Compo

brettcta

cheesymax wrote: »

but you wasn't waiting 2 months, you waited a reasonable amount of time for them to get it sorted so thats neither here nor there.

This was an exaggerated example to show that the the principle is the same.

it's not the same though, because waiting 2 months for work to be done is clearly far worse than waiting 1 night and would warrant a far different response

arcon5

cheesymax wrote: »

but you wasn't waiting 2 months, you waited a reasonable amount of time for them to get it sorted so thats neither here nor there.

This was an exaggerated example to show that the the principle is the same.

The principles not the same though, infact far from being the same.

brettcta

i think i'm done here, cheesymax is clearly a bit radio rental.

goodbloodynight

cheesymax

Great, see you later.

None of your input was welcome.

pendulum

I love how you brought the 8-month-old child in to the picture to show how unacceptable it would be to leave the window insecure, but then quickly put these "fears" for this child to one side when you thought you would be getting a bit of cash your way. Many windows get smashed at night, thus companies operating 24/7 are usually not far away - perhaps you should have called another one, and then you would not have experienced much "inconvenience" at all.

You strike me as the kind of person who sees pound signs everywhere.

brettcta

cheesymax wrote: »

Great, see you later.

None of your input was welcome.

don't post up your blatant attempts at money grabbing on a public forum then

was it not welcome because it didn't say 'OMG I AGREE, SUE EVERYONE FOR MAX COMPO!'?

cheesymax

Arcon

Ok whether you believe the principle is the same or not. The fact is that the glazing company thought it was and agreed to carry out that part of the work for free.

At the end of the day, someone else has benefitted from our inconvenience ( having our house insecure for the night), be it the insurance company or whoever. And that is not right.

cheesymax

brettcta wrote: »

don't post up your blatant attempts at money grabbing on a public forum then

was it not welcome because it didn't say 'OMG I AGREE, SUE EVERYONE FOR MAX COMPO!'?

No, just your ATTEMPT at !!!!taking

arcon5

cheesymax wrote: »

Arcon

Ok whether you believe the principle is the same or not. The fact is that the glazing company thought it was and agreed to carry out that part of the work for free.

At the end of the day, someone else has benefitted from our inconvenience ( having our house insecure for the night), be it the insurance company or whoever. And that is not right.

Talk about taking their goodwill gesture out of context.


Your (again) missing the point...................... read the following line carefully........

nobody is benefitting, both contractor and insurance company are out of pocket rectifying a mistake!

Im sorry, but i'm inclined to agree with the above, in that you've seen this as an opportunity to money grab.

brettcta

perhaps the offer of doing the part of the work for free was made by the glazer to yourself because he thought you were personally paying for the work and not the contractor. as a gesture of goodwill, if you must, but this obviously wasn't the case, so the cost between the two companies is none of your business or concern. they might have even done the work completely for free, does that mean you deserve the full fee? what if they charged them too much?