We don't do that in IT support (both on-site h/w and remote s/w o/s etc) for the reason that with a "voucher" system companies would be reluctant to use it, and often hold off using it for what might start as a minor problem. Then it becomes a bigger problem and causes more service issues, more impact and is harder for us to fix.



With enough data and enough scale of operation you can get your numbers and forecasts usually right. The other plus point for the client is that the supplier is incented to work to reduce the number of incidents, which can reduce their costs.

I think the issue here is that work is being billed for that either hasn't been done, need not been done, or has been done and charged at a grossly over-inflated rate. The sort of thing that might (allegedly) go on at car garages, or firms of solicitors.





Whilst working for a large government department, every now and again, the lights would go off because a fuse had tripped. This was no problem, because we all knew where the fuse box was, and it took 2 seconds to sort.



We notified the maintenance contractor of this recurring problem. Their solution? Put a padlock on the fuse box and produce a £75.00 bill every time they were called out to flip the switch.

It's not a system I agree with, far from it. But it's the system H.A use and all contractors play by those rules, so whoever wins the contract is going to chase the money. For the record, the company I work for take photos at every scene as supporting evidence, from the mundane oil spillage, a safety fence strike or resurfacing after spillages etc. The flip-side to the story is that many drivers deny causing the damage, but photos soon sort this out

If you want something to get worried about, worry about [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591047/Wards-in-a-fifth-of-NHS-hospitals-face-the-axe.htmlthis[/url.

They can take all the pictures they want, proving that the driver is liable to pay these charges is very debatable.

I think it's absolute toss to be honest. You pay car tax. Unless the driver has committed the damage deliberately or the grossest of gross recklessness, then that's what your taxes pay for.

When even The Telegraph is questioning NHS cuts you know the Tories have screwed up!

The venal, leaching bastads are no different to the legion of ambulance chasers. They see an opportunity to get money from a "free" fund, when in reality all that is happening is the majority of insured drivers will see their premiums increase to cover such eventualities.

I think there is an obvious issue of potential scam billing going on here - charging for cleaning up an oil leak when there was none for example or blatant over charging but what I don't understand is why they are allowed to charge at all.



Who has legislated that that these companies have a right to chase motorists for money?



This isn't an issue of should motorists pay for any damage caused in an accident or not. That is a different debate.

I'd be interested to see how many of these such cases actually go to court. It sounds very much like the sort of "civil recovery" schemes that a lot of retailers us to claim "losses" back from suspected shoplifters (where the items listed in such claims include CCTV, security guards and other things that would be in the store anyway).



In reality, there is nothing to stop anyone asking anyone to pay an "invoice" (it's how private parking companies do business) but if the driver ignores the invoices, it is up to the claimant to prove to a court that the amounts claimed are justified and a true reflection of losses (which is why most private parking firms don't take people to court - it's hard to justify that somebody overstaying for 10mins in a free car park has caused £100 of "losses"icon_wink.gif. Anyway, I digress....

Oi, leave ambulance chasers alone

Well, the article states that

"The Highways Agency says when repairs are needed after a breakdown or collision it is not right that the costs should be borne by the taxpayer and therefore they or their contractors will seek to recover the cost of repairs from insurance companies or individuals where appropriate."



Going back to my original example, if you smash into my garden wall, I can claim for the damage, and so if you smash into the Highways Agency's wall, ditto. If the HA has a contract with some company to repair walls, then I would agree on the face of it there is no way that company could make a claim. It isn't an insurance company, and so the HA's rights can't be subrogated to it, and it has not had any of its own property damaged, and can't claim for pure "economic loss".



This suggests that there must be some form of legislation that permits the charge, such as that which makes you liable for towing and storage charges if the police have your car recovered from an accident.





of course it is, maybe from a different angle, but exactly the same issue.





Yes do - tied to the barrier to await hopefully frequent collisions.