We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
hire digger had door missing
Options
Comments
-
shaun_from_Africa wrote: »Which is probably why the OP informed the hire company of the problem and asked them to fix it.
If the OP didn't have a secure place to leave it, what would you have suggested that they did with it?
I would suggest the OP gets a trailer and take it back to the hire company, or demand that the hire company come and collect it.
Someone with a name like "thebritishbrickie" you would assume hes a brick layer or something, so its not gonna be hard to get a trailer.
Both parties are to blame.0 -
I would suggest the OP gets a trailer and take it back to the hire company, or demand that the hire company come and collect it.
Someone with a name like "thebritishbrickie" you would assume hes a brick layer or something, so its not gonna be hard to get a trailer.
Both parties are to blame.0 -
pcombo, could you explain then, as I certainly don't understand.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
halibut2209 wrote: »pcombo, could you explain then, as I certainly don't understand.0
-
Assuming that the hire company dropped it off, then I don't see how it being stolen is the OP's fault, as he notified them that the door was missing and therefore it was a security risk. He can't be expected to return it - it was up to the hire company to do that if they also felt it was a risk.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
Assuming that the hire company dropped it off, then I don't see how it being stolen is the OP's fault, as he notified them that the door was missing and therefore it was a security risk. He can't be expected to return it - it was up to the hire company to do that if they also felt it was a risk.
Everyone seems to be missing a vital question (that I can't see answered).
IF the digger was delivered without a door AND he complained, BUT THEN went on to use it, he has accepted it as is.
Thats the vital question here and what a judge will ask if/when it goes to court.
D70How about no longer being masochistic?
How about remembering your divinity?
How about unabashedly bawling your eyes out?
How about not equating death with stopping?0 -
Everyone seems to be missing a vital question (that I can't see answered).
IF the digger was delivered without a door AND he complained, BUT THEN went on to use it, he has accepted it as is.
Thats the vital question here and what a judge will ask if/when it goes to court.
D70
A door missing wouldn't stop it working though.
Even if the OP had insurance, the missing door would make it invalid.
I bet it's a scam by the hire company who have stolen it themselves! They did know it was there after all...Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards