Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Dave, greatly appreciated!   Working on the SAR right now.   I've attached my images in a PDF NCP.pdf 
    • The questionable service from the surgery you mention TJ could do with their methods being passed onto the Care Quality Commission and PALS.    Watching Panorama this week the shared ownership scheme needs a serious review to ensure the system helps people not hinder. There must also be developments in the shared ownership scheme with unsafe cladding compounding the terrible financial situation the developers and landlords have put people in.   From the Grenfell enquiry, to me the cladding was mis sold as being entirely inflammable and wondered if the process of fitting the cladding, the council also had the responsibility of conducting their own fire tests. In addition to those thoughts, I'm sure the fire service and resident associations made it clear over time for Grenfell and other developments in the UK buildings did not comply to stringent fire and safety regulations.
    • Good morning.    I would like some advice please.    I recently (19th nov) bought a Samsung Galaxy S20+ from currys. I did open and set up the phone to try it out but 1) wasn’t keen on it and 2) had trouble with the usb connection when trying to connect with my car stereo.   I decided that I would seek to return it, but only on trying to return it came across the stipulation that if data/software has been installed then a refund would not be issued and after calling was told this was due to GDPR. I did point out to them that phone providers will issue full refunds even if the phone has been set-up and also that in order to be able to test the phone it requires setting up and software/data being installed but was told that it’s their policy.   I acknowledge that I may have handled it more than is reasonable in a shop as you wouldn’t be able to install software in a store, however the phone did need to be set up in order to test it, the phone has been returned back to factory settings and didn’t leave a case or the plastic film for the two days I used it for. Therefore I do not believe it was handled more than necessary.   Having looked at the CCR and CRA I called back to state that their store policy is super erred by the previously mentioned regulations and that their policy contradicts the Consumer Regulations Act.   As you cannot properly test the phone without having to install software on it, their policy creates an unfair term which I told the customer service agent over the phone who spoke to her manager and told me to contact their legal department.   I am still within the 14 day notice of return period so wish to try and preferable use this route.   Any advice at all please?
    • Here is all the details (hopefully) in one post.   The Ford Kuga was purchased from Fast Motor Finance LTD Crawley on 8th September 20 Mileage at purchase was 109520 through HP fiancé via Advance Finance Grimsby   The car was covered by a 6 month warranty that includes engine & gearbox but excludes clutches, flywheels or any wear & tear (Taken from the garages website)    Service History:   08-04-2013 Pre-delivery Inspection 26-11-2013 12809 Service (no paperwork just stamped book) 09-07-2014 25963 Service (no paperwork just stamped book) 09-02-2015 36814 Service (first Invoiced service but no paperwork just stamped book). Gearbox service would of probably been done here but can't verify. 16-02-2016 50385 Service  (Full service, paperwork and stamped book) 31-03-2017 64680 Service (Full Service, paperwork & stamped book) 13-02-2018 76988 Service ( Full service with gearbox service, paperwork & book stamp) 29-03-2019 92592 Service (Full service with paperwork & book stamp) 11-02-2020 106322 Service (Basic Service, no paperwork but book stamp)   As there was no paperwork for last service the garage which serviced the car were able to email over that the service was a basic oil & water change and that the gearbox oil and filters was not changed.   At the beginning of November the gearbox started making some noise and was having trouble selecting gear.   The finance company  asked for the car to be taken to a VAT registered garage to find out what the problem was and not to drive it further.   After the garage looked at the car the estimate was for a full service of the gearbox which would be £370 but because it had gone over Ford recommended mileage for the gearbox there would be no guarantee this would clear the problem and that would mean a replacement gearbox would be needed.   Since picking the car up in September the car has driven 1500 miles.   Spoke to the garage as was informed that the car was over 30 days old and there was nothing they could do and the gearbox would not be covered by the warranty as this would be normal wear and tear!   The warranty company said exactly the same and would not entertain us.   After countless calls and emails to Advantage finance a formal complaint was raised and they finally agreed to send one of their mechanics to inspect the car last week 19th November. The mechanics ahs reported back to Advantage that the noise is down to wear and tear and Advantage have closed the complaint and are sending out a deadlock letter that includes a copy of the mechanics report.   Would their mechanic have to be DEKRA registered to complete the report or Advance Finance own mechanic?   This now means that the car cannot be driven is still at the garage and will need a minimum of £370 to make it driveable on a car that has been driven 1500 miles since collection without a guarantee that this will cure the problem.   We are both key workers that need the car to travel to and from work as well as take our son to nursery, and at the moment having to rely of friends and family to help out with lifts.   I have spoken to Ford and they have told me these car need to have the gearbox serviced at around 35k and at a very maximum of 37.5k and have put this on letterheaded paper, I have also emailed a couple of other Ford and independent dealers to get details of this as well.   Would it be worth getting an AA or RAC inspection done to check the gearbox and to see if there is any other problems with the car.   Thanks again to everyone epically dx & Bank fodder who have helped me with advice.   JJ    
    • nothing they can do anyway so..   dx
  • 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 2619 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...