B & Q - Paint falls from shelf onto clothes

unholyangel

sainty43 wrote: »

Would you like to be more specific in your answer? I would think It near impossible to buy all the damaged items like for like, second hand used. So this leaves the only option as buying again, like for like new, and you are saying that B & Q should only cover a proportion of this cost? So who stumps up the rest? My Gf who was innocently covered in paint by B & Q's incompetence, who had no intention of having to go and buy clothes at that moment in time. So basically they are forcing her to spend her own money replacing clothes that shouldn't have had to have been replaced?


If B & Q sourced replacement like for like second hand she would more than happily accept them, but how is this possible for either of us to do?

To try and explain it a bit more clearly for you, It may cost £70 for brand new replacements but as I said before, that is a betterment.

You bought a pair of £x boots x years ago with a life expectancy of x years.

She would have had to replace them, just perhaps not right now. So her actual loss is the difference between the life expectancy and the actual age of the item.

Its not ideal but since B&Q are offering more than they have to legally, it is perhaps in your best interests to borrow the money from a friend/family member (or even on their credit card - interest shouldnt be payable if its cleared off when their statement comes in) in order to replace the items and provide receipts to B&Q.

powerful_Rogue

sainty43 wrote: »

Not "Exactly The Same" though as you stated.

Similar but not exactly the same.


So you were wrong

Well unless im mistaken, we've both said take the £100, spend £170 or look at the small claims court.

If you cant see that, then no wonder your struggling to understand people explaining the betterment principle on here.

If I was in your situation, I would take the £100 and clean up the boots.

Johnnytwostep

not another one having selective hearing or reading.
Where is the compo claim as well for your obvious distress.

wealdroam

sainty43 wrote: »

Your clearly missing the point.

Missing the point? I don't think so.

The question you asked was:

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.

And I clearly answered that question:

wealdroam wrote: »

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.

sainty43

Johnnytwostep wrote: »

not another one having selective hearing or reading.
Where is the compo claim as well for your obvious distress.

Not another user who jumps in with his two pennies worth without reading the whole post. This has already been covered, discussed and dismissed.

sainty43

wealdroam wrote: »

Missing the point? I don't think so.

The question you asked was:

And I clearly answered that question:

It doesn't answer the question at all. You can copy and paste and leave out whatever bits you like, but it doesn't mean it answers the question.

Errata

I can't figure this out, what was entered in the accident book about her being hit on the head with two 2.5 litre tins of paint? Did a first aider attend? What advice/info was offered about removing a substantial amount of gloss paint from her skin? How did the GF get home in clothes and boots covered in wet gloss paint?

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.

k3lvc

Errata wrote: »

I can't figure this out, what was entered in the accident book about her being hit on the head with two 2.5 litre tins of paint? Did a first aider attend? What advice/info was offered about removing a substantial amount of gloss paint from her skin? How did the GF get home in clothes and boots covered in wet gloss paint?

No need to figure it out - it was all a dream

DCFC79

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.




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.




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



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.

Anyone willing to try this out and YouTube the results ?

powerful_Rogue

DCFC79 wrote: »

Anyone willing to try this out and YouTube the results ?

Would beat watching all those bloomin ice bucket videos!