Apology Clause

We all want businesses and organisations to do the right thing. So when things go wrong we expect them to say sorry. The reality can often be quite different. Businesses may be reticent in apologising for fear of admitting liability, being sued or facing rising insurance premiums. Yet the Compensation Act 2006 makes it very clear that "an apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty". This clause is not sufficiently well known or tested in case law for many lawyers to feel confident advising their clients to do the right thing. Consequently, the lack of an apology often makes it harder for the victims to move on from the trauma, particularly when human tragedy is involved. Evidence shows that a clear apology can help victims get the closure they need to be able to move on from trauma. A common side-effect of trauma is that victims blame themselves, which is more likely to occur if others shun responsibility. More regular use of the apology clause, or a simple clarification of the Compensation Act 2006 would give lawyers and other advisers more confidence in recommending their client do the right thing. We are seeking support: - to define what it means by an apology- to pin down the scope of matters that it relates to- so it is clear whether an apology is deemed in legal terms to be an admission, or if it is simply not admissible as an admission of liability- to clarify whether an apology would void insurance contracts. If you would like to support our petition, please go to http://chn. ge /2zmpuxA"Businesses and organisations should be able to apologise so people who have suffered can move on. Call to clarify the ‘apology clause' in the Compensation Act 2006. "
Social Link - Twitter: https://twitter.com/@ApologyClause /
Social Link - Linkedin: http://www. linkedin.com/company /apology-clause
Keywords: public policy offices