B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

bod1467

The car scenario is bogus, as there is specific insurance for this.

In the B&Q scenario there will be insurance, but it won't be new-for-old - it will be fairly basic public liability. Hence betterment IS a consideration in such cases.

You may not like the answers that disagree with you - that doesn't make those answers incorrect.

mije1983

Zandoni wrote: »

.....taking in receipts etc.

But the point is the OP says they can't afford to pay upfront for anything new, so won't have any receipts.

sainty43

Zandoni wrote: »

Personally I'd be seeking compensation for ruining my day plus the price of the clothes. I'd also be tempted to seek expenses for having to shop for more and taking in receipts etc.

This thought crossed my mind as 2 of the tins she caught hit her in the face and chin, plus the one that fell hit her foot. She has a nice bruise developing on her foot.


Plus the cost of travelling to all the shops in our area, in petrol, lost day etc,


However,


I am trying to be reasonable, and simply want them to replace the clothes. I am not interested in suing them, muddying their name, or trying to ask for more than the clothes are worth or any extras. These things do happen, but my argument is she shouldn't be made to jump through hoops to have her clothes replaced. I am even more than happy for them to purchase the clothes themselves and send them to us. We're not after any money for injury or lost days etc, as I am trying to be reasonable.

notanewuser

sainty43 wrote: »

I also think your betterment argument doesn't make sense. Any insurance company would replace a damaged item like for like with a new replacement, as the effort and expense of sourcing same age products would be huge!


If someone crashed into my car through no fault of my own, I wouldn't expect to have the parts replaced with 2nd hand parts and neither would many people.

Actually, most car insurers reserve the right to use "green" parts - i.e. second hand or not OEM parts.

And no, insurers don't provide new for old cover without you paying your excess, which can be a substantial part of the claim. Hence you're contributing.

notanewuser

sainty43 wrote: »

So she has to visit every 2nd hand and charity shop, until she finds a similar pair of boots, jeans, bag, jumper etc. She chose the clothes she was wearing due to the style, colours. brand etc. To find a like for like replacement would be impossible, so you are saying that she has to replace it with something she doesn't like, that's not like for like, because B&Q messed up? That doesn't make the least bit of sense.

No, if the stuff is still available in the shops she can replace it with exactly the same items. She just needs to prove she did it first (rather than trousering the money and making do with all of the other clothes she doubtlessly has. Who dresses up to go to B&Q?!) or take the £100 and put her own money towards them or buy different clothes.

Perhaps you could use the money for a holiday to say Gaza. Might put things into perspective for her.

sainty43

notanewuser wrote: »

No, if the stuff is still available in the shops she can replace it with exactly the same items. She just needs to prove she did it first (rather than trousering the money and making do with all of the other clothes she doubtlessly has. Who dresses up to go to B&Q?!) or take the £100 and put her own money towards them or buy different clothes.

Perhaps you could use the money for a holiday to say Gaza. Might put things into perspective for her.

Goodness me. Single male by the sounds of it :-)

lulu_92

sainty43 wrote: »

This thought crossed my mind as 2 of the tins she caught hit her in the face and chin, plus the one that fell hit her foot. She has a nice bruise developing on her foot.

I don't recall seeing these in the OP but I think her well being is more important than some material possessions.

Country_Cousin

Sorry all but I think you are all being rather harsh. If I had been hit by a tin of paint whilst in a shop there is no way I would let myself be out of pocket for someone else's error and mistake and from the sound of things B&Q have admitted that it is their mistake.


As to people saying you should not go shopping to a DIY store in "expensive" clothing - how silly. I would not change out of my normal clothes into scruffs to go shopping - that is madness - nor would I change handbags (I have an expensive handbag that I like to use - I bought it because it is beautiful and I like to use it - I would not put all my things into a carrier bag for a visit to a DIY shop - I really should not need to. I saved up to buy it and want to use it. I would not however readily find that sort of money right now to purchase another).


Not everyone goes to B&Q to buy DIY stuff - you can buy all sorts there that do not require you to be dressed as a labourer.


OP if it were me now I would speak to the Manager of the store and calmly explain all above. I would confirm to them that you are willing to accept shop vouchers for River Island (and appropriate shoe shop) to buy replacements to the value of £170.00 and that they should obtain these for you.

Country_Cousin

notanewuser wrote: »

And no, insurers don't provide new for old cover without you paying your excess, which can be a substantial part of the claim. Hence you're contributing.

But if the accident is caused by a third party they pay your excess and you should not be out of pocket.

sainty43

notanewuser wrote: »

Actually, most car insurers reserve the right to use "green" parts - i.e. second hand or not OEM parts.

And no, insurers don't provide new for old cover without you paying your excess, which can be a substantial part of the claim. Hence you're contributing.

Reserve the right is correct. Most don't however.


I have worked in the motor industry for 7 years, and have dealt with many insurance claims. If you are in a non fault accident, the 3rd party's insurer will very likely replace parts with new. I have only once in 7 years known them to replace with used parts, purely to keep the cost of repair down to avoid the motor being written off due toit's value, and by agreement with the Policy Holder.


But we're getting a bit off topic here aren't we.