“Brewer: you left your bucket where I tripped over it!”

Bucket from spirejanitorial.co.ukDear Mrs Simpson:
We write in connection with the unfortunate incident in Grassington in August last year for which you are claiming damages. We note that you are being represented by Russell and Russell, Solicitors.

We do wonder whether one of them is called Jack as they do seem to have made a complete dog’s breakfast of your claim. You really should have read it more carefully before signing it rather than trusting them to come up
with a sensible claim.

So you were having breakfast in Grassington and asked a cleaner the way to the toilet, tripped over a cleaning bucket and injured your leg and you seem to think we are responsible for it. Let us look at the details of the claim.

I have always regarded Jack Russells as flea ridden, unhygienic, annoying dogs that are forever yapping at your ankles but for some mysterious reason are much loved by their owners. That is how I feel about your pair in looking at your claim. One wonders if the concept of cleaning is wholly alien to them.

They certainly have little idea about the practicalities. They seem to think there is something wrong with leaving a bucket near a pillar. You spoke to a cleaner, who was presumably there because they were cleaning. This is likely to involve a mop and bucket. The bucket has to be placed somewhere, you know. It can’t exist on its own in mid-air. They then complain that there was a failure “to cause the bucket to be returned to or to be stored in a proper and safe place”. How is a cleaner to use a bucket to clean after it has been returned to such a place? They go on in a similar fashion and one has to ask what planet these people are on.

They object to the failure by the cleaner to warn you of the bucket. Well presumably the cleaner thought you were a perfectly sensible women who didn’t need patronising comments like “there’s a bucket there, please don’t walk into it” and assumed you were perfectly capable of seeing where you were going.

That you injured your leg on an old damaged bucket is to be regretted. That such a bucket was in use is to be celebrated – people are far too ready to throw out perfectly serviceable equipment these days long before its useful life has passed. However it sounds like a very nasty injury given that, if the Doctor’s report is to be believed, you still had not fully recovered in March.

Which brings us to the medical report by Mr M Saab, FRCS, FFAEM, MEWI, MAE, MRCME as it is here that your case starts to fall down. We were a little concerned to see your occupation given on the first page as Bankruptcy/Insolvency as we have never regarded being an undischarged bankrupt as a profession or calling, however we were relieved to discover what this really meant later in the report.

The report states that you were in the Devonshire Arms Public House on 19 August 2007 “when she banged into a bucket…which resulted in an injury to her lower right leg”. However in the Claim your pair of dogs assert you were in the Black Horse Hotel when the incident occurred. You can’t have been in both places at the same time so either the claim isn’t supported by the medical report (because it is wrong) or if the medical report is correct you must be claiming for an incident that never occurred, because the claim is wrong. In short it would seem you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Or are we to infer from the documents sent to us that you were so pissed that you didn’t know where you were and it could have been either place? But pissed? At 9:15? On a Sunday morning? If so it would explain why you didn’t see the bucket. It would also give a whole new meaning to the sentence in the medical report: “She managed to drive home with some difficulty.” In either case, game, set and match to us I think.

However all of this pails into insignificance compared to what I am about
to tell you. It seems your dogs of Solicitors don’t know how to do a search on the Companies House Web site. It’s not difficult, you go to http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk follow the link to web check and enter the company details.

What they probably wanted to do was sue Cains Beer Company plc (Co No 03517207), a company formerly known as Honeycombe Leisure and quoted on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange. Listed on the Companies House Web site as a manufacturer of beer and operator of restaurants and bars and whose head office is a large brewery in the middle of Liverpool. In fact if they had just looked at the company’s headed notepaper instead they should have got it right. What they actually did was pick out The Robert Cain Brewery Ltd (Co No 04955406) a vinegar brewer that has yet to start trading (the word “dormant” should have given them a clue), and registered at a small house in the Liverpool suburbs.

Then they sued us, on your behalf, publishing to us what you probably assumed was a confidential medical report to be seen only by people with an involvement with this case. Well we are getting fed up with all this. We are getting fed up with wasting time having to deal with a series of incompetent ambulance chasers, like your dogs, and it has got to stop. Our initial reaction was to put in a counterclaim for negligence by your agents (the Jack Russells) for starting this court case and claiming for all the time we have had to waste in dealing with this annoying court case. We have far better things to do with our time. However we have decided at this stage not to do this for several reasons.

1. We do not want to add at this time to the no doubt considerable distress this letter will have caused you in pointing out just how hopeless your ambulance chasers are.

2. We are not sure we are legally able to counterclaim as our claim relates to a later incident (your claim) and not the original claim (Grassington). Furthermore it would involve us spending even more time and money on this matter especially if we lost.

3. We wouldn’t put it past your dogs to drop the original claim, which by the time you talk to them they will probably have done, and leave you in the lurch having to defend a claim from us on your own. The no win no fee deal you have presumably signed up for is unlikely to cover you for claims against you rather than by you. Furthermore it is your solicitors and not you we are annoyed with.

Therefore as long as we receive a cheque for the nominal sum of £25 within the next 14 days we are willing to forget about the whole matter. In order not to be seen as profiting from your misfortunes (both the accident and your solicitors), the cheque should be made payable to KIND, a local children’s charity. http://www.kind.org.uk We suggest that you get your solicitors to write the cheque as it is their incompetence we are objecting to but as they are your agents you are ultimately responsible.

If however we do not receive this cheque we reserve the right to start a fresh claim against you and claim for the full cost of the trouble and time this matter has caused us. A sum that can be expected to be considerably larger than £25, particularly when court costs are added on.

Finally as a keen walker myself can I say how sorry I was to hear about your injury and say that if I were unable to go on walks for 6 months I would be looking at getting substantially more damages than the lower end of the scale in your claim to the court.

Hoping not to see you in court.

Yours faithfully

A Brown


One Response to ““Brewer: you left your bucket where I tripped over it!””

  1. naughtygirlbnd Says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: