Hi
I was wondering if someone can help?
I am In negotiations with Simpson and Millar regarding a dog bite compensation .
I know I have to pay back Royal Mail for the sick money i had( 2 weeks) I was under the impression that when you get the compensation that you get the full amount whatever it may be, then the solicitor claims off the third party for RM,s money.
No it's part of your contract that if you win you have to pay RM for the forwarded sick pay , personally I think it stinks that RM are recouping their losses with the free use of the CWU appointed solicitors. Can not see why RM can't sue using their own solicitors to get back their costs
That's a load of s**t. RM should file their own claim against the 'defendant' if they want their money back that much.
This company makes you madder and madder with each passing day.
Though, with the level of incompetence that there is within the company and the HR department, I can see that this would be the fastest way for RM to get their money back, as if they did it, it would take another couple of years.
Plus, they get to annoy one of the staff, which is what they live for.
I disagree, the pay for the claimant has been paid by RM and the compensation takes into account loss of earnings which in effect would mean the claimant was paid twice and so I don't consider it unfair to have RM repaid.
Nobody said it was unfair for RM to reclaim their money, just that they should do it themselves. I also wouldn't omit the possibility that RM do it this way just to reduce the pay out the postie received. Just to stick the knife in.
There are two types of damages General and Special.
General relates to pain,suffering etc.
Special relates to loss of earnings past and future.
Obviously if you are awarded special damages for loss of earnings and because you receive full sick pay you haven't actually lost any earnings you will have to repay Royal Mail.
If you don't receive special damages you don't have to repay anything.
i had dog attack back in october, dog owner got know home or dog insurance ! simpson millar say i might be able to claim off my own home insurance. 1. why should i av to attempt this ? 2 am i not insured by royal mail through their insurance as i was performing a job for them 3 i'm out of pocket through hospital appointments and pescriptions . anyone with any thoughts ?
UnhappyGremlin wrote:Nobody said it was unfair for RM to reclaim their money, just that they should do it themselves. I also wouldn't omit the possibility that RM do it this way just to reduce the pay out the postie received. Just to stick the knife in.
So are you suggesting that RM shouldn't pay sick pay and save themselves any effort in making a claim? No of course not, they are reclaiming the money already paid out to whom it was paid to and that is right.
UnhappyGremlin wrote:Nobody said it was unfair for RM to reclaim their money, just that they should do it themselves. I also wouldn't omit the possibility that RM do it this way just to reduce the pay out the postie received. Just to stick the knife in.
So are you suggesting that RM shouldn't pay sick pay and save themselves any effort in making a claim? No of course not, they are reclaiming the money already paid out to whom it was paid to and that is right.
As the poster below you said, I think it is more likely that you wouldn't receive money for loss of earnings as it may have been taken into account that we receive full sick pay from RM. RM should pay sick pay, it is good for us and most don't get it in other jobs. Most claims will only pay loss of earnings which would equate to OT/allowances etc. I am merely saying the company should file there own claim, it's not like it would be difficult to do or prove.
Prior to any case starting the position of the company should be made clear, so if they do intend to claim from the postie in question, they can make sure they get this money on top of whatever else they are claiming in order to pay RM. I don't think the postie should have the potential to lose out.
Dvb is right.
If RM had to go after the third party for sick absence costs the only people to win out of that would be the lawyers and RM would soon get bored of paying lawyers to get their own money back.
We do not want to give RM any more reasons to withdraw paid sick absence.
To be honest I don't see what the fuss is about,the only reason you receive special damages is to compensate for loss of pay,If you haven't lost any,the money isn't yours it's the employers.
I's a contractual obligation to repay it.
put in a claim under the p.a.b.s that the union and royal mail run and register with the industrial injures people
Thanks all for the answers or suggestions , I was unable to go through PABS as the DOWP only accepted six months of injury under the insustrial injury, I think it has to go 2yrs before you get payment out from PABS, though I have been left with a permenant scar on my backside .
I do accept I have to pay RM but I just thought Simpson and Millar claim on top of what the agreed amount is , but they are not, they are saying it has to come out of the compensation , or I can take my chance and go to trial ?
put in a claim under the p.a.b.s that the union and royal mail run and register with the industrial injures people
Thanks all for the answers or suggestions , I was unable to go through PABS as the DOWP only accepted six months of injury under the insustrial injury, I think it has to go 2yrs before you get payment out from PABS, though I have been left with a permenant scar on my backside .
I do accept I have to pay RM but I just thought Simpson and Millar claim on top of what the agreed amount is , but they are not, they are saying it has to come out of the compensation , or I can take my chance and go to trial ?
Essex mum
My opinion for what it's worth is you'd lose. The fact the scar is on your bottom is interesting, because it would not normally be seen and depending on where it is it may not show below the bikini line and I'm sure that would have an effect on the compensation.
My opinion for what it's worth is you'd lose. The fact the scar is on your bottom is interesting, because it would not normally be seen and depending on where it is it may not show below the bikini line and I'm sure that would have an effect on the compensation.
Ok DVB I will take it then just curious as I am sure once before the monies paid out to RM never came out of compensation, I suppose it is ltd damage when these negotiations go on between thrird parties , not looking forward to what i have to pay back because of the back injury £4000 that will be wiped out
Essex Mum
The fact the scar is on your bottom is interesting, because it would not normally be seen and depending on where it is it may not show below the bikini line and I'm sure that would have an effect on the compensation.
