B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

Kesstra

BJV wrote: »

OP I have just read some of the comments and while some may at first glance seem a little harsh I think what everyone or at least the majority of the posts are saying is that the £100 while it may not be exactly what you want is a reasonable offer.


Please also remember that this is a public forum and that everyone has there right to their own opinion. It may not always be the same as yours but it is equally as valid in their eyes.


Personally I would take the £100 and go shopping in Homebase instead!

Regardless, there shouldn't be nasty posts about what people where to what shops.

Opinion is not a right to abuse other people on a subject that this thread isn't about. If we want to talk about what people should or should not wear/buy/use/do then why not start a post on that.
I just think that someone's opinion doesn't give them the right to abuse people and become nasty.

splishsplash

I'm just trying to imagine how I'd handle this if it happened to me.
It sounds like some paint tins fell off a shelf, the gf caught a couple of them (getting bumped in the face for her efforts) but one got away, hit the floor and doused her leg/boot?
How did you get home, OP? I wouldn't get in my car with paint on me, so I would have to go somewhere and get cheap replacement somethings to put on me to get me home.

I would be looking for the compensation for the damaged clothing, the cheap replacements I would have had to buy to get me home, and probably a few quid towards the fright, embarrassment, my time and the inconvenience wouldn't go amiss either.

I wouldn't care what B&Q's insurer's position is, B&Q should be happy to suck it up. I think the very least they could do is cough up £170 for the clothing.

I think if you have no satisfaction, go to the papers. Shocking customer service.

BTW, second hand boots? Really? Yuk. Wouldn't happen here.

rach_k

I understand why it would be very annoying to have to pay out before getting refunded, but I do think B&Q are being quite reasonable. £100 is a good amount to cover what the average person would wear to a DIY shop. It's a shame for you that your girlfriend's whole outfit was ruined and she wasn't in old trackies, but I think their offer is okay. £100 with no quibbles would cover most people, and that's what they have to work on - most people.

Do you have any kind of insurance yourselves that might cover this? I know our house insurance covers things like handbags and coats. I've never had to use it (touch wood now!) but would there be any way to claim on your insurance without affecting your no-claims discount - perhaps the insurer would/could then claim from B&Q and your excess might also be covered? I've never looked into it but accidents like this (maybe in restaurants?) must be quite common. It's a pain that you have to deal with it but this is the way things normally work. Accidents happen and you can't just undo them.

powerful_Rogue

splishsplash wrote: »

I'm just trying to imagine how I'd handle this if it happened to me.
It sounds like some paint tins fell off a shelf, the gf caught a couple of them (getting bumped in the face for her efforts) but one got away, hit the floor and doused her leg/boot?
How did you get home, OP? I wouldn't get in my car with paint on me, so I would have to go somewhere and get cheap replacement somethings to put on me to get me home.

I would be looking for the compensation for the damaged clothing, the cheap replacements I would have had to buy to get me home, and probably a few quid towards the fright, embarrassment, my time and the inconvenience wouldn't go amiss either.

I wouldn't care what B&Q's insurer's position is, B&Q should be happy to suck it up. I think the very least they could do is cough up £170 for the clothing.

I think if you have no satisfaction, go to the papers. Shocking customer service.

BTW, second hand boots? Really? Yuk. Wouldn't happen here.

But B&Q are offering to pay for the replacement clothing, so I cant see what the issue is.

As for the compo for embarrassment and fright, how would you put an amount on that?

force_ten

I have nothing useful to add to this post other than note to self

Next time you go to a DIY store make sure you wear steel toecap safety boots in case a tin of paint falls on your foot as DIY stores can be a dangerous place

Altarf

rach_k wrote: »

I understand why it would be very annoying to have to pay out before getting refunded, but I do think B&Q are being quite reasonable.

Exactly, it is entirely logical that B&Q have a 'cut off' where they will just hand over the cash.

If they just handed over any amount, then can I have £50,000, for my entire couture designer collection of clothing that I happened to be wearing in store when it was damaged by a single drop of paint. What do you mean you don't have £50,000 in the till to give me.

But back to the OP, if they are as poor as they claim. Have they explained to B&Q that they will need to buy one item at a time, submit the claim for that item, then when it is paid, buy the next, and so on? B&Q may come to a conclusion that there is a simpler way, than involving themselves in multiple sets of paperwork.

Money-Saving-King

splishsplash wrote: »

I would be looking for the compensation for the damaged clothing, the cheap replacements I would have had to buy to get me home, and probably a few quid towards the fright, embarrassment, my time and the inconvenience wouldn't go amiss either.

I wouldn't care what B&Q's insurer's position is, B&Q should be happy to suck it up. I think the very least they could do is cough up £170 for the clothing.

I think if you have no satisfaction, go to the papers. Shocking customer service.

Why?

People wanting compo for unrealistic things are disliked, just look at this forum & this is a consumer rights forum. Why on earth would you want to go to the papers for such a thing when that could result in mass dislike of a person?

Zandoni

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Why?

People wanting compo for unrealistic things are disliked, just look at this forum & this is a consumer rights forum. Why on earth would you want to go to the papers for such a thing when that could result in mass dislike of a person?

I don't think this case is unrealistic. The OP's would have been seriously inconvenienced as well as all the damage caused.


I also feel strongly that if companies don't have to compensate for their negligence they will not be more safety minded in future.


If I read about this in the paper I would be dislike B&Q not the OP. This forum is not a true representation of the average person in this country.

dld2s

Can a relative not loan you the cash with the provisio they get the cash when you receive it from B&Q? if not maybe you should try Aldarfs suggestion, explain to B&Q you can't afford £170 up front but will buy 1 item at a time and submit receipt but that it may take you several months, it may push them to come to another agreement, say gift vouchers for the stores involved in purchasing new clothes.

I hear and understand what all are saying about betterment, but IMO B&Q are getting off lightly, for goodwill I think they should be adding a little more onto the total for the loss, hassle, pain and discomfort their negligence has caused a customer, and yes I know in law my opinion means eff all

Money-Saving-King

Zandoni wrote: »

Most decent companies will go much further than they need to legally

When it comes to minor things like exchanges and refunds maybe. With this sort of thing they always tend to pay out what is legally owed. So no, I think it's wrong to do what you do & get peoples hopes up for things they aren't entitled to.