Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a
claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Apparently the owner is claiming for damage to the fabric of the
building (the bulk of the cost I believe) amongst other things, but
sounds on the high side to me...

How far away are these tanks normally from habitable buildings ?

Does it evaporate, or would it pool and need to be pumped away ?

Would the ground be classed as contaminated, and have to be removed
for specialist disposal ?

As a sideline question to the above, the damage happened while it was
pi$$ing down in the height of summer last year - how long would it
normally take to use ~100 litres of it for heating in crap weather ?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:20:28 -0000, Colin Wilson wrote:

Apparently the owner is claiming for damage to the fabric of the
building (the bulk of the cost I believe) amongst other things, but
sounds on the high side to me...

Sounds like one for the insurance company lawyers to argue about.

How far away are these tanks normally from habitable buildings ?

There are now regulations on tank siting but a great number of older tanks
are right against habitable buildings.

Does it evaporate, or would it pool and need to be pumped away ?

It does evaporate, it's only paraffin after all, but it doesn't do so
particularly quickly or completely.

Would the ground be classed as contaminated, and have to be removed
for specialist disposal ?

Yes.

how long would it normally take to use ~100 litres of it for heating in
crap weather ?

Crap weather in summer even up here (1400' and exposed) rarely requires
the heating to come on. Thus that leaves just hot water and as a *rough*
estimate I would expect 100l to last 4 weeks or so. In winter, windy and
cold (daytime maxes only just above freezing) 100l would be about 4
days...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a
claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Apparently the owner is claiming for damage to the fabric of the
building (the bulk of the cost I believe) amongst other things, but
sounds on the high side to me...

How far away are these tanks normally from habitable buildings ?

Does it evaporate, or would it pool and need to be pumped away ?

Would the ground be classed as contaminated, and have to be removed
for specialist disposal ?

Oh yes. Ner neighbour had an underfloor leak and lst 500 liters of
heating oil.

Ibsurance insisted on a complete floor removal, and digging out of teh
enitere ground floor, ans well as a cinsiderable quantity of outside soil.

Took 18 months, and the bill was IIRC somewhere areound £100k, plus
renatl of alternative acom.


I spilt a few gallons of diesel once. Killed the grass and smelt the
whole summer. Its all fine now...



As a sideline question to the above, the damage happened while it was
pi$$ing down in the height of summer last year - how long would it
normally take to use ~100 litres of it for heating in crap weather ?

Dunno.

few weeks mebbe.

Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a
claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Apparently the owner is claiming for damage to the fabric of the
building (the bulk of the cost I believe) amongst other things, but
sounds on the high side to me...

How far away are these tanks normally from habitable buildings ?

Does it evaporate, or would it pool and need to be pumped away ?

Would the ground be classed as contaminated, and have to be removed
for specialist disposal ?

As a sideline question to the above, the damage happened while it was
pi$$ing down in the height of summer last year - how long would it
normally take to use ~100 litres of it for heating in crap weather ?

Depends upon the specific situation. Could be trying it on or could be
genuine. Kerosene in topsoil in a garden - keep digging it up and allow it
to evaporate and bugs to degrade it. Kerosene leak through into a trench in
which a water supply pipe is laid or into very porous soil rock over a
private abstraction well for potable supply - then big costs could be
anticipated!

wrote:
On 14 Feb,
"Clot" wrote:

Depends upon the specific situation. Could be trying it on or could
be genuine. Kerosene in topsoil in a garden - keep digging it up and
allow it to evaporate and bugs to degrade it. Kerosene leak through
into a trench in which a water supply pipe is laid or into very
porous soil rock over a private abstraction well for potable supply
- then big costs could be anticipated!

Had a leak at work a few years ago. Several hundred litres. We were
notified by EA (or perhaps WA, I can't remember which) when it
polluted a river a mile or more away (must have got into land
drains). BIG costs!.

Yes, I can understand that.As I said, it depends upon the specific location.
Also circumstance. BTGTTS.

Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a
claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Thanks for the replies guys, it could be interesting to hear the
outcome, but sadly it's one i'm unlikely to ever find out :-}

Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a
claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Thanks for the replies guys, it could be interesting to hear the
outcome, but sadly it's one i'm unlikely to ever find out :-}

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

Society pays a heavy price for replacing intelligence by rules, at all
levels.

Every time something goes worong,the raction these days is 'what rules
did I break?' not 'where did my failure to actually understand what was
happening cause this mess?'

On 15 Feb, 09:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

Cite?

Ian

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly "lost"
due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a claim
has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Thanks for the replies guys, it could be interesting to hear the outcome,
but sadly it's one i'm unlikely to ever find out :-}

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

No it doesn't.

Customer demand for something where the electrics actually work and the
carpets don't stink does.

Try not to let your obsessions blind you to cases where they aren't
relevant.

clive

Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly
"lost" due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but
a claim has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Thanks for the replies guys, it could be interesting to hear the
outcome, but sadly it's one i'm unlikely to ever find out :-}

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

No it doesn't.

Customer demand for something where the electrics actually work and the
carpets don't stink does.

Try not to let your obsessions blind you to cases where they aren't
relevant.

clive
Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Colin Wilson wrote:
Nothing to do with me, just interested in a topic that I overheard
recently due to the costs - just over 100 litres were allegedly "lost"
due to damage to pipework over a period of a month or so, but a claim
has gone in for over £30,000 for damages (!)

Thanks for the replies guys, it could be interesting to hear the
outcome, but sadly it's one i'm unlikely to ever find out :-}

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

No it doesn't.

Customer demand for something where the electrics actually work and the
carpets don't stink does.

Try not to let your obsessions blind you to cases where they aren't
relevant.

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Yes, and?

What reason did they give? I bet it wasn't "health and safety".

Did your BIL offer to buy the scrap vehicle off the insurers?

clive

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Elfin safety decrees that a car that has been in a flood has to be
scrapped, as well.

No it doesn't.

Customer demand for something where the electrics actually work and the
carpets don't stink does.

Try not to let your obsessions blind you to cases where they aren't
relevant.

clive
Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

More likely they know from experience the car will never be right and
mysterious electrical gremlins and smells will plague it for the rest of
its existence, thus causing them extra grief and expense.
--

Dave

On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed? Which
category of write-off was it?

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed? Which
category of write-off was it?

Ian
He's incoherent at the best of times, but he muttered something about
'any car thats been in a flood and got water inside can't be insured or
resold: health and safety'

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed? Which
category of write-off was it?

Ian
He's incoherent at the best of times, but he muttered something about
'any car thats been in a flood and got water inside can't be insured or
resold: health and safety'

I suspect he's talking ********.
--

Dave

On 2008-02-16 16:11:02 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed? Which
category of write-off was it?

Ian
He's incoherent at the best of times, but he muttered something about
'any car thats been in a flood and got water inside can't be insured or
resold: health and safety'

I suspect he's talking ********.

If you thought that that was ********, I have a story from this past
week, also involving kerosene.

I was taking a BA flight from Heathrow T4 to Amsterdam and the typical
incompetence took place involving a coach to a remote stand with steps
up to the plane. In front of me on the steps was a woman with two
small children, one about three and the other probably just over a year
who she was carrying. In the other hand she was carrying a
collapsible stroller - not one of the bulky ones with the big wheels.
She also had some kind of disability with a leg and I suspect a caliper
by the way she was walking. At any rate, there were four or five BA
ground staff milling around at the bottom of the steps and two flight
crew including CSD at the top. The lady was really struggling with all
of this and took quite a time to climb the steps. None of the BA
staff made the slightest effort to help. I had my hands full and
couldn't do anything because there were several people behind me.
Another passenger behind me went to put his bag down by the steps so
that he could help and was told that he couldn't. "Security".

Once on board, I asked the CSD why none of the BA staff made any effort
to help. "Policy. Health and Safety".

I wrote to Mr Walsh and Mr Noyes this morning.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Hall
saying something like:


Once on board, I asked the CSD why none of the BA staff made any effort
to help. "Policy. Health and Safety".

They really are priceless at times. "Ooh, ooh, I might hurt my back
doing my job."

I wrote to Mr Walsh and Mr Noyes this morning.

Big cheeses at BA, I assume?
--

Dave

On 2008-02-16 21:27:06 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Hall
saying something like:


Once on board, I asked the CSD why none of the BA staff made any effort
to help. "Policy. Health and Safety".

They really are priceless at times. "Ooh, ooh, I might hurt my back
doing my job."

Well the CSD did remind me of John Inman


I wrote to Mr Walsh and Mr Noyes this morning.

Big cheeses at BA, I assume?

CEO and Director of Customer Service

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed.
It
was pretty new too.
Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed?
Which
category of write-off was it?
Ian
He's incoherent at the best of times, but he muttered something about
'any car thats been in a flood and got water inside can't be insured or
resold: health and safety'


I was told by a garage owner that the insurers write the cars off
because of potential future liability problems.

If just one repaired car caught fire (electrical problems after
flooding), or just one car owner had health problems suspected to be or
due to contamination in the carpets etc - the potential future liability
could be huge.

Write all the cars off now and you have a capped, definitive
liability... or save some money now but have a potential, future unknown
liability possibly far higher.

I suspect also that if you added the costs of replacement looms,
carpets, seats and miscellaneous upholstery together, then factored in
what would probably be a huge wait for parts, with a hire car to the
owner whilst waiting, that you probably wouldn't be far off the value of
the average written off car? Dunno, just a guess.

Hth
Someone

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15 Feb, 18:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

Wouldn't let it be fixed ... or wouldn't pay for it to be fixed? Which
category of write-off was it?

He's incoherent at the best of times,

Runs in the family, and extends to those not related by birth. It sounds
like you've caught a particularly nasty meme infection there.

Paul Matthews wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ny BILs car was scrapped as the insurers refused to let it be fixed. It
was pretty new too.

How flooded? How many of the computers got water in?

IIRC it was just over the door sills.

So the carpets got wet.

That was allegedly the problem. Something to do with unclean
agricultural water and germs..but as I said, he is an incoherent tosser
at the best of times, so who knows what was really said..