Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2298 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

Hi folks,

 

I've been prompted to look for answers regarding a situation that happened today. Basically I took my watch in to a Timpson shop and asked if they could install a new battery, they said yes it'll be 15 mins and gave me a ticket. I returned to collect my watch only to be told they couldn't replace the battery as they couldn't get the backing of my watch. That was fine but when I looked at the watch they had damaged the bezel and the face quite badly (deep gauging) and also scratched the backing. This is a watch I've had for around 18 months and it didn't have a single mark on it before they touched it. The watch also has sentimental value.

 

I immediately pointed out the damage and in fairness they accepted responsibility without any argument and agreed to pay for a new watch. They kept the damaged watch in order of finding the replacement but within an hour of leaving the shop I sourced the model from a nearby jewellers and so I called Timpson to let them know where they could get it. They requested I go to purchase it and they will reimburse me the cash when I take in the receipt for proof of purchase.

 

What I want to know however is, do I have the right to request my original watch back when I go in to be reimbursed ,even though they are replacing it, or do they keep it now that they paid for the replacement.

 

Any help and advice on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi folks,

 

I've been prompted to look for answers regarding a situation that happened today. Basically I took my watch in to a Timpson shop and asked if they could install a new battery, they said yes it'll be 15 mins and gave me a ticket. I returned to collect my watch only to be told they couldn't replace the battery as they couldn't get the backing of my watch. That was fine but when I looked at the watch they had damaged the bezel and the face quite badly (deep gauging) and also scratched the backing. This is a watch I've had for around 18 months and it didn't have a single mark on it before they touched it. The watch also has sentimental value.

 

I immediately pointed out the damage and in fairness they accepted responsibility without any argument and agreed to pay for a new watch. They kept the damaged watch in order of finding the replacement but within an hour of leaving the shop I sourced the model from a nearby jewellers and so I called Timpson to let them know where they could get it. They requested I go to purchase it and they will reimburse me the cash when I take in the receipt for proof of purchase.

 

What I want to know however is, do I have the right to request my original watch back when I go in to be reimbursed ,even though they are replacing it, or do they keep it now that they paid for the replacement.

 

Any help and advice on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

You can claim for the cost of the damage (the loss in value) for the original watch and keep the original, OR

 

Claim for the cost of a replacement, but they keep the original (which they can then do with as they wish).

 

Either way you end up with a watch (one!) and are compensated for your loss. They end up paying for the damage, either:

So, if X is the replacement value of your watch (undamaged), and Y it's value damaged

 

Then can pay you (X-Y) and give you the damaged watch back OR

They can pay you X. You use that to get a replacement. They keep your watch, (and can sell it).

 

Either way you get one watch to the value of (X-Y), which is what you started with, and they loose (X-Y) : the cost of the damage they caused.

 

Let's just say the watch cost. £500 new, but is now £300 value (undamaged), and they cause £100 of damage (so it is now worth £200).

 

You can claim £100 and keep the damaged watch.

They can give you £300 to get a replacement, but they can sell yours for £200.

 

Either way you end up with a £300 watch (so, are not "unjustly enriched") and they end up £100 out if pocket, representing the damage they caused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That pretty much sums it up, 'no' you can't keep the old watch if you except the replacement watch. The retailer is making good the damage done to your watch by replacing it.

 

You can claim for the cost of the damage (the loss in value) for the original watch and keep the original, OR

 

Claim for the cost of a replacement, but they keep the original (which they can then do with as they wish).

 

Either way you end up with a watch (one!) and are compensated for your loss. They end up paying for the damage, either:

So, if X is the replacement value of your watch (undamaged), and Y it's value damaged

 

Then can pay you (X-Y) and give you the damaged watch back OR

They can pay you X. You use that to get a replacement. They keep your watch, (and can sell it).

 

Either way you get one watch to the value of (X-Y), which is what you started with, and they loose (X-Y) : the cost of the damage they caused.

 

Let's just say the watch cost. £500 new, but is now £300 value (undamaged), and they cause £100 of damage (so it is now worth £200).

 

You can claim £100 and keep the damaged watch.

They can give you £300 to get a replacement, but they can sell yours for £200.

 

Either way you end up with a £300 watch (so, are not "unjustly enriched") and they end up £100 out if pocket, representing the damage they caused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

 

Very nicely put Bazza!

 

 

That's great, thanks for clearing that up guys. Much appreciated.

 

Phew! Thanks.

 

Sometimes I think I've explained stuff well, but I haven't done so as well as I'd hoped.

I don't mind algebra, so the 'X-Y' made sense to me, but not everyone gets on with it, so I thought a made up example would help (I'm not suggesting anyone is 'dumb' - just some people don't "get it" as algebra!)

 

If it makes sense, and has helped : I'm glad! (Otherwise it's not best use of your time or mine!)

 

The mathematical approach to damages doesn't take into account sentimental value ; you might want to have the damaged watch rather than a replacement!

 

If so, can the damage be repaired?

You could ask them to pay the cost of repair, if you really want to keep that watch : if they say "cost of a replacement is less, and you have a duty to mitigate your loss" (keep the costs down as far as possible), then point out that the aim of damages is to put you back into the position you should have been in, as far as money possibly can.

 

You are asking for "undamaged watch that had sentimental value" rather than "any undamaged watch of that model"

 

Cases:

the aim of damages is to put you back into the position you should have been in, as far as money possibly can. (Robinson v Harman, from 1848!)

 

"You have a duty to mitigate the loss" (British Westinghouse)

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...