B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

sainty43

Jim_Jupiter wrote: »

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.

Thank you very much. Not the answer I wanted to here to be honest, but a sensible and honest answer compared to the majority. I appreciate your response.


I wasn't hoping for a loophole to wriggle through, I simply think their policy of buying the items first is wrong. I am happy for them to buy the items, for them to provide vouchers for those very shops etc, I am not after money to put in mine or my GF's pocket. If I was, we would be contacting a solicitor, but this is not the case.


Thanks again.

sainty43

jumpedtheshark wrote: »

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.

I think your right. It does feel unfair. I don't see how anyone can say how much a second hand item of clothing is worth.
It seems a complete stab in the dark. The fact of the matter is, if they only offer say 60% of the retail cost, then she cant replace the clothes like for like, so the issue hasn't been resolved.


I do see both sides, honestly I do, but I feel that if you cant buy the same clothes that they ruined, then they haven't resolved the situation.

wealdroam

sainty43 wrote: »

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

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.

OK, I'll answer it, but you have already heard the answer on this thread.

The reason your girlfriend is being asked to contribute towards the replacement clothing is because she will be receiving goods that are better than those that were damaged.

There really is nothing more to be said... Jim Jupiter has explained your options quite succinctly.

clarryd

somethingcorporate wrote: »

This is a joke post right?

You buy £200 shoes but say you never have a spare £200? That's because you waste it all on a shoes, evidently. I don't spend £200 a year on shoes let alone on a single pair of vanity footmuffs that you can see on every 14 year old girl in the town center!

Seriously, if you walk around in £200 shoes and never have any money spare your priorities are all wrong.

You are judging me on my footwear, how dare you.

I got one pair of UGG'S from my sister when she went to America and I watched her dog for the month as a pressy and I got another last year off my husband for my birthday and Christmas combined.

But this is not really your business, and I'm am not a vein person, I am a disabled woman, who tends to think that UGG boots are very comfortable and warm as I have no heat in my feet.

You shouldn't judge people because you really have no idea of their situations, and no I do not have a spare £200 sitting around in my bank and YES I have got my priorities right thank you.:mad::mad:

sainty43

wealdroam wrote: »

OK, I'll answer it, but you have already heard the answer on this thread.

The reason your girlfriend is being asked to contribute towards the replacement clothing is because she will be receiving goods that are better than those that were damaged.

There really is nothing more to be said... Jim Jupiter has explained your options quite succinctly.

Your clearly missing the point.

powerful_Rogue

sainty43 wrote: »

Thank you very much. Not the answer I wanted to here to be honest, but a sensible and honest answer compared to the majority. I appreciate your response.


I wasn't hoping for a loophole to wriggle through, I simply think their policy of buying the items first is wrong. I am happy for them to buy the items, for them to provide vouchers for those very shops etc, I am not after money to put in mine or my GF's pocket. If I was, we would be contacting a solicitor, but this is not the case.


Thanks again.

That was exactly the same answer you received from me on page 1!

sainty43

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

That was exactly the same answer you received from me on page 1!

Not exactly!

powerful_Rogue

sainty43 wrote: »

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 :-)

I wasnt talking about removing it from clothing, I was talking about removing it from the leather boots. Gloss can easily be removed from leather.

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.

Im presuming there were a pair of legs going into the boots and also a pair of trousers legs covering the opening. I cant honestly believe 2 plus litres of paint managed to make its way into a pair of leather walking boots - boots designed to keep your feet dry.

"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.

Gloss is thicker then water. If they are designed to keep water out, they should easily keep gloss out!

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

I gave you the right advice on page 1. The same advice you have just thanked another poster for. I'll post it again for your reference.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I think B&Q are being very reasonable to be honest.

Take £100 cash, or prove to us that you have spent £170 on replacement clothing.

Nothing else you can do really. If you tried the small claims court I could see it being thrown out as B&Q are being reasonable.

powerful_Rogue

sainty43 wrote: »

Not exactly!

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Take £100 cash, or prove to us that you have spent £170 on replacement clothing.

Nothing else you can do really. If you tried the small claims court I could see it being thrown out as B&Q are being reasonable.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Theres nothing else you can do. B&Q are being very reasonable.

The only real alternative would be to send a "Letter before Action" and then issue a claim in the small claims court - however I cant see how that would work as B&Q are not refusing to resolve the situation and as such can see it being laughed out by the judge.

Jim_Jupiter wrote: »

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.

Look pretty similar to me

sainty43

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Look pretty similar to me

Not "Exactly The Same" though as you stated.

Similar but not exactly the same.


So you were wrong