faulty petrol pump ruined new boots

ThumbRemote

So many replies that don't actually address the issue of the consumer rights! Amazing how a thread like this brings out the inadequates who just want to snipe rather than actually assist.

The simple questions are:

1. 'Did the garage have a duty of care to the OP'. Clearly they did have a duty of care, as OP was a customer.

2. 'Were they negligent in that duty of care'? Hard to say, depends if they maintained their equipment properly, was OP using it correctly, etc.

At the most basic level, if the pump is fitted with a safety cut-off, but that fails to operate, it would suggest a level of liability on the part of the garage. It doesn't matter if OP was watching the nozzle or not; there are plenty of valid reasons why they would not be, and there is no instruction at the pump that you should watch the nozzle continuously.

Beyond that, it becomes an isue of proof. It's going to be very hard to prove the pump was faulty if they now say it isn't. Trying to fill up with it again while videoing the overflow might be an option. If it was an intermittent fault it will be even harder.

It's interesting though that a manager has already given money for the wasted diesel. That's a good way towards them admitting liability.

As Poppie68 suggests, try asking for a copy of the CCTV recording. You could also write to the head office stating that you were unhappy with the managers response.

k3lvc

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Come on children, leather authentic Ugg Boots were ruined

Maybe the forecourt should have also provided some of those little blue bootees like you get in security in the airport.

For me this is clear 'user error' - the cut-off is a safety feature not intended as a mechanism to remove any sense of liability from the user

jkkne

Zandoni wrote: »

I'd doubt that the CCTV camera system had the resolution to see if you had the nozzle in properly. I'd definitely ask for proof, I doubt they even bothered to watch it.

I was a witness in a road rage attack last year and was shown footage of the accused to identify them in a petrol station. The camera was superb, I could read the Penguin clothes logo on their shirt

cajef

Zandoni wrote: »

, I doubt they even bothered to watch it.

Why do you think they would lie when a customer has made a complaint and they need to verify what happened?

wealdroam

jkkne wrote: »

The camera was superb, I could read the Penguin clothes logo on their shirt

A logo like this?



Or something more discrete.

philatio

Ugg boots are SO last year.
The pump did you a favour.

InsideInsurance

Why are the boots ruined? My father worked in the oil industry and frequently spilt all sorts of oil extracts over himself but never once destroyed his footware.

What sort of leather is it? Suede? Waxed leather? Cordovan? What colour are they?

Zinger549

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Why are the boots ruined? My father worked in the oil industry and frequently spilt all sorts of oil extracts over himself but never once destroyed his footware.

What sort of leather is it? Suede? Waxed leather? Cordovan? What colour are they?

They were probably safety boots that were oil resistant and had a welted sole.

InsideInsurance

Zinger549 wrote: »

They were probably safety boots that were oil resistant and had a welted sole.

No, they were mainly Clarkes leather derby brogues - advantage of being an outside consultant (certainly in the 80s/ early 90s) was that health and safety was more optional for you

The only reason he wore overalls was because he had enough of my mother moaning at him for having gotten oil on another shirt/tie etc

neilmcl

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The only reason he wore overalls was because he had enough of my mother moaning at him for having gotten oil on another shirt/tie etc

I think you answered your own question there. Why do you think your mum moaned at him for getting oil on his clothes, because it would have been a PITA, if not impossible, to get the stuff out. The same would apply to the OP's boots, would it not.