Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Dx, I have only just started helping them yesterday, all the complete so far has been done by my son in law. I am just getting all the correspondence together and make a full list later
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
    • Hi Scourge of Ryanair,   Thanks for your support. As I said, the case is in limbo at the moment until court services get back to "normal".  I am happy enough with this.  I never really got a satisfactory reply back about the ESCP but because I can enforce any judgement in ROI I am happy to  continue with my current action.   I am all prepared for any hearing and feel I have a good case.  I am looking forward to completely sidestepping Ryanairs defence of bad weather etc. and focussing on their failure to provide the transport, as propmised, to the new departure airport.  I have many witness statements from fellow passengers and news reports to back this up and also Ryanairs own flight data showing only 10 passengers made the flight.
    • Latest letter attached, I take it that is not a formal letter before claim and should be ignored? eps-25-11-20.pdf
    • In terms of your letter of claim, you've asked us to remove some information – but you have put it up and it's not that critical it's simply bad practice and so we will be leaving in place. It's highly unlikely that the company will stumble across this thread – and anyway no great harm done – but there is no point in spelling out in a letter of claim every detail of the evidence you are going to be relying on if it goes to court. In terms of referring to mediation, it's not up to you. It's up to them. Once again you want to play your hand before it is necessary. Do not do it. Let them make the decisions. They probably will opt for mediation as part of the court process – and then you can simply accede to that. A letter of claim is not the time to start stating this kind of stuff. You come here for advice and I suggest that by and large you follow our advice. In terms of just keeping part of the contract – the frames – as long as you are sure that another supplier would be prepared to supply the glass which is absolutely appropriate for those frames. However, I should warn you that mixing your suppliers like this can eventually lead to problems because you are giving both parties a means by which they can pass the buck onto the other party. This really can get complicated – if the frames fail and the company with which you've already fallen out, then decides to get their own back and they say it is the glass supplier. The glass supplier may well turn round and say no it's the frame supplier – and you are left in the middle and you will have a difficult problem including maybe having to pay for an independent assessment to ascertain whether liability lies. In my view its most ill-advised. You have an opportunity here to predicate your rejection on the fact that you had a single contract and the glass and the frames are supplied as a job lot and the defective glass means that the entire contract is subject to rejection. However, it's up to you. Furthermore, if the frames fail within a particular time, apart from the problem of passing the buck to the glass suppliers, you may find that the frame suppliers are quite reluctant to do any further business with you because they will have long memories. If you really think that after this litigation the frame suppliers will be prepared to continue with you and to supply the glass that you need, then you need to be very certain. Of course they may be very pragmatic and business minded and mature about their dealings and be prepared to supply you with the glass you need with perfectly goodwill and professionalism. However, you shouldn't bank on it. All it needs is one individual within the organisation start feeling that the whole thing is some kind of personal rebuke against them are you are you are you are you you are a you are you you are you are you are a you you are a you.   Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. I think you should follow our advice in terms of legal process and the letter of claim. The rest of it is to how you deal with your windows is simply a bonus for you.
  • Our picks

DIY store trolley in their car park failed - rolled away and hit another car - who's liable?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2617 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Just moved house and

 

was at the local DIY store whose car park is on a bit of a slope and has signs everywhere,

used one of their provided trolleys to get a pile of DIY stuff,

 

got out to the car put the brake on, put baby in the back whilst doing this the trolley rolled off and bumped into someones car,

 

they were not happy,

 

i reported the failure of the brake to the staff at the DIY store

 

am i liable for the damage to the other car?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both you and the other driver should go into the store and speak to the manager, if the brake on the trolley is faulty then IMO it is the stores liability.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes def.

 

if a brake is fitted and it did not work

 

hope you can identify which trolley it was

 

p'haps there is CCTV the manager can view too?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the OP is responsible, as you used the trolley and had control of it; having said that I would certainly try to put the blame on the store as providing a faulty trolley.

You would have to prove the trolley was defective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the proof of negligence is the hard one.

was the diy store responsible for the possible faulty trolly brake ?? "even though they didn't know about??

were you responsible for not returning it to the area from which you collected it from?/ and did you make sure the trolley would not roll away before you left it do put your child in the vehicle?.

hard one to call,good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes ofcourse they are responsible for the faulty brake knowing about it or otherwise

 

good pearls of wisdom there...

 

H+S . duty of care

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes ofcourse they are responsible for the faulty brake knowing about it or otherwise

 

good pearls of wisdom there...

 

H+S . duty of care

 

dx

 

I'm not sure the fault would lie squarely with the retailer, though. The user would have a duty to use the trolley with reasonable skill too. I'm not sure it's a very clear cut situation at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points, very interesting to add..

 

The brake failed after it was applied (applied following the instructions provided (sign)) I have no mechanical knowledge to 'test' the brake to know if it was defective or not therefore surely it is the responsibility of the store to ensure the manual handling equipment was correctly maintained?

 

Today the other party has sent what i judge to be a 'fake' solicitors letter, not signed or dated, no name of the solicitor or address of the solicitor, no registration details, not on headed paper on cheap copier / printing paper (you can see through it) and alot of the vocabulary used in the letter is not as a solicitor would use.

 

Is it a crime / offence to impersonate a solicitor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what does it say !

p.s just another thought I assume you had the third party involved confirm with you that the said brake was faulty,not just applied in an incorrect manor?.

I think this is what you will be up against,unless again said trolly can be called as a witness." showing it is faulty" obviously not in person.

Edited by themagician
Link to post
Share on other sites

ive googled the address on the letter stating acting for our client, its a residential address, the letters contents are poor and the vocabulary isnt that of a solicitor, and surely an un-signed / un-dated letter has no credence anyhow.

 

The damage, a tiny dink, one of those dent pullers it would be gone, paint isnt even broken, yes plenty of pictures, the estimate from the garage is also of questionable origin, no details of the garage its from seem to exist, i think its a bit of a [problem] myself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't car insurance not enforceable on private property?

 

If this happened to me I would be apologetic but nothing more, I have had cars damaged by trolleys in car parks and on complaining to the store been told 'go through your insurance', only for my insurance to say that it is not their responsibility as it happened on private property

 

I'd respond to that letter once and state that in taking legal advice (you don't have to say where) you are advising them that you believe you are not liable for any damages and they should direct their claim to the store, no further correspondence will be entered into unless they forward an official claim from small claims court.

 

Personally I wouldn't have provided any contact details at the scene as you were not obliged to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at your original post I'm wondering how they knew it was your trolley?

 

You are either the most honest person in the world and owned up to them when they returned to their car, or they were there and saw it - if it is the latter then why didn't they stop it?

 

Either way I think their letter is just trying it on and the next letter would be for a bill of about £300 for a garage to repair the damage, no way would I be admitting liability on this one, especially as I bet there are signs up that state private car park used at owners risk

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to refer them to the DIY stores insurers.

 

its a daily/weekly/montly task for the staff to check the brakes work under their insurance providers policy

rules

 

and under H+S rules.,

 

if the retailer provides the trolley

and the brake is faulty & that was the cause of the damage, then it squarely lies with the DIY insurers

 

they will inspect the safety check sheets. & view and CCTv at the time.

 

why do you think they put up signs & instructions

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Im honest, too honest.. there are signs everywhere and i mean everywhere stating cars parked at owners risk yes

these signs are totally worthless / waste of the board they are written on if you can prove negligence!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...