Roll on anti perspirent bottle scarred me

majorwally

I used one of those roll type anti perspirant and I got a nasty looking scar from a sticky out piece of the actual bottle.
I didn't realise it was cutting me until I had finished the wipe and even after 4 weeks, it still looks quite nasty.

I phoned the company to complain and they asked me to send the botle in and they will investigate.
However, If I send the bottle in I will be giving them all the evidence I have.
Any ideas?

bod1467

Take photos (on-screen dated if possible, but not essential), email them, save copies for yourself, then send them the bottle. (Get them to send you a prepaid returns bag, so it doesn't cost you to send it).

What are you expecting them to do? What action are you expecting them to take?

texranger

well i would say if its scarred and the OP needs medical treatmenst ( prescribed creams etc.) then they should at least cover these expenses as its not the OPs fault they were cut/marked by a faulty bottle.

so OP if you need any creams even if bought over the counter keep receipts so that you can claim off them.

majorwally

bod1467 wrote: »

What are you expecting them to do? What action are you expecting them to take?

Hadn't thought about that!
Not a lot they can do now is there?

Maybe they will quality assure their products for the future?

bod1467

That reply reserves a Thanks.

Many people would have come back with an "I deservz loadsa compo" response. :rotfl: But you will be entitled to a refund of your purchase costs, plus any postage costs if they don't send a returns bag. And as Tex says, you may be entitled to recompense for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred in treating the injury - as long as these are reasonable, and it helps if you have receipts.

dan_l

bod1467 wrote: »

That reply reserves a Thanks.

Many people would have come back with an "I deservz loadsa compo" response. :rotfl: But you will be entitled to a refund of your purchase costs, plus any postage costs if they don't send a returns bag. And as Tex says, you may be entitled to recompense for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred in treating the injury - as long as these are reasonable, and it helps if you have receipts.

So is the OP just supposed to forget about the fact she how has a scar and not expect any sort of compensation, just her costs covered?
How far does this logic stretch?
If someone is paralysed due to somebody else's negligence do they not deserve any compensation either, just their expenses or is there a certain stage where you do deserve compensation?

starrystarry

At four weeks you'll still be healing, I think it's a bit too soon to say that you're scarred. Permanently scarred anyway.

somethingcorporate

dan_l wrote: »

How far does this logic stretch?

:T

This is the best question I have seen ever asked on the issue of compensation.

Unfortunately nowadays everyone is out for whatever they can get; No Win No Fee lawyers stretch it as far as they can get. You'll find that the regulars on this board tend to advise using common sense rather than what compensation you could get if you went to the nth degree.

At what point does someone become entitled to compensation for getting a cut/scar from a product? The murkiness around arguing over this keeps hundreds if not thousands of people in jobs arguing the toss!

texranger

somethingcorporate wrote: »

:T

This is the best question I have seen ever asked on the issue of compensation.

Unfortunately nowadays everyone is out for whatever they can get; No Win No Fee lawyers stretch it as far as they can get. You'll find that the regulars on this board tend to advise using common sense rather than what compensation you could get if you went to the nth degree.

At what point does someone become entitled to compensation for getting a cut/scar from a product? The murkiness around arguing over this keeps hundreds if not thousands of people in jobs arguing the toss!

It only lines the pockets of these so called solicitors

peachyprice

dan_l wrote: »

So is the OP just supposed to forget about the fact she how has a scar and not expect any sort of compensation, just her costs covered?
How far does this logic stretch?
If someone is paralysed due to somebody else's negligence do they not deserve any compensation either, just their expenses or is there a certain stage where you do deserve compensation?

You can hardly compare a possible scar (it's only been 4 weeks, nothing to say it's going to be permanent at all) in an area of your body no-one is ever going to see to being paralysed.

Being paralysed has a huge impact on every single aspect of your life, having a scar in your armpit has very little, unless you happen to be an armpit model, but I think OP would have mentioned it if she was.

dan_l

peachyprice wrote: »

You can hardly compare a possible scar (it's only been 4 weeks, nothing to say it's going to be permanent at all) in an area of your body no-one is ever going to see to being paralysed.

Being paralysed has a huge impact on every single aspect of your life, having a scar in your armpit has very little, unless you happen to be an armpit model, but I think OP would have mentioned it if she was.

I think you have missed the point. I'm not comparing the 2, I'm trying to distinguish at what stage people on this forum think compensation should be given due to somebody’s negligence.

The general consensus on here always seems to be regardless of what has happened you should just get your expenses and be grateful with that.

I’m no ambulance chaser and have never claimed compensation for anything in my life but I don’t think, for example in this case (if it does end up being a permanent scar) the OP would be wrong for expecting some sort of compensation on top of any expenses they have.

This is just one example, there are tons of threads on here when poster’s jump down someone’s throat just for daring to mention the word compensation.