B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

jumpedtheshark

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!

This is NOT true. Almost all insurance policies pay out based on actual loss suffered - i.e. the price the item was new minus deductions for wear and tear. Some insurance companies DO offer old-for-new policies, but those are much more expensive because the replacement is BETTER than the item lost/damaged.

This is why at least two posters have explained that you are arguing for BETTERMENT. B & Q's offer of BETTERMENT if you provide receipts is very, very generous.

If all of the items damaged were £170 new, then £100 used might well be a generous offer. If there was very little wear and tear, then £100 might be a low offer. Only you know.

sainty43

lulu_92 wrote: »

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

She has got a bruise on her foot. This is something that will heal in a few days, albeit a minor bit of discomfort. She is happy to put up with this. The clothes are a different matter.


You don't recall seeing this in the OP as it wasn't mentioned in the OP. I didn't see the need for it to be mentioned?

notanewuser

I have a very bruised foot from slipping on some stairs on Saturday. Perhaps I should sue whoever built the house and demand a brand new one.

notanewuser

sainty43 wrote: »

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

:rotfl:

Married female, actually!!!!

sainty43

jumpedtheshark wrote: »

This is NOT true. Almost all insurance policies pay out based on actual loss suffered - i.e. the price the item was new minus deductions for wear and tear. Some insurance companies DO offer old-for-new policies, but those are much more expensive because the replacement is BETTER than the item lost/damaged.

This is why at least two posters have explained that you are arguing for BETTERMENT. B & Q's offer of BETTERMENT if you provide receipts is very, very generous.

If all of the items damaged were £170 new, then £100 used might well be a generous offer. If there was very little wear and tear, then £100 might be a low offer. Only you know.

You are probably about right, that £100 is a fair offer considering the wear and tear. Nothing was brand new. Some of it was a year old, some a lot newer, but none brand new.


But answer me this please, as no one else can seem to manage it. Why should she be forced to put the remaining £XX towards the cost of replacements, due to no fault of her own. She could have gone on to wear these clothes for several years, negating the need to stump up money that she doesn't have right now. B&Q are forcing her to update her clothing now through their incompetence of stacking the paint. THIS doesn't make any sense.

sainty43

notanewuser wrote: »

I have a very bruised foot from slipping on some stairs on Saturday. Perhaps I should sue whoever built the house and demand a brand new one.

That's a great idea! What a clever clogs :-)

wealdroam

sainty43 wrote: »

But answer me this please, as no one else can seem to manage it. Why should she be forced to put the remaining £XX towards the cost of replacements, due to no fault of her own. She could have gone on to wear these clothes for several years, negating the need to stump up money that she doesn't have right now. B&Q are forcing her to update her clothing now through their incompetence of stacking the paint. THIS doesn't make any sense.

What was B&Q's answer to that question?

That's the answer that matters, isn't it?

Jim_Jupiter

As I see it you have 3 options.

1. Accept the £100.

2. Scrimp, beg, borrow, save £170 and get it reimbursed once clothes are bought.

3. Go against the advice of the knowledgeable people here and attempt legal action. Send an LBA to B&Q stating exactly what you want or you'll proceed with court action. I'm inclined to agree with the other posters however that a judge may look favorably on B&Q who are trying to put you back into the position you were in before the paint incident. An LBA may of course get them to have a change of heart and give a further goodwill gesture of £170.

Unfortunately though there is no magic piece of legislation we can quote to you that will get B&Q to shift their position.

Good luck, I hope it gets resolved to your satisfaction.

sainty43

wealdroam wrote: »

What was B&Q's answer to that question?

That's the answer that matters, isn't it?

The question is being raised on here by several people hence me asking the question.

jumpedtheshark

sainty43 wrote: »

You are probably about right, that £100 is a fair offer considering the wear and tear. Nothing was brand new. Some of it was a year old, some a lot newer, but none brand new.


But answer me this please, as no one else can seem to manage it. Why should she be forced to put the remaining £XX towards the cost of replacements, due to no fault of her own. She could have gone on to wear these clothes for several years, negating the need to stump up money that she doesn't have right now. B&Q are forcing her to update her clothing now through their incompetence of stacking the paint. THIS doesn't make any sense.

I agree with your second point but I think it's because it FEELS unfair to have pay the difference. It only feels that way because we don't like to think of the impact of wear and tear. I was in a similar situation recently with lost luggage that, if I added up receipts, was over the Montreal Convention amount but that I knew in my head but not my heart was, at the moment my luggage was lost, not worth more than the Convention maximum. That doesn't mean I didn't feel aggrieved at having to pay the difference - what if my clothes and shoes had lasted longer? - what if I couldn't find designs I liked as much? - how much hassle was it going to be to go shopping and try and find 'good enough' replacements?

The way around this might be to ask them to increase their offer based on inconvenience, physical injury, and general pain and suffering. So £x amount for the clothes and £y amount for the rest. You could then spend the £y amount on the difference in the cost of the clothes new again.