1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. A grand well spent:-)

A grand well spent:-)

Loading thread data ...

Wonder how much additional work he got out of it..

;)

Reply to
www.GymRatZ.co.uk

On the BBC news channel it said it was estimated by the drainage board that his action caused the water level in Thorney to rise by 1 cm, so it didn't make any difference to anyone else.

Bearing in mind the trouble and expense others on the Somerset Levels have had as a result of being flooded, I imagine Mr. Goddard has absolutely no regrets about what he did.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Exactly my thought when I read it earlier...

Reply to
GMM

until he has to fend off all of the claims from the insurance companies that have had to pay out because of him.

He now has no defence to the claim that he is directly responsible for their losses. He stood up in court and said so.

tim

Reply to
tim.....

That wasn't very bright...

Reply to
Tim Watts

He can only be sued if he has assets like owning his own house.

The size of the fine is pretty small indicating that it might have had little demonstrable effect downstream. What sort of height of water difference are we talking about? 10mm?

In a bundle of hay, it's always difficult to prove which straw broke the camel's back!

Reply to
Fredxxx

I imagine that there was overwhelming evidence against him.

Reply to
GB

Possibly. But the Land Drainage Act provides only for a maximum fine of ?5,000. Then he'd qualify for a discount for pleading guilty. So I wouldn't read too much into what seems like a meagre penalty. As in other fields, the criminal fine may bear little semblance to the total costs to others (c/f how long it took to increase the potential fines for fly-tipping).

Reply to
Robin

If you mean "it's only cost effective to sue...", then you may well be right,

but there's certainly no: "you can only " about it.

In any case, Isn't he a farmer?

tim

Reply to
tim.....

In which case most likely a tenant farmer in that area, courtesy of the PoW.

Reply to
Fredxxx

To sue you would have to show material losses as a direct result of his action and that it was unreasonable. Given what happened I doubt if either was true.

Reply to
dennis

That is more or less the argument I put forward that Tim snipped!

Reply to
Fredxxx

So next time there's flooding, scads of people will decide that they don't give a ^%&*() about anyone else and they'll screw around with the flood defences if they imagine it might do them some good.

Sounds like a good outcome.

Reply to
Sam Plusnet

He lives abut three miles from me. His business is already being hit by the loss of trade. Serve the selfish git right.

Reply to
Peter Crosland

/ His business is already being hit by the loss of trade/q

And you know this how?

Jim K

Reply to
JimK

You've also got to have a pretty large amount of dosh in case you lose.

Reply to
bert

In which case you shouldn't have been so cryptic

This will be a civil case so only needs proof one BOP. And the Insurers don't need to claim that he was responsible for all of the losses to raise a claim. They can just claim that he was responsible for 10% of them- still several million pounds, I believe.

Defending that in court, against the (virtually) unlimited resources of an insurance company is going to bankrupt most people

tim

Reply to
tim.....

But the insurance company would first look to see what his assets are likely to be.

No point in spending money to sue him, if his total worth is not much more than the costs of suing[1].

He may in turn be insured, but I don't think his insurance company would be liable in this instance.

[1] I suppose they might consider taking action _if_ they think it might deter others from doing the same sort of stunt in future.
Reply to
Sam Plusnet

In message , tim..... writes

Asset rich, cash poor like the rest of us.

Reply to
Tim Lamb

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.