor.
You've seen some ads, think you're owed, and have contacted solicitors.
Somebody's suggested medical evidence might be a good plan...

...and you've immediately started on the defensive.

Now, I appreciate I'm the cynical kind, but...

Without a doubt, you are the biggest know-it-all gobste that I have ever seen on this forum, and PistonHeads has had more than its fair share of those. You're a silly, angry little nobody. If you had more about you then you wouldn't be such a gainsaying, argumentative little chode of a man.

Shut the fk up - you take being a forum- to a whole new level of ishness.

Ignore the little prick Neil.

[TooMany2cvs]

GC8 said:

You're a silly, angry little nobody.

<shrug> Who's angry? Not me.

It might be the person who seems to be following me from thread-to-thread to have a pop, though.

[GC8]

Just in case there was any doubt, eh? I don't believe that you have ever made a constructive post here. You are a forum parasite.

[Jasandjules]

I think far too many people had mothers who forgot to tell them if they can't say anything nice, to not say anything at all.

[Exige77]

GC8 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

You fell over, nearly two years ago, and have no proof of anything. Alcohol may well have been a factor.
You've seen some ads, think you're owed, and have contacted solicitors.
Somebody's suggested medical evidence might be a good plan...

...and you've immediately started on the defensive.

Now, I appreciate I'm the cynical kind, but...

Without a doubt, you are the biggest know-it-all gobste that I have ever seen on this forum, and PistonHeads has had more than its fair share of those. You're a silly, angry little nobody. If you had more about you then you wouldn't be such a gainsaying, argumentative little chode of a man.

Shut the fk up - you take being a forum- to a whole new level of ishness.

Ignore the little prick Neil.

^^^^^^He does make a good point.

[Shnozz]

TooMany2cvs said:

chilistrucker said:

The CCTV issue came up within the first couple of months, 3 months iirc

Still far longer than they're likely to have kept it for.

chilistrucker said:

NOT 2 years down the line.

But that's where we are now.

chilistrucker said:

Bear in mind the nature of the incident that night, customer falls, customer unconscious on bar floor, ambulance called, paramedics on scene i'd have thought that the manager may have thought the CCTV from that night may have been worth holding onto for a while.

The standard retention would probably be a week or two. If they'd been contacted in that time, it would probably have been fine.

If they're so adamant in their non-liability, they're probably wishing they still had it just as much as you are, adamant in their responsibility.

You will usually find a clause within the policy for any pub and club to have a standard 90 day retention period for CCTV footage - for exactly the reasons highlighted in this thread.

You will also find that failure to adhere to this clause will lead to indemnity being withdrawn. That in itself then leaves a Claimant such as the OP at the mercy of the relevant pub/bar/club and the extent of their assets. A potentially large claim and I have little doubt they would be advised to phoenix the business.

[TooMany2cvs]

Shnozz said:

You will usually find a clause within the policy for any pub and club to have a standard 90 day retention period for CCTV footage - for exactly the reasons highlighted in this thread.

Makes sense. That's a lot of footage to store, if there's a lot of cameras around a big venue. Still, at least it isn't all on VHS these days...

And, if it was after 90 days when the OP first raised the issue - as it may have been - it still doesn't help much, either.

[Shnozz]

TooMany2cvs said:

Shnozz said:

You will usually find a clause within the policy for any pub and club to have a standard 90 day retention period for CCTV footage - for exactly the reasons highlighted in this thread.

Makes sense. That's a lot of footage to store, if there's a lot of cameras around a big venue. Still, at least it isn't all on VHS these days...

And, if it was after 90 days when the OP first raised the issue - as it may have been - it still doesn't help much, either.

Indeed, and given the limitation period is 3 years (or up to age 21 if it's a kid that happens to have been in the bar), its perhaps a token effort. However, in today's culture its more common than not that a claim will be notified within 3 months of an accident occurring so more often than not the CCTV will remain intact.

I have acted in a number of such cases and given the prevalence of CCTV in all walks of life these days, it's incredible how hard it is to pinpoint the footage (or make out what on earth is happening on the screen) when its needed.

[surveyor]

Just a thought from me.

Bearing in mind pubs are where people drink alcohol to varying degrees. Alcohol is wet and when spilt can be slippery on some surfaces.

I would have thought a pub installing such a surface, in a venue where people are drinking would need to be very careful.

I also happen to know Neil - and that he is a top bloke.

I'd be surprised at anyone who slips, is fairly seriously injured and has their livelihood ripped from their hands with no notice, and does not explore all of the legal options.

[Jasandjules]

surveyor said:

I'd be surprised at anyone who slips, is fairly seriously injured and has their livelihood ripped from their hands with no notice, and does not explore all of the legal options.

Indeed. As I've said before on here, many of those who are so vocal about ambulance chasing and so on will be the first on the phone to a lawyer if they had an accident that resulted in an injury.

It's why I tend to ignore them.

[Shnozz]

Jasandjules said:

surveyor said:

I'd be surprised at anyone who slips, is fairly seriously injured and has their livelihood ripped from their hands with no notice, and does not explore all of the legal options.

Indeed. As I've said before on here, many of those who are so vocal about ambulance chasing and so on will be the first on the phone to a lawyer if they had an accident that resulted in an injury.

It's why I tend to ignore them.

You can add me to that list.

Those who pursue any claim are always low-life parasites who are faking their case, should man up, brush themselves down, look where they were going, stop being a drain on society etc etc etc etc.

Until its them. Or their mum. Or wife. Then its just, well, you know, its different.

I do little work in that arena these days and I am thankful of that given the government have used that general sentiment and the pressures of the insurance industry to make their own intervention in terms of fees where a note to the judiciary or standard commercial balance would have dealt with matters suitably.

[chilistrucker]

Been busy, but thanks again to everyone, (nearly) for the thoughts and info.
I hope they do still have the CCTV footage from that day, because if they do they will on 1 specific item make themselves look rather daft. It happened in 1 of the big chain pubs, 'with a knife' or something
As mentioned by others, I also find it odd that for all the time they have insisted on there approach to customer safety, why would they have 90% of the floor carpeted, and yet the other 10% around the bar area as a wood floor.

[cmaguire]

chilistrucker said:

Been busy, but thanks again to everyone, (nearly) for the thoughts and info.
I hope they do still have the CCTV footage from that day, because if they do they will on 1 specific item make themselves look rather daft. It happened in 1 of the big chain pubs, 'with a knife' or something
As mentioned by others, I also find it odd that for all the time they have insisted on there approach to customer safety, why would they have 90% of the floor carpeted, and yet the other 10% around the bar area as a wood floor.

It'll be because of spillages etc which generally are in the bar area.
No excuse for creating a skidpan though.

[lbc]

chilistrucker said:

Been busy, but thanks again to everyone, (nearly) for the thoughts and info.
I hope they do still have the CCTV footage from that day, because if they do they will on 1 specific item make themselves look rather daft. It happened in 1 of the big chain pubs, 'with a knife' or something
As mentioned by others, I also find it odd that for all the time they have insisted on there approach to customer safety, why would they have 90% of the floor carpeted, and yet the other 10% around the bar area as a wood floor.

A friend of mine tried to claim from one of these no win no fee companies a few years ago, due to a fall on a wet floor in a well known fast food place, but it dragged on for so long the no fee company pulled out as it went over their budget.

Just something else to consider!

[majordad]

There was a case very similiar to yours here in Ireland recently. The judge said that spils needed to be dealt with very soon and that in a pub on the day of a big match there should be dedicated staff to dealing with empties and spills almost at once. His thinking was that the bar owners make a lot of money on such occasions and need to put extra measures and staff in place. It's often not unusual for the Insurance Company to snoop on you !