£50 for fire call out. Hope this idea never reaches uk
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f1bd97ace713e63abb545293ca7a2495.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 5,565 Forum Member
✭
Firefighters aren't afraid to break down windows and doors to douse flames, but a Tennessee family's failure to pay a $75 fee stopped firefighters dead in their tracks last week as a home burned to the ground.
Firemen simply stood there and watched the house get totally destroyed.
Surely there is a better method to cover costs.
Full article here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-familys-home-burns-ground-firefighters-stand-watch/story?id=11806407
Firemen simply stood there and watched the house get totally destroyed.
Surely there is a better method to cover costs.
Full article here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-familys-home-burns-ground-firefighters-stand-watch/story?id=11806407
0
Comments
He should have paid, if my house burned down and I had not insured it I can't go to norwich union and "Uhh I just forgot to pay it...".
Don't pay the fee, don't expect them to put your house out if it catches fire.
It's not necessarily right, but it falls into the same category as the poster above said - you can't drive, have an accident, then call the insurers to get cover retrospectively.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that by failing to put the fire out, a number of pets died, perhhaps unnecessarily. A better solution would be to have put the fire out and have a system in place where the fire service could sue the person for an amount much bigger than $75
Sad about the pets though.
Those scumbags should all be SACKED at the very least
Actually it was the way things were done in Britain 200 years ago
Check out the Wikipedia article on Firemarks which were plaques attached to buildings as a sign to the insurance company's private fire brigade that the building was insured otherwise, they would not put the fire out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_insurance_marks
The homeowner didn't think his pets, his house or his own life was worth this $75 dollars.
Why should anyone be sacked for that? His shout.
The fire brigade did attend to the neighbours house, they had paid the $75.
Absolutely. Well they should perhaps bill him $200-300 first after extinguishing the fire asap (as a sort on non-subscriber call-out fee) and then sue him if he didn't pay it that. He'd be sure to pay on the next occasions.
As it stands & I was in his shoes, I would try and sue them for negligence, and neglect, and/or causing unnecessary to (an) animal(s).
EDIT:
I can see the flaw in my 1st paragraph. Everyone would'nt pay $75 with the remote chance of a fire and just pay upto $300 if there was. However since they are not living inside the town boundary which they officially cover I can't see why they don't just levy a $300 one off fee, either direct or through insurance to an out of area call-out.
That would be much easier, however charging $75 for each out of town property would obviously be raking in the money over that idea. :rolleyes:
They should have done it but charged him $10,000 or something.
Which he offered (to pay as much as it would take).
Instead they refused to do anything.
This is downright victorian anyway. Mad he could avoid taxes.
You can't really say that, thats just specualtion allready being out of town chances are the pets would have passed away before the fire department got there
"Hmm...my house is on fire...but its just a small one...I don't have £100....I think I can handle it myself....."
Makes no odds. I have been run over. I'll just forget about the concussion & broken arms & legs & work through it...hmmmm
But i have to say i'm appaled that they didn't put the fire out in the US.
But that is the STATES, we are very well looked after (thank god). This is not the first situation either only last week two areas of police dispatch centres would not take a call cause the fees had not been paid.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/winfield/article_43351806-ff12-5e47-bea1-ab5161fee356.html
If I go to an address where I've been called out and find it's someone abusing the police via the 999 service I'll happily give them an £80 FPN for their troubles. Different to the above example, but you get the idea. I can only do this where I can show they've wasted police time however.
I'd like to expand it. We get all sorts of abuse of the 999 system, such as people calling 999 for non-emergencies because it's free and gets someone answering the phone quicker (which means you could be taking a call taker away from a real emergency). You even get regular callers who should know better such as store security staff calling 999 to report a calm and compliant shop lifter detained in their store, then they'll ring back on 999 to get an ETA for the cops 20 minutes later - seriously, if it was up to me these people would pay some sort of bill for their abuse until common sense set in.
I believe ambulances are still charged as well? It's been a long time since I used an ambulance, but I can remember around 13 years ago receiving a bill when someone called an ambulance for me, which I didn't request myself, and they took me to hospital. A week or so later I got a bill for £30 or something. As far as I know that still goes on today for non-emergency cases but I'm sure someone can confirm?
Part of the problem in this country is that many abuse the emergency services which causes a great stress and costs us all much more. If these people were rooted out and charged for their abuse it wouldn't be long before the services were only used for what they were intended and to me that makes a lot of sense, especially in today's financial climate.