B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

Stevie_Palimo

sainty43 wrote: »

Thank you. Finally a sensible answer!

I don't know why I need to explain why we were wearing what we were? For a start she was wearing £70 waterproof leather walking boots, £50 river island jeans, £30 jumper, £15 shoulder bag and a £2 pair of socks! I didn't realise this was exceptional for shopping in B & Q but I shall check their clothing policy next time

Secondly I shouldn't have to prove that we don't have £170! In fact not many of our friends would have that kind of money sitting around!

I feel I have posted on the wrong forum here? I'm being judged on what clothes my gf was wearing to go shopping and the fact that I don't have £170 lying around the place. I think most of the points I have raised above have been missed, especially point 2!

What and my post is not sensible then ??????????

clarryd

mije1983 wrote: »

How can you do that without receipts from when you bought them originally? They may well cost £170 brand new in a shop now, but B&Q don't know if you picked them up cheap at a charity shop for example.

I think their offer of £100 to you, with no evidence of cost, is pretty reasonable. If you want more, you will have to show them that the clothes did indeed cost the amount you are claiming.

I think the situation is this:

1) Who care if you have bought them from a charity shop, the clothes etc where in good condition or you wouldn't have been wearing them so to replace them for the exact product would cost more.

2) When I go shopping in a hardware store/food shopping or even clothes shopping I normally always have a pair of UGG's on my feed at £200 + a pair so £100 would not be acceptable. And asking me to buy them myself and get reimbursed just wouldn't happen as I don't have a spare £200 ever.

My point is you should be able to take the clothes/footwear/coat etc to the post office send them back to head office with a detailed listing of how much everything cost, and then they should send you a cheque or even a pre paid money card to cover the costs including postage.

Why not suggest one of these options as they are very reasonable.


Good luck.

unholyangel

The reason you're probably receiving the answers you are is that negligence claims can be hard to argue - and even if they are negligent its usually a best case scenario of contributory negligence or the damages being too remote.

In other words, something going wrong doesnt automatically mean they're liable.

And when they are liable, the most they'll be liable for is the value of the goods 2nd hand, not the cost brand new (wouldnt expect them to pay out £70 for the boots unless they were practically brand new for example).

But yes, they are entitled to ask you to provide proof of your losses.

If you are unable to prove your losses, then as above you wouldnt get very far in court.

unholyangel

clarryd wrote: »

I think the situation is this:

1) Who care if you have bought them from a charity shop, the clothes etc where in good condition or you wouldn't have been wearing them so to replace them for the exact product would cost more.

2) When I go shopping in a hardware store/food shopping or even clothes shopping I normally always have a pair of UGG's on my feed at £200 + a pair so £100 would not be acceptable. And asking me to buy them myself and get reimbursed just wouldn't happen as I don't have a spare £200 ever.

My point is you should be able to take the clothes/footwear/coat etc to the post office send them back to head office with a detailed listing of how much everything cost, and then they should send you a cheque or even a pre paid money card to cover the costs including postage.

Why not suggest one of these options as they are very reasonable.


Good luck.

I've went around various DIY shops in my "decorating" clothes.

Furthermore, if OPs gf paid £5 from a charity shop for the jeans (for example) last month, then their losses are £5, not the £50 it would cost to replace them with brand new ones from the high street.

You may not care, but the law does. In cases like this you are only entitled to recover actual losses and there is certainly no entitlement to a betterment.

powerful_Rogue

sainty43 wrote: »

Thank you. Finally a sensible answer!

I don't know why I need to explain why we were wearing what we were? For a start she was wearing £70 waterproof leather walking boots, £50 river island jeans, £30 jumper, £15 shoulder bag and a £2 pair of socks! I didn't realise this was exceptional for shopping in B & Q but I shall check their clothing policy next time

Secondly I shouldn't have to prove that we don't have £170! In fact not many of our friends would have that kind of money sitting around!

I feel I have posted on the wrong forum here? I'm being judged on what clothes my gf was wearing to go shopping and the fact that I don't have £170 lying around the place. I think most of the points I have raised above have been missed, especially point 2!

How strange that you believe the only sensible answer you have received so far is one that agrees with you!

Must be my investigative mind, but some things don't quite add up. For £70 I imagine these are good quality leather walking boots - so how did gloss manage to get through them to damage the socks?

How badly damaged were these boots? Surly these can be easily cleaned with a pure silicon spray (not wd40). That will get the gloss off and wont damage the leather.

Got any pics of the items showing the extent of the damage - im very intrigued.

BJV

I am not suggesting that you are trying anything untoward BUT £100 does seem reasonable.


For example how old we the boots? They may have cost £50 been in good condition but been four years old. Therefore wear and tear?

sainty43

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

How strange that you believe the only sensible answer you have received so far is one that agrees with you!

Must be my investigative mind, but some things don't quite add up. For £70 I imagine these are good quality leather walking boots - so how did gloss manage to get through them to damage the socks?

How badly damaged were these boots? Surly these can be easily cleaned with a pure silicon spray (not wd40). That will get the gloss off and wont damage the leather.

Got any pics of the items showing the extent of the damage - im very intrigued.

Your "investigative mind" mind clearly doesn't know what happens when gloss paint is applied to leather or textiles. The General manager even told us to get the worst of it off, as you will never remove gloss from clothing. Maybe you should investigate this some more :-)


To answer your points about the socks, I don't know if your "investigative mind" has seen a pair of boots recently, but when a 2.5 litre tub of paint falls directly on top of them, the paint will run into the boots the same way that people get their feet into the boots, through the big opening at the top. Most boots are not sealed air-tight. They are designed to repel rain, and the odd puddle, not to be covered in 2 plus litres of paint in less than a second.


"so how did gloss manage to get through them to damage the socks?"


I don't think many boot manufacturers design their waterproof boots to the point of being able to resist 2 plus litres of gloss paint. They are designed to keep out water, not paint.


I think your "investigative mind" would be better elsewhere, as you are clearly not contributing to this thread, simply picking holes where you like, and not actually addressing the concerns I raised in my original message

lulu_92

sainty43 wrote: »

To answer your points about the socks, I don't know if your "investigative mind" has seen a pair of boots recently, but when a 2.5 litre tub of paint falls directly on top of them, the paint will run into the boots the same way that people get their feet into the boots, through the big opening at the top. Most boots are not sealed air-tight. They are designed to repel rain, and the odd puddle, not to be covered in 2 plus litres of paint in less than a second.

So are you saying that your girlfriend stood in the paint long enough for her boots to soak up 2.5 litres of paint?

Sorry, I had to ask

sainty43

BJV wrote: »

I am not suggesting that you are trying anything untoward BUT £100 does seem reasonable.


For example how old we the boots? They may have cost £50 been in good condition but been four years old. Therefore wear and tear?

I see what you are saying and would not disagree with your point. If we could find a suitable pair of similar boots second hand I am sure my GF would be happy to accept them, as the ones she had on were not brand spanking new so it's only fair.


Only trouble is obtaining a pair of similar second hand leather walking boots in similar condition in her size. I would say near impossible.


So she would have to buy them new again, at £70. If B & Q only agreed to half (Being as they weren't new to begin with) then she would have to put up the remaining money which she wouldn't of had to do, if the paint tins were stacked correctly to begin with.

bod1467

unholyangel wrote: »

You may not care, but the law does. In cases like this you are only entitled to recover actual losses and there is certainly no entitlement to a betterment.

This absolutely.