The latest number of "Transit" -
<http://www.landor.co.uk/transit/this_issue.html> - informs me that
Chiltern "will receive compensation payments of GBP 8.5m from
supermarket chain Tesco". This is made up of GBP 7m that's gone to
passengers (ticket refunds, half price tickets and the like) and GBP
1.5m for the cost of substitute bus services, and also compensation to
business tenants in the stations.

And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per cent
of its customers".
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

"Joyce Whitchurch"  wrote in message 
news:4314C3E1.7F7380C@btinternet.com...

> The latest number of "Transit" -
> <http://www.landor.co.uk/transit/this_issue.html> - informs me that
> Chiltern "will receive compensation payments of GBP 8.5m from
> supermarket chain Tesco". This is made up of GBP 7m that's gone to
> passengers (ticket refunds, half price tickets and the like) and GBP
> 1.5m for the cost of substitute bus services, and also compensation to
> business tenants in the stations.
>
> And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
> future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per cent
> of its customers".


What I want to know is why anybody is claiming anything
from Tesco.

Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
paying

tim

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:43:57 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
>paying


Yes, but Tesco are the ones employing them, on a project which they
initiated, on "land" owned/leased/whatever by them.

Similarly, and rail-related, if Network Rail botch up and cause
massive delays, passengers still claim compensation from the TOC which
is later obtained back from NR.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

> What I want to know is why anybody is claiming anything
> from Tesco.
>
> Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
> paying
>

It could be that Tesco's own the site/ placed the contract for the work..... 
the contractor then becomes an agent for Tesco's, and any claims like this 
for damages etc, would be against Tesco's who would pass it to their 
contractor ( if liability has been admitted or agreed to cover the costs,) 
who would possibly pass it to their insurers or even the achitects, or 
suppliers of the concrete linings and so on, down the chain as far as it 
goes. Its no doubt the insurance company will pay though, but it avoids the 
liability issue.

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:


> And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
> future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per
> cent of its customers".


Where have they gone? IME people use the train during the week because they 
have to, not because it's just one of those choices one makes in the 
morning. Weekend is a bit different obviously :)

"dwb"  wrote in message 
news:3nlf6vF23msjU1@individual.net...

> Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
>
>> And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
>> future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per
>> cent of its customers".
>
> Where have they gone? IME people use the train during the week because 
> they have to, not because it's just one of those choices one makes in the 
> morning. Weekend is a bit different obviously :)


People may have got used to driving to a station on a different line (eg 
Amersham or Slough when they used to go to High Wycombe), or they may have 
got used to driving the whole way instead of going by train.

The figure of 8.5 million seemed surpringly low in terms of the extra costs 
of diverting via Aylesbury and of providing the substitute buses. I was 
expecting it to be several tens of millions at minimum.

If there was any justice in the world, Tesco or its insurers would be 
obliged to compensate passengers for the inconvenience caused [1], but since 
you can't put a monetary value on this, it tends to get ignored.

Of course if there really *was* a god, Tesco would have to pay the money out 
of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its contractors 
or their insurance ;-)


I wonder what the overall bill to the insurers is going to be: money to 
Railtrack/Chiltern, clearing the site, rebuilding the tunnel - could be a 
tidy sum when everything's taken into account. I bet the premiums for 
liability insurance of whoever is ultimately judged to be at fault will be 
astronomical after this.



[1] Having to get up earlier and return home later; having to research 
alternative ways of travelling; having your nice little routine disrupted 
etc.

> [1] Having to get up earlier and return home later; having to research
> alternative ways of travelling; having your nice little routine disrupted
> etc.


Not forgetting all the time taken spouting about it on this group!

Martin Underwood wrote:

> "dwb"  wrote in message

> I wonder what the overall bill to the insurers is going to be: money to
> Railtrack/Chiltern, clearing the site, rebuilding the tunnel - could be a
> tidy sum when everything's taken into account.


How about compensation to Tesco for the loss to them by the store
opening being delayed by, I would think, at least a year.  It's been
reported that it will be several more months before work can re-start
on the tunnel.  I would guess that the total cost of the collapse could
well turn out to be greater than the original cost of the entire
project.


> I bet the premiums for
> liability insurance of whoever is ultimately judged to be at fault will be
> astronomical after this.


High enough to make such construction in the future uneconomic, do you
think?

"Stephen Furley"  wrote in message 
news:1125487879.016456.127820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Martin Underwood wrote:
>> "dwb"  wrote in message
>
>> I wonder what the overall bill to the insurers is going to be: money to
>> Railtrack/Chiltern, clearing the site, rebuilding the tunnel - could be a
>> tidy sum when everything's taken into account.
>
> How about compensation to Tesco for the loss to them by the store
> opening being delayed by, I would think, at least a year.  It's been
> reported that it will be several more months before work can re-start
> on the tunnel.  I would guess that the total cost of the collapse could
> well turn out to be greater than the original cost of the entire
> project.
>


They would do just as well to provide a free bus service from the station to 
the nearest branch of Tesco's, half-hourly during the day, hourly during 
early mornings and late evenings and a couple through the night if the store 
is a 24-hour one. One bus and about 4 drivers working shifts would cover it. 
8.5 million should be enough to keep the service running for several years 
if not decades.


-- 
-=# Amos E Wolfe #=-
AIM: Traindriver9334
Get Firefox: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/register&r=122394

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:38:59 +0000 (UTC), Joyce Whitchurch
 wrote:


>The latest number of "Transit" -
><http://www.landor.co.uk/transit/this_issue.html> - informs me that
>Chiltern "will receive compensation payments of GBP 8.5m from
>supermarket chain Tesco". This is made up of GBP 7m that's gone to
>passengers (ticket refunds, half price tickets and the like) and GBP
>1.5m for the cost of substitute bus services, and also compensation to
>business tenants in the stations.
>
>And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
>future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per cent
>of its customers".


I heard very informally that Tesco self-insured at least part of the
risk involved, so Tesco paying out may be the same as a third party
insurer doing so, but said insurer would keep quiet about it whereas
Tesco can make some goodwill out of apparently being generous.
Just a rumour, nothing more.

Guy Gorton

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:13:19 UTC, Guy Gorton 
 wrote:

: I heard very informally that Tesco self-insured at least part of the
: risk involved

I wouldn't be surprised. 8.5m is small change to Tesco.

Who, incidentally, are just about to build a new shop on the former 
Castle Douglas station site. Fencing went up this week. Not that 
there's anything railway-related left there now: it was a garage and 
garden centre. The goods shed is still in use as the local builders' 
merchants.

Ian

--

In message , at 
04:31:19 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Stephen Furley  
remarked:

>> I bet the premiums for  liability insurance of whoever is ultimately 
>>judged to be at fault will be  astronomical after this.
>
>High enough to make such construction in the future uneconomic, do you
>think?


Only if people insisted on using whichever supplier is "ultimately 
judged to be at fault". Using any of their competitors would result in 
no cost increase.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:4314d3e6.2777934@news.tesco.net...

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:43:57 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>  wrote:
>
>>Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
>>paying
>
> Yes, but Tesco are the ones employing them, on a project which they
> initiated, on "land" owned/leased/whatever by them.


How does this make them vicariously liable?

The builders are their sub contractors (holding their own insurance)
not their employee.
It may even be (I haven't yet discovered if this is the case or not)
that Tesco played no part in the type of design, in which case I
can see that they have no lioability at all.



> Similarly, and rail-related, if Network Rail botch up and cause
> massive delays, passengers still claim compensation from the TOC which
> is later obtained back from NR.


This is not a valid example.  NR has operation control over
these items.

tim

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:13:19 +0100, Guy Gorton
 wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:38:59 +0000 (UTC), Joyce Whitchurch
> wrote:
>
>>The latest number of "Transit" -
>><http://www.landor.co.uk/transit/this_issue.html> - informs me that
>>Chiltern "will receive compensation payments of GBP 8.5m from
>>supermarket chain Tesco". This is made up of GBP 7m that's gone to
>>passengers (ticket refunds, half price tickets and the like) and GBP
>>1.5m for the cost of substitute bus services, and also compensation to
>>business tenants in the stations.
>>
>>And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
>>future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per cent
>>of its customers".
>
>I heard very informally that Tesco self-insured at least part of the
>risk involved, so Tesco paying out may be the same as a third party
>insurer doing so, but said insurer would keep quiet about it whereas
>Tesco can make some goodwill out of apparently being generous.
>Just a rumour, nothing more.
>
>Guy Gorton


I have been told that Tesco's have already paid a "substantial sum" to
Chiltern Railways "without prejudice" (I think that was the term used)

I was told the amount, and it is rather different from that being
discussed.

G

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:13:19 +0100, Guy Gorton
 wrote:


>I heard very informally that Tesco self-insured at least part of the
>risk involved, so Tesco paying out may be the same as a third party
>insurer doing so, but said insurer would keep quiet about it whereas
>Tesco can make some goodwill out of apparently being generous.
>Just a rumour, nothing more.


It could be that, like many big companies, Tesco have a captive
in-house insurance company. A look at their Annual Report reveals
this. From page 46 of the Financial Statement:

(a) The Groups principal operating subsidiary undertakings are:
Share of equity capital Country of
Business and voting rights incorporation
Tesco Stores Limited Retail 100% Registered in England
Tesco Property Holdings Limited Property Investment 100% Registered in
England
*Tesco Insurance Limited Insurance 100% Guernsey
*Valiant Insurance Company Limited Insurance 100% Republic of Ireland
Tesco Distribution Limited Distribution 100% Registered in England
Tesco Card Services Limited Card Handling Services 100% Registered in
England
T&S Stores Limited Retail 100% Registered in England
Tesco Ireland Limited Retail 100% Republic of Ireland
Tesco Global Aruhazak Rt. Retail 99% Hungary
Tesco Polska Sp. z o.o. Retail 100% Poland
Tesco Stores CR a.s. Retail 100% Czech Republic
Tesco Stores SR a.s. Retail 100% Slovakia
Samsung Tesco Co. Limited Retail 89% South Korea
Ek-Chai Distribution System Co. Ltd Retail 99% Thailand
Tesco Taiwan Co. Limited Retail 100% Taiwan
Tesco Stores Malaysia Sdn Bhd Retail 70% Malaysia
Tesco Stores Hong Kong Limited Purchasing 100% Hong Kong
C Two-Network Co. Ltd Retail 100% Japan
Tesco Kipa A.S, . Retail 93% Turkey

The relevant ones are marked with an asterisk.

See
http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=40B6E68B255B44ECADF894ACA012D4FF
for the download page.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:43:57 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>
>"Joyce Whitchurch"  wrote in message 
>news:4314C3E1.7F7380C@btinternet.com...
<snip>
>What I want to know is why anybody is claiming anything
>from Tesco.
>
>Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
>paying
>

ISTR that chasing the party which commissioned work which has lead to
a loss is an option, that party in turn can make their own pursuit of
who they think is to blame. Possibly Tesco might gain a tactical
advantage by settling out of court without admitting liability (thus
clearing future actions out of the way) and then chasing the people
further down the chain (like Railtrack after a couple of recent
events?).
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Martin Underwood wrote:


>Of course if there really was a god, Tesco would have to pay the money out 
>of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its 
>contractors or their insurance ;-)


I doubt they have insurance - I know M&S don't.

-- 
Colin

In article ,
   Colin Wilson  wrote:

> >Of course if there really was a god, Tesco would have to pay the money
> >out of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its
> >contractors or their insurance ;-)

> I doubt they have insurance - I know M&S don't.


Even though you don't like Tesco, they did not **cause** the damage. It was
a technical engineering failure and not the fault of the people who
commissioned the work.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

> Even though you don't like Tesco, they did not **cause** the damage. It was
> a technical engineering failure and not the fault of the people who
> commissioned the work.
>
> --

Ah but if Tesco had not been so persistent and hell bent on having the
local planning permission rejection overruled, then none of this would
have happened. That makes Tesco guilty in my book.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:45:06 +0100, David H Wild 
wrote:


>> >Of course if there really was a god, Tesco would have to pay the money
>> >out of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its
>> >contractors or their insurance ;-)
>
>Even though you don't like Tesco, they did not **cause** the damage. It was
>a technical engineering failure and not the fault of the people who
>commissioned the work.


I have no idea whether the following is actually the case, but it
could be considered their fault if they did not hire a sufficiently
reputable company to do the job, but merely took on whoever was
prepared to do it for the least amount.

(NB I'm not saying that's what actually happened.)

In article ,
   phisch  wrote:

> > Even though you don't like Tesco, they did not **cause** the damage.
> > It was a technical engineering failure and not the fault of the people
> > who commissioned the work.
> >
> > --
> Ah but if Tesco had not been so persistent and hell bent on having the
> local planning permission rejection overruled, then none of this would
> have happened. That makes Tesco guilty in my book.


That is because your book says that Tesco, like Virgin, is guilty of any
charge made against it.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:


> What I want to know is why anybody is claiming anything
> from Tesco.
>
> Surely it should be the contractors (and their insurers) doing the
> paying


More than likely, Network Rail has a contract with Tesco covering this
work.  Almost certainly, NR will have included a clause providing that
Tesco indemnifies NR against any damage or disruption to the railway.
NR will therefore make its claim against Tesco, and it will be up to
Tesco to claim against its subcontractors or its insurance (if any).

Peter

In article , Colin Wilson wrote:

> Martin Underwood wrote:
> 
> >Of course if there really was a god, Tesco would have to pay the money out 
> >of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its 
> >contractors or their insurance ;-)
> 
> I doubt they have insurance - I know M&S don't.


Most big firms find it cheaper to carry their own risk except where insurance 
is compulsory (e.g. employer's liability). The GPO didn't even have motor 
insurance until it was compulsory.

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

"Jock Mackirdy"  wrote in message 
news:VA.00000227.0143efb8@ntlworld.com...

> In article , Colin Wilson wrote:
>> Martin Underwood wrote:
>>
>> >Of course if there really was a god, Tesco would have to pay the money 
>> >out
>> >of its own pocket rather than being able to claim back from its
>> >contractors or their insurance ;-)
>>
>> I doubt they have insurance - I know M&S don't.
>
> Most big firms find it cheaper to carry their own risk except where 
> insurance
> is compulsory (e.g. employer's liability). The GPO didn't even have motor
> insurance until it was compulsory.


It still isn't.  Anybody can lodge a bond with the appropriate authority
and they don't need insurance.  Until very recently this bond was easily
affordable by a corporate and quite a few took this route.  AIUI they
have recently upped the amout so that it is not as cost effective as it
used to be.

tim

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:33:16 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
 wrote:


>Most big firms find it cheaper to carry their own risk except where insurance 
>is compulsory (e.g. employer's liability). The GPO didn't even have motor 
>insurance until it was compulsory.


It isn't, assuming you deposit a suitably large sum.

The company I work for self-insures all but third party risks on its
company cars, incidentally.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

David H Wild wrote:


>Even though you don't like Tesco,


Huh? - I don't mind Tesco!


>they did not cause the damage. It was
>a technical engineering failure and not the fault of the people who
>commissioned the work.


I agree on the face of it - but then again, I don't know who's got a 
contract with who.



-- 
Colin

Martin Underwood wrote:

>
> If there was any justice in the world, Tesco or its insurers would be
> obliged to compensate passengers for the inconvenience caused [1], but since
> you can't put a monetary value on this, it tends to get ignored.


Well, they /have/ put a value on the inconvenience in one sense at
least, because Chiltern have offered passengers compensation of
(basically) 50 per cent of the ticket price.
-- 
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> The latest number of "Transit" -
> <http://www.landor.co.uk/transit/this_issue.html> - informs me that
> Chiltern "will receive compensation payments of GBP 8.5m from
> supermarket chain Tesco". This is made up of GBP 7m that's gone to
> passengers (ticket refunds, half price tickets and the like) and GBP
> 1.5m for the cost of substitute bus services, and also compensation to
> business tenants in the stations.
> 
> And Tesco "may face a further compensation claim from Chiltern for
> future damage to its business caused by the loss of at least 30 per cent
> of its customers".


Time to revise Bowkers law: There are three sources of income for the 
railway: The fare box, The taxpayer and Tesco?


Philip.