Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Madmart58
      Lost items sent through Parcel2Go and EVRi

      By Madmart58 · Posted

      Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Angryman1404
      IDRWW letter and email received this week

      By Angryman1404 · Posted

      Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • London1971
      Lowell/Overdales Claimform - old Cap1 Debt

      By London1971 · Posted

      Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
    • theoldrouge
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By theoldrouge · Posted

      So Rayner who is don’t forget still being investigated by the local council and HMRC  is now begging to save her seat Not a WOMAN in sight in this video other than Rayner  Farage is utterly correct this country’s values are non existent in her seat   Rayner Pleads With Muslim Voters as Pressure From Galloway Grows – Guido Fawkes ORDER-ORDER.COM Guido has obtained a leaked tape from inside a meeting between Angela Rayner and Muslim voters in Ashton-under-Lyne...  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

pipe sticking out of ground, damaged car.

big blue one

By big blue one
in General Motoring Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5951 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

big blue one

big blue one

Posted
Posted

hi everyone, not sure if this is the rights spot to put this but couldn't find anywhere better.

 

hopefully you can help me with my issue and let me know wether i aint got a hope in hell, or dammit i should be fuming and be completely reimbursed.....

 

a couple of weeks ago i went to buy some carpet and pulled onto the car park of walsall carpets,

i then realised they were closed and so carried on driving across the car park and "**crunch**" i stopped,

reversed back a few feet and found a pipe sticking out of the ground approx 1 1/2 feet high, dark grey in clour,

no warning sign, no cone to point it out, not wrapped in any flourescent colouring etc etc...

it had damaged the lower front end of my car it had a nice crack in the bumper,

the lower grill was broken, and have since found out that my radiator is bent.

i reckon approx £1500 worth of damage.

 

question is

 

 

do i have a right to claim compensation to pay for the repairs thru walsall carpets?

as it was their car park and the pipe was too small to see and shouldn't be there in the first place...

...or am i having a laugh and should just make a claim on the insurance and look where im going in future??

 

please help, and if i have a claim, what letter should i send?

 

 

have a few piccies to help you visualise....

:D
Link to post
Share on other sites
electron99

electron99

Posted
Posted
That pipe is so photoshopped that it's untrue! :)

 

:D

 

Looking at the damage to the underside of the car, it is quite remarkable that the pipe is still sticking up. With all due respect to the O.P, should they be driving without glasses ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
-sparky-

-sparky-

Posted
Posted

It has to be said that in order to drive over that pipe the driver of the vehicle actually had to mount the pavement the pipe is sticking out of...

 

The driver had no reason to drive over the paved area and therefore has to bear full responsibility for the damage caused to their car...

Link to post
Share on other sites
borisbeaver

borisbeaver

Posted
Posted

Sorry to play Devils Advocate, but you drove into it and not the other way round. There does not appear to be anything obstructing the view of it and could be described as careless driving.

 

As a driver, you are expected to be able to see what's in front of you.

 

You give no indications of the light conditions either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robin9342

robin9342

Posted
Posted
It has to be said that in order to drive over that pipe the driver of the vehicle actually had to mount the pavement the pipe is sticking out of...

The pipe is quite clearly sticking out on the edging bricks of the car park, NOT the pavement, therefore is on the carpet shop's land. However, as the pipe is right next to the kerb, it could be argued that you were moving too fast, especially to cause that much damage.

 

I would submit your claim, along with the photos to your insurance company and let them decide whether to pursue the carpet shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
-sparky-

-sparky-

Posted
Posted
The pipe is quite clearly sticking out on the edging bricks of the car park, NOT the pavement, therefore is on the carpet shop's land. However, as the pipe is right next to the kerb, it could be argued that you were moving too fast, especially to cause that much damage.

 

Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

 

Any claim by you for driving into the pipe will be countered by their claim that you are guilty of careless driving...

 

And anyway... you have freely admitted you were on their property after they closed... Trespass anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird Al Yankovic

Weird Al Yankovic

Posted
Posted
Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

 

How do you know this?:confused:

 

It is a shop and clearly there is, in the photo, room for car parking outside, so one would imagine there is an entrance which just isn't shown on the pics.

 

What if somebody drove in to the car park and then reversed to park?

 

And then hit the pipe?

 

At night? (Which one can reasonably assume happened to the OP as he said the shop was closed, maybe after 5pm? or even later? and it is winter and dark at about that time)

 

In a 4x4? (Where the driver is raised and the pipe is only, by estimation from the pic, about a foot)

 

Any claim by you for driving into the pipe will be countered by their claim that you are guilty of careless driving... See above. Also, regardless if the OP was reversing or not there is clearly a hazard here.

 

And anyway... you have freely admitted you were on their property after they closed... Trespass anyone? No:confused:

 

It is a shop that looks as though there are no shutters when closed.

 

There are sale notices abound and also notices on the door.

 

Are people only allowed to read these notices 9 to 5 or whatever?:confused:

 

 

 

 

Take this further OP and write to the store in the first instance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
electron99

electron99

Posted
Posted
Take this further OP and write to the store in the first instance.

 

The damage is to the offside of the vehicle, and whatever direction or reversing movement took place, the only way that damage could have been caused would be to have driven with the passengers side on the pavement; unless the driver was approaching the pipe, in which case he/she should have seen it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robin9342

robin9342

Posted
Posted
Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

Nope. The pipe is quite clearly IN the car park NEXT to the pavement. Its perfectly possible to hit that pipe WITHOUT mounting the pavement. The OP should contact his insurers especially as he states he has legal protection.

 

The shop might counter that in order to cause that much damage, the OP was driving too fast, but even so, an obstruction is an obstruction. Probably best to let insurance deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robin9342

robin9342

Posted
Posted
The damage is to the offside of the vehicle, and whatever direction or reversing movement took place, the only way that damage could have been caused would be to have driven with the passengers side on the pavement; unless the driver was approaching the pipe, in which case he/she should have seen it.

I don't think so. Look at the photographs (3rd one in particular) and it appears to me there are two car parks, separated by a strip of pavement, one belonging to the carpet shop and the other, perhaps a different shop. Why would the OP enter the other car park, then drive over the pavement to get into the carpet shop's car park?

Link to post
Share on other sites
big blue one

big blue one

Posted
  • Author
Posted

just to clear a few things up,

the pipe is not on a pavement,

the part you mention just seperates two car parks,

 

 

one for the petrol station

behind where the photo is viewing.

 

 

the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe.

 

 

it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish.

was not going 'fast' at all,

had actually stopped just short of said pipe,

and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe.

it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet.

 

 

the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal,

and is infact still facing towards the angle where i hit it,

hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

:D
Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird Al Yankovic

Weird Al Yankovic

Posted
Posted
just to clear a few things up, the pipe is not on a pavement, the part you mention just seperates two car prks, one for the petrol station behind where the photo is viewing. the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe. it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish. was not going 'fast' at all, had actually stopped just short of said pipe, and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe. it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet. the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal, and is infafact still facing towards the angle where i hit it, hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

 

Quite right OP.

 

It's fair to say that this is a hazard.

 

If one can imagine this car park full of shoppers and then you happen to wait for somebody pulling out of the parking space which also happens to be the one space where that pipe is.

 

It is entirely reasonable that whilst then reversing into the vacted parking space, which contains the pipe hazard, one could easily not even notice it due to the small height of it, in darkness, in a raised driver's seat etc etc.

 

I can see you were not reversing, however, the point I am putting forward is to establish that there is a hazard. That is needed for a successful claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Helford

Helford

Posted
Posted

The premises freeholders (not necessarily the shop proprioters?) have a duty of care to to all and sundry and a reasonable person could rightly suggest that the pipe is a hazard to any person on those premises. For example someone with impaired sight could come a cropper!

 

Defective Premises Act 1972 springs to mind!

 

Given that you had reasonable grounds to be on the premises and suffered damage to your property, a claim on your car insurance citing property holder as defendent is not unreasonable. As we have seen, perversly even intruders are owed the same duty of care in law.

 

Only last week ASDA was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for an horrific accident at a store in South Wales when a car park barrier slammed into a chaps moving car causing his tragic loss of life. Companies are responsible for their premises regardless. I appreciate this is a slightly different scenario.

 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites
Helford

Helford

Posted
Posted

Conniff,

 

I would suggest that damage IS consistant with being hit by said pipe.

 

Car panels are designed to deform in low speed impacts and the valence would temporarily deform inwards allowing the pipe to puncture the plastic grill and impact the radiator foils.

 

...............................

 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites
-sparky-

-sparky-

Posted
Posted
just to clear a few things up, the pipe is not on a pavement, the part you mention just seperates two car prks, one for the petrol station behind where the photo is viewing. the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe. it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish. was not going 'fast' at all, had actually stopped just short of said pipe, and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe. it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet. the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal, and is infafact still facing towards the angle where i hit it, hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

 

And I will say again that the only way you could hit this pipe, and from the damage caused to the car, is if you mounted the pavement...

 

From your picture 2: Showing the pipe, and from your picture 5: Showing the front of the car...

 

Picture 2:

If you were driving from left to right in the picture, your drivers side wheel would be on the pavement...

If you were driving from right to left then the car would be straddling the pavement...

If you were driving towards the viewer of the pic then you were about to bounce over the pavement...

And if you were driving away from the viewer of the pic then you have already bounced over the pavement...

 

By all means you should write to the store or the petrol station to point out the hazard nature of this item but as your car shouldn't have been in any position to hit it in the first place, bsically, you only have yourself to blame...

 

(For example... would you blame the store if you'd punctured a tyre by bouncing up on the pavement you so obviously hit?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
skbuncks

skbuncks

Posted
Posted
And I will say again that the only way you could hit this pipe, and from the damage caused to the car, is if you mounted the pavement...

 

From your picture 2: Showing the pipe, and from your picture 5: Showing the front of the car...

 

Picture 2:

If you were driving from left to right in the picture, your drivers side wheel would be on the pavement...

If you were driving from right to left then the car would be straddling the pavement...

If you were driving towards the viewer of the pic then you were about to bounce over the pavement...

And if you were driving away from the viewer of the pic then you have already bounced over the pavement...

 

By all means you should write to the store or the petrol station to point out the hazard nature of this item but as your car shouldn't have been in any position to hit it in the first place, bsically, you only have yourself to blame...

 

(For example... would you blame the store if you'd punctured a tyre by bouncing up on the pavement you so obviously hit?)

 

I think not, if you were travelling from right to left in a circular motion, ie to get back to entrance/exit, you would impact the pipe as it is clearly sticking out at an angle into the car park.

 

 

 

skb

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites
-sparky-

-sparky-

Posted
Posted
I think not, if you were travelling from right to left in a circular motion, ie to get back to entrance/exit, you would impact the pipe as it is clearly sticking out at an angle into the car park.skb

 

What?? Have you seen where the damage is on the car?

 

WHICHEVER way you approach the pipe the ONLY way you can physically drive into it would involve part of your car broaching the paved area...

Especially with the damage as evidenced...

 

You *could* cause damage to the car if you nudged into it when parking your car at a right angle to the paved area, either forward, or in reverse... But you certainly wouldn't cause THAT amount of damage...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Conniff

Conniff

Posted
Posted

Must admit that it looks like a raised (two curb) separation island. I would take another pic to show that it is just one sided and get that letter off to the company. Have you informed your insurance co yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...