Attitude to customer service in the UK

Sommer43

[quote=[Deleted User];59689053]Turns out washers were actually faulty. They should have checked these but obviously did not.

Bit more of an issue then.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear, whatdyagunna do?

Money-Saving-King

[quote=[Deleted User];59682195]As opposed to the majority of the people in this country who bend over and take it.[/QUOTE]

The majority of people in this country don't bend over and take it. The have skills that allow them to cooperate with others to find solutions and also have the ability to show some initiative when required.

Just because the majority of this country can carry out every day tasks without stamping their feet every 2 seconds does not mean they bend over and take it, they just have better perspective and will be better at problem solving.

keyser666

[quote=[Deleted User];59683005]Well said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on this board who wait for posts to come in so they can criticise. Some people seem to be entertained like this.[/QUOTE]Again another unfair comment. The people on here give you an opinion, factual response or subjective view. Some give a great deal of time others give great bits of information and experiences, however with yourself it appears unless someone agrees with your POV then their time is not worthy.



[quote=[Deleted User];59689053]Turns out washers were actually faulty. They should have checked these but obviously did not.

Bit more of an issue then.[/QUOTE]Not as much as if you had of checked the car yourself and if the wheels come off because you didnt give them a second glance

hartcjhart

Azari wrote: »

You are seriously confused.

I'm making no comment about the rightness or wrongness of the criminal law.

Both common sense and civil law say that if someone contracts to supply you with something that has been checked then they should provide exactly that.

What I said was stupid was the argument that because criminal law holds one person responsible for something that in some way absolves anyone whose failure is relevant in the chain of events that lead to the offence from blame.

Yes, the driver may be responsible in criminal law but that does not give the hire company a free pass to ignore its responsibilities under contract law.

the argument/statement that was made is factually correct.not at all stupid, maybe the lawis stupid but not the poster

Azari

hartcjhart wrote: »

the argument/statement that was made is factually correct.not at all stupid, maybe the lawis stupid but not the poster

I see you also seem to suffer from impaired comprehension capabilities.

It was a stupid argument because it was, effectively, a straw man.

Just because the law says one person has the ultimate responsibility for something does not in any way mean that no one else has any responsibility - legal or otherwise.

In the case in question the hire company were in breach of contract and who would be held liable in the event of a prosecution is irrelevant.

In any case, the OP did discover the mistake but the hire company were not helpful in attempting to mitigate their breach of contract in a way that minimised the disruption of the OP's business.

[Deleted User]

keyser666 wrote: »

Again another unfair comment. The people on here give you an opinion, factual response or subjective view. Some give a great deal of time others give great bits of information and experiences, however with yourself it appears unless someone agrees with your POV then their time is not worthy.

And some people come on here just to be argumentative. Not to give advice or subjective view just to cause a bit of an argument. Check posting history - there are people who disagree with everything and seem to get a kick out of doing so.