Has anyone sussed out how buying from the EU will work?

[ImagineerTom]

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn’t yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It’s one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it’s a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don’t know how your business works but ours doesn’t have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

Edited December 29, 2020 by ImagineerTom

[itiba]

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn't yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It's one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it's a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don't know how your business works but ours doesn't have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

 

Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case.

Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree)

 

Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world.

Edited December 29, 2020 by itiba

[Junior8]

I am casually curious as to what will happen to shop units as high street retail dies away. Prohibitively high rates seems to be an eternal problem at the moment, hence why it is not uncommon to see entire high streets with nothing but charity shops (as they dodge the high rates).

 

 

I'm just not convinced that the market is big enough. Like... do enough people buy audio interfaces, MIDI keyboards and headphones to actually pay the wages and the bills?

 

It makes a lot more sense to hold one warehouse of stock and sell it online than paying for all those shopfronts and store assistants simultaneously. Especially when, unless you can price match the online-only retailers, people will just come to your storefront to trial the product and then buy it online.

 

As for big super-units like what was Debenhams etc... I have no idea what they'll become. In Liverpool I'm pretty sure our BHS is still empty. It'd be great to see those places do something rather than nothing... but it might rely on councils being proactive which is not something they're traditionally good at. If the rents and rates go down to attract new tenants into the empty units, they'll have to go down in the occupied units as well. That's the risk.

 

Covering independent retail from 2000-2019 and saw this issue developing steadily. Indeed by 2010 owners of the small and medium size malls were desperately looking for new uses for the floorspace. And failing pretty well completely. One of the problems was that they often built space for particular tenants. I can think of one unit built for the record retailer MVC (remember them?) who inconsiderately went bust a few months later leaving a space that's been impossible to let. Another was the merging of tenants like mobile phone operators and financial services which reduced the number of possible multlple tenants. It isn't just Maplin and the like - think about the number of small electrical chains like Rumbelows who have gone since the mid nineties. There simply aren't enough independents coming in to make up for the attrition of the chains, banks and the like. The only reason the high street vacancy rates haven't been even higher is that there has been a boom in casual dining which has disguised the fact that while retailing is booming through online and out of town specialist catalogue style outlest eg Screwfix traditional shopkeeping is dead in the water. If you abolished business rates tomorrow and halved the rents I don't think it would make any real difference for the average vacant retail unit which sadly is useless for much else. Yes this virus business hasn't helped but to my mind it has merely hastened the inevitable.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Junior8

[ImagineerTom]

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn't yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It's one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it's a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don't know how your business works but ours doesn't have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

 

Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case.

Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree)

 

Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world.

Whilst we were in the eu it was slow. Now we’re outside the eu it will be significantly slower. Please tell me how that is an advantage?

[itiba]

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn't yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It's one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it's a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don't know how your business works but ours doesn't have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

 

Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case.

Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree)

 

Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world.

Whilst we were in the eu it was slow. Now we're outside the eu it will be significantly slower. Please tell me how that is an advantage?

 

I'm sorry you've completely lost me. Perhaps that response was meant for someone else?

[ImagineerTom]

It was a flippant late night comment that didn’t explain my position properly.

 

1) the insurance issue isn’t yet resolved- there’s ongoing appeals and processes. Even if resolved next week it will be well into March before people start getting paid out. As I said above I don’t know any business that can routinely plan for huge amounts of it’s income to be held back by a year or more whilst also funding major litigation.

 

2) this is just one legal claim that is broad enough that a huge class action could be instigated/funded by a regulatory organisation. Similar (legal) scale cases will be needed to resolve lots of other issues caused by the gray areas now being caused and for which there’s not the money or regulatory authorities to intervene.

 

To your other point “fire officer says the fire started from an electrical issue on the Foh bar”

To safety elf for the project “was all the equipment on that bar to current Uk regulations?”

“Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, the definition of what the uk regulations are changed leaving grey areas so I took a reasonable guess”

“Ok well then we think you’ve not followed the requirements of yourself insurance policy that all equipment complies with current regs, we won’t pay”

 

And then, as you point out, because the backlog in courts is currently 3 years it will be a long long time before anyone gets paid out.

 

This is not me being pessimistic - this is exactly what is happening right now with insurance companies and is going to happen again and again because it’s their job to not pay out unless the absolute letter of the law says they have to. Now we have piled grey areas into whole swaths of life it’s going to happen more often.

Edited December 30, 2020 by ImagineerTom

[Junior8]

"Some of it was, some of it wasn't, the definition of what the uk regulations are changed leaving grey areas so I took a reasonable guess"

 

I don't think that 'reasonable guess' would ever be a defence. Also there is a lot of Strand gear hanging on bars everywhere that wasn't manufactured to current UK regulations and has never seen a ce mark. As long as it was brought to market complying with the regulations at the time it would be as OK now as it ever was. As for gear bought from now on if it is sourced from a UK dealer it has to be brought to market compliant it is up to them to navigate the law not you - if you want to import gear from the far east or indeed anywhere direct now it seems to me you are taking the same risk you always have.

 

It is, I agree, a great pity that the Leader of the Conservative Party and his pals are oblivious to the benefits of a single market but they were oblivious to it in 2016 and that was never going to change. This chaos was inevitable.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Junior8

[paulears]

Please, can we stop quoting quotes of quotes. It makes it so hard to read. Editing on my phone to delete it usually wrecks things even more so please, can we maybe keep quotes to the relevant bit and not duplicate entire posts within posts,

[sandall]

Hear, hear !!

[itiba]

1) the insurance issue isn't yet resolved- there's ongoing appeals and processes. Even if resolved next week it will be well into March before people start getting paid out. As I said above I don't know any business that can routinely plan for huge amounts of it's income to be held back by a year or more whilst also funding major litigation.

 

2) this is just one legal claim that is broad enough that a huge class action could be instigated/funded by a regulatory organisation. (B) Similar (legal) scale cases will be needed to resolve lots of other issues caused by the gray areas now being caused and for which there's not the money or regulatory authorities to intervene.

 

3) To your other point "fire officer says the fire started from an electrical issue on the Foh bar"

To safety elf for the project "was all the equipment on that bar to current Uk regulations?"

"Some of it was, some of it wasn't, the definition of what the uk regulations are changed leaving grey areas so I took a reasonable guess"

"Ok well then we think you've not followed the requirements of yourself insurance policy that all equipment complies with current regs, we won't pay"

 

4) And then, as you point out, because the backlog in courts is currently 3 years it will be a long long time before anyone gets paid out.

 

This is not me being pessimistic - this is exactly what is happening right now with insurance companies and is going to happen again and again because it's their job to not pay out unless the absolute letter of the law says they have to. Now we have piled grey areas into whole swaths of life it's going to happen more often.

 

1 - The appeals are how any fair legal system should work and indeed works in both ways. The FCA have funded all the legal action on behalf of the insured so far. The FCA have instructed insurance companies to pay out where they can.

2 - "is just one legal claim" - no it's a test case for 21 separate clauses and at least 8 insurance companies. (b) That's why we have the Financial Ombudsman service

3 - As previously stated that's not how the burden of proof works. You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe.

If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by itiba

[ImagineerTom]

ITIBA as I'm reading it your point is that "in the long term" it will all work out ok, via courts or ombudsmen. My point (and speaking as someone who's been through some big insurance claims) is that insurers are always looking for loopholes to avoid paying out and the confusion caused by the current situation is giving them a huge extra grey area to point to to, at the very least, delay and complicate claims further.

 

To loop this in to a point I can speak with more authority on - all our tents (and the rigging and lifting equipment within them) are manufactured in Italy and all the structural engineers reports and testing of this highly unusual stuff is done by a couple of companies in northern italy who have become the specialist authority on testing, certifying, design reviewing this very specialist kit. The deal at the moment has no specific clauses confirming that their qualifications / expertise will be recognised in the uk and our insurers have asked us to find UK based companies to recertify everything because, as of next week, we won't have a design review carried out by a recognised, qualified specialist saying that the tent meets appropriate regulations & standards (because their qualification is no longer recognised and nobody knows what precisely the new standards are) and asked for someone UK based to certify that the lifting & rigging parts are to standard as is required as part of our insurance. They have also pointed out we should be getting this UK documentation in place because it also has to be presented as part of an event license for every single job we do and whilst technically the existing paperwork is valid now there is a grey area about exactly what qualifications and safety standards apply and are recognised going forward. If someone wants to stop an event going ahead then that's just the sort of loophole they can exploit to get a license revoked and whilst ultimately in a court case or appeals process someone will decide the paperwork is correct that will all take place many months after the event is cancelled (or at least we've been removed) all because of this grey area that has been created.

 

If our insurers (who are quite pro-active and engaged in our sector) are making these judgements now then I'm quite sure other, bigger, more corporate ones will be making much harsher decisions.

Edited December 30, 2020 by ImagineerTom

[itiba]

ITIBA as I'm reading it your point is that "in the long term" it will all work out ok, via courts or ombudsmen. My point (and speaking as someone who's been through some big insurance claims) is that insurers are always looking for loopholes to avoid paying out and the confusion caused by the current situation is giving them a huge extra grey area to point to to, at the very least, delay and complicate claims further.

 

To loop this in to a point I can speak with more authority on - all our tents (and the rigging and lifting equipment within them) are manufactured in Italy and all the structural engineers reports and testing of this highly unusual stuff is done by a couple of companies in northern italy who have become the specialist authority on testing, certifying, design reviewing this very specialist kit. The deal at the moment has no specific clauses confirming that their qualifications / expertise will be recognised in the uk and our insurers have asked us to find UK based companies to recertify everything because, as of next week, we won't have a design review carried out by a recognised, qualified specialist saying that the tent meets appropriate regulations & standards (because their qualification is no longer recognised and nobody knows what precisely the new standards are) and asked for someone UK based to certify that the lifting & rigging parts are to standard as is required as part of our insurance. They have also pointed out we should be getting this UK documentation in place because it also has to be presented as part of an event license for every single job we do and whilst technically the existing paperwork is valid now there is a grey area about exactly what qualifications and safety standards apply and are recognised going forward. If someone wants to stop an event going ahead then that's just the sort of loophole they can exploit to get a license revoked and whilst ultimately in a court case or appeals process someone will decide the paperwork is correct that will all take place many months after the event is cancelled (or at least we've been removed) all because of this grey area that has been created.

 

If our insurers (who are quite pro-active and engaged in our sector) are making these judgements now then I'm quite sure other, bigger, more corporate ones will be making much harsher decisions.

 

As much as I enjoy these wild detours into new and exciting areas of ramble my consistent point has been "You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe."

 

You may hate the institutions in this country, and you may hate the processes that exist but please find at least legitimate areas of attack.

 

Like I said previously: If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/

[sandall]

........ my consistent point has been "You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe."

Are you perhaps missing the point that however well (some) insurers may have reacted in the past (which as we all know "is another country"), from tonight they have every right to demand adherence to a whole world of "standards" which do not yet exist? Whatever the theory may be, Tom seems to be patiently describing one of the realities of this brave new world.

[ImagineerTom]

Like I said previously: If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/

 

That's

1) basically an advertorial by the insurance company designed to win them more business - it doesn't make any attempt to accurately reflect or report the entire process

2) doesn't talk AT ALL about the investigation processes used

3) doesn't mention anything about it being an unknown cause of ignition

4) doesn't even hint about any of the above.

 

What information is there on that page that is relevant and which you think I should be reading?

[kerry davies]

The OP asked has anyone sussed out importing and we have been diverted into insurance and legality which is totally irrelevant, as I hope to explain. Whether you can even insure Italian tensile structures tomorrow is way beyond anyone in government or this deal. In the agreement there are 244 mentions of "arbitration panels" to sort out these things and none exist. Not one!

 

Tomorrow they set about arguing about the make up of the "Partnership Council" and the 19 specialised standing committees and 4 working groups who are supposed to make this work until next January when it changes again. So to import a lantern from the EU the simplicities of EU membership may, or may not, be replaced by involvement with;

The Partnership Council

The Trade Partnership Committee

The Specialised Committee (TSS) on Goods

The TSS on Customs Cooperation

The TSS on Technical Barriers to Trade

The TSS on IP

The TSS on Recovery of Duties and Taxes

The TSS on Regulatory Cooperation

The TSS on Road Transport

The TSS on Air Transport

and the Level Playing Field TSS on Open and Fair Competition. (More TSS's deal with possibly peripheral 'stuff' like chemicals, law, vehicles etc)

 

Apart from that has anyone tried to actually get anything delivered from the EU to UK over the coming months? There is always a seasonal lull in traffic but this year it was twice as quiet. EU freight forwarders are reporting that they are getting refusals to send trucks to the UK. In France refusals to quote have trebled and in Germany doubled as they run out of UK forwarders having the paperwork capability to provide return loads. They don't want trucks stuck in Kent and their drivers are refusing to endure Third World conditions of hunger and zero sanitation. We may need to pay them danger money and extra for one-way trips which could make importing expensive. We have to wait and see which of the 1200 pages of footnotes apply. Good this, innit?

 

To sum up nobody has the faintest clue how all this will unravel and nothing is certain. As for the reputation of UK law, I remind you that the UK government recently set out to intentionally break international law on a treaty signed only 8 months previously. Our reputation for integrity in law, at least in Europe, is shot.