Why were Camden Market traders not insured?
AM I the only properly and correctly insured businessman who simply cannot understand the financial rescue packages being offered by way of charity concerts, etc, to the many uninsured shops and stallholders in Camden whose businesses were wiped out throu
AM I the only properly and correctly insured businessman who simply cannot understand the financial rescue packages being offered by way of charity concerts, etc, to the many uninsured shops and stallholders in Camden whose businesses were wiped out through being uninsured?
For my part, the "do-gooders" who are raising money to help those affected are sincerely sending out all of the wrong signals to small businesses in general.
How many times do we have to read the same old excuses that owners of uninsured businesses always seem to proclaim, that "I thought many times about being insured but it was too expensive."
Yes, insurance can be expensive but nowhere near as expensive as being wiped out as the consequence of a fire, flood or burglary.
You may also want to watch:
I read one report in the Ham&High at the time of the fire that one of the traders had £600,000 of stock - all uninsured. He was also 'thinking about getting insurance'!
I find it hard to fathom that a business with £600,000 worth of stock can't afford insurance!
Most Read
- 1 Tennis coach 'distraught' at losing Belsize role amid club row
- 2 Barnet Council called in bailiffs over non-existent council tax bill
- 3 Clapped in the street - and assaulted: Staff call for behaviour change in A&E
- 4 Letter on shopping for one!
- 5 84 West Heath Road planning decision deferred again by Barnet Council
- 6 'Picture of health': Mum's tribute to son who died of sudden cardiac arrest
- 7 Piers Plowright: 'An extraordinary force, devoted to Hampstead'
- 8 Police investigate reported rape of teenager
- 9 The Vagina Museum searches for new home as Camden Market leases end
- 10 Haverstock Hill cycle lanes given the green light
I only hope that the money being raised is not going to be given to the affected traders 'willy-nilly' but only to those that can be determined as exceptional cases.
It's nothing more than the old story that if you haven't bought your lottery ticket then you ain't going to win the lottery.
If the traders have not had the common sense to insure their goods (for reasons of their own choosing) then why on earth should do-gooders run to their rescue?
(Name & address supplied)
