Coat damaged by dry cleaners

wealdroam

naedanger wrote: »

I am not sure using the secondhand value would greatly reduce the scope for disagreement, even if that was the relevant measure.

Of course it would reduce the scope for disagreement.

One side can show the price that a similar used item is selling for. If the other side cannot justify their position, then a resolution can easily be arrived at.
After all, isn't that what the courts effectively do?

naedanger

wealdroam wrote: »

Of course it would reduce the scope for disagreement.

One side can show the price that a similar used item is selling for. If the other side cannot justify their position, then a resolution can easily be arrived at.

I don't see any benefit in arguing over whether using the secondhand value greatly reduces the scope for disagreement compared to using the purchase price reduced for usage. Since it is not relevant to what measure of value is actually to be used.

After all, isn't that what the courts effectively do?

Yes, which was sort of my point. The fact that a measure of value might be open to dispute does not prevent its use since the courts are available to judge on such disputes.

wealdroam

naedanger wrote: »

I don't see any benefit in arguing over whether using the secondhand value greatly reduces the scope for disagreement compared to using the purchase price reduced for usage. Since it is not relevant to what measure of value is actually to be used.



Yes, which was sort of my point. The fact that a measure of value might be open to dispute does not prevent its use since the courts are available to judge on such disputes.

Ok, so you don't want to discuss things. That's fine.

I just wonder why you posted on an internet forum then?
That's a rhetorical question - I understand you don't want a discussion.

naedanger

wealdroam wrote: »

Ok, so you don't want to discuss things. That's fine.

I did not say I did not want to discuss "things". I said I did not want to discuss one particular thing being "whether using the secondhand value greatly reduces the scope for disagreement compared to using the purchase price reduced for usage".

And I gave my reason for not wanting to discuss it, namely because "it is not relevant to what measure of value is actually to be used".

I just wonder why you posted on an internet forum then?
That's a rhetorical question - I understand you don't want a discussion.

There are reasons for posting other than having discussions on irrelevant points.

lovehackney

I appreciate the feedback - in arriving at £146 reimbursement figure I did that by calculating 5/6 of theach cost of the coat? Based on expecting it to last 2 years. This is in line with citizens s advice as someone pointed out. It's all well and good saying what does a second hand coat sell for, but generally second hand coats for sale are older than 4 months old. I don't see how its different to what landlords can claim - if tenants ruin their carpets then they can claim back a portion of the original cost depending on how long they should have lasted - not how long second hand carpets cost.

Anyway, whatever the reimbursement cost is- does anyone have any advice for how I would escalate this if they refuse to pay up? Which I think is a fairly likely outcome.

naedanger

lovehackney wrote: »

I appreciate the feedback - in arriving at £146 reimbursement figure I did that by calculating 5/6 of theach cost of the coat? Based on expecting it to last 2 years. This is in line with citizens s advice as someone pointed out. It's all well and good saying what does a second hand coat sell for, but generally second hand coats for sale are older than 4 months old. I don't see how its different to what landlords can claim - if tenants ruin their carpets then they can claim back a portion of the original cost depending on how long they should have lasted - not how long second hand carpets cost.

Anyway, whatever the reimbursement cost is- does anyone have any advice for how I would escalate this if they refuse to pay up? Which I think is a fairly likely outcome.

I have no experience of bringing a case myself, but there is the following guide, which may be useful, if you have not already seen it:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/CJC/Publications/Other+papers/Small+Claims+Guide+for+web+FINAL.pdf

bod1467

Money Claim Online ... that's the easiest way to bring a small claim.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

lovehackney

Thank you, that's very useful^^

unholyangel

lovehackney wrote: »

I appreciate the feedback - in arriving at £146 reimbursement figure I did that by calculating 5/6 of theach cost of the coat? Based on expecting it to last 2 years. This is in line with citizens s advice as someone pointed out. It's all well and good saying what does a second hand coat sell for, but generally second hand coats for sale are older than 4 months old. I don't see how its different to what landlords can claim - if tenants ruin their carpets then they can claim back a portion of the original cost depending on how long they should have lasted - not how long second hand carpets cost.

Anyway, whatever the reimbursement cost is- does anyone have any advice for how I would escalate this if they refuse to pay up? Which I think is a fairly likely outcome.

There is extensive case law around this subject, on how damages are calculated.

If there is a second hand market for goods of that type, the damages are the market value of a reasonable substitute (doesnt have to be the value of an exact replacement) minus any salvage value (although I wouldnt expect your coat to have any salvage value).

I don't believe there is a 2nd hand market for carpets but in any event, it would depend on circumstances. If it could be cleaned then a portion of that fee may be appropriate instead if the damage was a small area only.

http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/study-note/degree/remedies-damages-chattels

As the cost of a replacement chattel was in excess of the value of the property destroyed, the plaintiff was only entitled to recover the value of a reasonable substitute.

The value of a replacement dredger was determined by the market value at the time of the loss.

http://www.casebooks.eu/documents/tortLaw/heading8.4.2.pdf

This judgment illustrates the well-established rule that, where goods are
destroyed, the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods,
that is
normally the sum of money which the plaintiff would have to pay in the market for
identical or essentially similar goods.

Also bear in mind that just because courts apply these rules in determining damages doesn't mean that you have to. You are free of course to ask them for the moon if you wish. Just I would keep in mind the above when reaching a settlement. No point going to court when the difference in the settlement is only £10.