Government prosecutes itself (Again). Taxpayers lose, Lawyers win

[Orionaut]

Consider this..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lost-baby-tree-branch-smashed-windscreen.html

Now, this is clearly a sad case. But what exactly is the point of all this?

Who does it benefit? Who does it punish?

The "Payment" of £150,000 in this case is not a compensation order. (I imagine that there will be a separate compensation payment being made via the LA's insurers or whatever)

It is a combination of fine and legal costs order.

IE £100,000 of Wirral's ratepayers money has been paid to the treasury and a further £50,000 has been funnelled into the pockets of the various Lawyers involved in the case.

As for Wirral council. I doubt very much if any individual has suffered any personal consequences.

The only people who will have been punished will be the Wirral ratepayers who will face higher taxes/charges next year, reduced services, or both!

And their only crime is that there is only one BC and they do not have the option of taking their business elsewhere or refusing to pay if they are unhappy with it.

 

[Orionaut]

£150k for a baby, hurm

Its not compensation. This is not a payment made to the Mother. It is a fine paid to the treasury and costs going into Lawyers pocketses.

As a separate issue.

The matter of compensation is an interesting one. The main point of compensation is to attempt to put the injured party (As far as possible) into a position where they would have been had the injury not occurred (this of course includes covering ongoing costs as a result of any injury that cannot be physically fully restored)

Life is priceless because it cannot be bought. Its "Pricelessness" means that "Life" on its own, actually has no monitory value.

Indeed, Although the Mother was close to term. There are those (A small but not insignificant minority) that wouldn't even consider the Fetus to be legally alive (The people who support abortion right up till birth)

So if she did receive compensation. What exactly is she being compensated for and how much should it reasonably be?

 

[Orionaut]

Loss of her unborn child due to negligence on the part of the council not tending to their trees regularly? The stress and trauma of losing an unborn child? I don't know...

All of which are non-quantifiable and cannot be technically compensated for with any amount of money. (Arguably medical fees as a consequence can be, but not the events themselves)

Whilst the government have been saying they want to plant trees and it's a vital part of the carbon reduction targets my local council has been going round chopping healthy trees down because they want to avoid situations like this and it's cheaper than having to repeatedly prune them.

My neighbour spoke to the council and they told her there was a scheme where if she could get 10 houses to subscribe with £40 a year then we could keep a tree. So that was £400 a tree and no surprises that didn't happen.

And that is the other big problem.

Expect to see urban street trees destroyed across the country in vast numbers. It is like the destruction of Cemetery's because of the very small risk that an old gravestone might fall over just as a child is passing.

 

[Orionaut]

You could say that about any trauma though. It is impossible to put a value on something, but what do you think life insurance does? If I die, my wife gets X amount of money. That's put a value on something non quantifiable.

No, a lot of that is quantifiable.

Injury/death of an adult is assessed, in part, over such matters as loss of income, loss of future earnings. Costs of support for irrecoverable injuries and so on.

Most people anyway, do not take out life insurance so their other half can go out and have a holiday or buy a new car if they croak. They do so to make sure the mortgage is settled and the bills can be paid.

The "You have had an distressing time, here's £XX,xxx to kiss it better" is purely arbitrary and is not based on any quantifiable assessment

 

[Orionaut]

It is entirely reasonable that the HSE prosecutes local government in the same way it would businesses. They all have the same duties under law and the consequences of non compliance can be the same public or private offender.

That local government doesn’t have the money to fulfil all its duties is a problem but doesn’t obviate the need to keep the public safe.

Except Local Government is not a business is it?

It is not like a BC has any shareholders or customers to account too. One has no choice as to who ones BC is and no option other than to pay them whatever they demand of you.

And how does shuffling money between different government departments and making Lawyers fat "Keep the Public safe" anyway?

It would be different if somebody actually lost their job or ended up in prison when something like this happens.

But all that is likely to happen is that there will be some sort of internal investigation where "Lessons will be learned", a bit of retraining maybe, and come the next budget review, the BC will close a library or stick a bit on the parking charges to cover the bill and the only people who will suffer any real consequences will be the totally blameless Wirral residents.

And the only people who will have been benefited from all of this will be the respective legal teams.

 

[Orionaut]

Except it wasn’t litigation it was criminal law. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t apply criminal law to local authorities? Had the crime been sufficient or the guilt clear enough jail time would have ensued. Once again I presume we’re not excusing local authorities from that sanction.

Not at all.

I am saying that the legal sanction of confiscating the ratepayers money is punishing the wrong people and this sort of issue should be handled a different way.

Government agencies (Of any sort. and that includes nationalised/government controlled industries too) are not the same as private companies with shareholders and customers who have a degree of control and choice over them.

With LA's in particular. Their monopoly position combined with their legal right to demand money with menaces from their "Customers" need to have a different framework of penalties for when they fail to provide the service that they are taking money from people to provide.

I have only read the link in the OP but it seems highly likely that there is a separate civil matter ongoing, using the outcome of this to evidence liability, with negotiations then turning to quantum and settlement.

Indeed, and this is my point.

This £150,000 is NOT a compensation order.

£100,000 of it is a "Punishment", the rest has gone to make Lawyers fat.

The only people who have been "Punished" are the Wirral taxpayers.

This is grotesquely unfair to the people of Wirral who have no choice as to who their LA is, No choice as to how much they have to pay the LA each year and very little say in how the council is run at this sort of operational level.

 

[Orionaut]

It's weird how people just don't get this. We've seen it so many times and continue to see it.
A prime example is in Newcastle where some roadworks have been massively mismanaged. They were supposed to take 12 months. They've been ongoing for over 3 years. They've gone something like £3m over-budget and that's not counting the knock on effect of disruption to local businesses and residencies. The council however are completely above reproach. They've blamed everyone but the individuals within their highways and ultimately senior departments. Nobody has been sacked. No individuals fined. Nothing.

As an aside, HTF does it take 4 years to create 30 miles of "Smart Motorway" on the M4?

(Reinforce hard shoulder, put up some barriers, install lights and signalling??)

It only took around 10 to build the whole of the M4, completely from scratch, all the way from London to the Severn.

the decision massively benefits the claimant in the civil matter as it effectively decides liability, allowing the parties to turn to quantum. Or in other words, it is not true to say that it does not benefit anyone.

And this is why I prefer the idea of a national No Fault Compensation scheme. It is also grotesquely unfair that somebody who has experienced an injury can only get financial support for it if somebody else can be found to blame. Of course it would still have to be paid for. But overall, nationally, it could prove a lot less expensive, But this is a different argument for a different thread.

Secondly, it’s foreseeable that the legal costs are actually covered by insurance and that the council’s lawyers are actually the council’s insurers lawyers.

Which still has to be paid for, by the Council.

I do not know about Wirral BC, but many large organisations will self insure (Or mostly self insure) It actually makes sense to do so.

EG, Consider fire insurance for houses.

If you own one house, the chances of it burning down are very low. The premium will reflect this.

If you own a thousand houses. one or two will burn down every year. The premiums will reflect this too. In the latter case you are better off just saving up a sum similar to what the premiums might be and paying for it when it happens.

As for the Lawyers. I doubt if the council would have had a legal costs award made against them to pay their own staff. That £50,000 will have gone elsewhere.

However the numbers are fiddled. The only people ultimately being punished are the Wirral taxpayers.[/USER]