complaint against first choice help please

suited-aces

"No other choice"? Seriously?

mountainofdebt

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Still judging I see. This has nothing to do with the choices the OP has made, it is about what she is entitled to make a claim for. Loss of enjoyment could be described as to OP's enjoyment of pleasing her daughter; a very tangible and clear concept.

Surely a reasonably minded person would agree that the OP is entitled to a reclaim of the cost of the limo hire and would agree that by offering the cost of the taxi fare, she has actually come offer better as no transfers were included in the cost of the holiday.

How how would a reasonably minded person put a value on the loss of pleasing her daughter ? Its inmeasurable.

Personally I think the OP should move on - life is too short to worry about how she and her daughter got from A to B and thank her lucky stars that she has a daughter that she can get from A to B with.

fthl

Optimist wrote: »

Claiming damages for holiday contracts for non pecuniary losses has been around since 1973 and it was that most brilliant of judges Lord Denning who made it so.

Given that this limousine ride was a element in the enjoyment of the holiday then the op has a pretty reasonable chance of winning any action they take.

True, but no case I'm aware of ever got the claimant essentially a 200% refund. Even when the Yodellers were rubbish and there was no house party.

Pollycat

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Surely a reasonably minded person would agree that the OP is entitled to a reclaim of the cost of the limo hire and would agree that by offering the cost of the taxi fare, she has actually come offer better as no transfers were included in the cost of the holiday.

How how would a reasonably minded person put a value on the loss of pleasing her daughter ? Its inmeasurable.

Personally I think the OP should move on - life is too short to worry about how she and her daughter got from A to B and thank her lucky stars that she has a daughter that she can get from A to B with.

My take on this, too.

Money_User

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Consumers are asking for compensation more often now, because they feel they have no other choice.

What, not including being put back in the position they were in before the contract was formed?

Flyboy, you are a classic compo seeker!

vyle

It's these people constantly suing which in many ways hampers customer service.

Even as little as 3 years ago at work, if a customer wanted a TV installation, we'd send a guy round and do it. It was nice and simple. If they had any other requirements, we'd try to meet them, but if it was out of our remit, we'd recommend a company who could.

Now, due to things like somebody trying to sue the company because the wall bracket THEY bought from a DIFFERENT company wasn't suitable for the tv they bought from us (despite saying they didn't need to buy a bracket with the tv because they already had one) and people trying to get compensation if a company we recommended didn't meet their expectations, we've cracked down a lot.

We now stick rigidly to a set of guidelines which the customer has and which we have. If somebody wants a job that doesn't fit within those guidelines, we will not recommend anybody (which customers think is ludicrous). We will not install anything unless every part of the installation has been bought from us.

The more people look for compensation, the LESS service places will offer, and those services which are still available will be cut down and become so rigid that everybody will have 'loss of enjoyment.'

Perhaps I can sue everyone who has sued for loss of enjoyment for loss of my enjoyment?

Flyboy152

Money_User wrote: »

What, not including being put back in the position they were in before the contract was formed?

Loss of enjoyment is now a tangible loss. The expectation is quantifiable, in as much as, the disappointment affects the consumer, as much as the financial loss. The amount of recompense demanded, is up to the plaintiff and it is the judge who decides whether the claim is justifiable and how much the plaintiff will ultimately receive.

Flyboy, you are a classic compo seeker!

You know beggar all about me. Why don't you add something useful to the thread, instead of berating other users.

Flyboy152

vyle wrote: »

It's these people constantly suing which in many ways hampers customer service.

Nonsense. If service providers and retailers stood by their commitments and took responsibilty when things go wrong, they wouldn't have so many people suing them. This does not hamper customer service, because if the service was adequate in the first place, there would no need to complain.

Even as little as 3 years ago at work, if a customer wanted a TV installation, we'd send a guy round and do it. It was nice and simple. If they had any other requirements, we'd try to meet them, but if it was out of our remit, we'd recommend a company who could.

Now, due to things like somebody trying to sue the company because the wall bracket THEY bought from a DIFFERENT company wasn't suitable for the tv they bought from us (despite saying they didn't need to buy a bracket with the tv because they already had one) and people trying to get compensation if a company we recommended didn't meet their expectations, we've cracked down a lot.

We now stick rigidly to a set of guidelines which the customer has and which we have. If somebody wants a job that doesn't fit within those guidelines, we will not recommend anybody (which customers think is ludicrous). We will not install anything unless every part of the installation has been bought from us.

The more people look for compensation, the LESS service places will offer, and those services which are still available will be cut down and become so rigid that everybody will have 'loss of enjoyment.'

Perhaps I can sue everyone who has sued for loss of enjoyment for loss of my enjoyment?

How many successful claims were there on that basis?

That said, if those who make these recommendations are not qualified to do so, they shouldn't be making them in the first place. For example, if the brackets are not suitable for the wall and/or the television, the one who makes the recommendation must take the responsibility if something goes wrong. This is an excuse, for example, that carpet shops have been making for years. They "recommend" a fitter (when, in reality, the shop contracts the fitter). The fitter damages the floor, or wall, of the customer and the carpet shop denies all responsibility.

If a doctor recommends that a patient takes a specific medication and it turns out to be totally unsuitable, whose fault is that?

blondie7

Well I have read through all your posts and I can thank some of you's but not others.

Anyone of you's who say I'm only after £££ are wrong you would think I was asking for thousands .I just want the company to stop passing the buck and admitting it is there mistake by offering more than I have already paid them, and for the inconvience they caused.

If I do a job then I do it properly and expect others to do the same and if they cant then they shouldnt do that job.

I know some of you's are saying I have already had compensation by refunding the limo and the taxi refund, what about the wasted time at the airport waiting round for the limo and then been told there is no booking.

As for who said it is tackey then thats your opionion and the person who said which 21 year old would want a limo I can only think you's could may be not afford this type of transport so s l a g it off.;)

CynicalScotsman

If I do a job then I do it properly

You don't need the 's in "anyone of you's" or "some of you's".

As for your claim for compensation, since you have already accepted the offer of compensation of the refund of Taxi fares, i'm not sure if you can take it any further.