Problem with a customer, need advice please

Nicole85

Fosterdog wrote: »

What if it had been a while since she had it done and the dyes ingredients had changed? What if it was a different shade to what she had previously used?

She confirmed that she had done it less than three months ago, the ingredients in the tints are the same regardless of the brand.

Fosterdog wrote: »

I've just done a quick search and there are pages upon pages of people complaining of hair loss after tinting treatment so when you previously said it was impossible it actually appears to be perfectly possible.

What you're referring to is gradual hair loss after years and years of tinting, not losing a patch after a couple of days. I use the same products for every customer, it's not possible that it only caused her to lose the end of her eyebrow.

BorisThomson

unholyangel wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how would you personally go about trying to prove something didn't happen?

Also, why would they take what the claimant says at face value but not the OP? Especially when if the tinting causes the hair loss, why did it only partially fall out when the whole thing would have been tinted? Why is the tinting the likely culprit and not (for example) hypothyroidism?

You prove it with evidence from the manufacturer that the product cannot cause hair loss, and by demonstrating due diligence ie that you carried out a patch test to ensure the client did not react to the product.

You cannot absolutely prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof in civil courts is based on the balance of probability.

They would not be taking the claimant at face value. They would see that the claimant had no previous issues with hair loss, had the treatment and lost her eyebrows. With no other intervening acts it would be reasonable to assume that, on the balance of probabilities, the treatment caused the issue.

There are countless cases relating to inept beauticians doing treatments without taking due care. Although it sounds like this claimant is trying it on, she may well succeed due to the OP's failure to take the most basic precautions.

Nicole85

unholyangel wrote: »

why would they take what the claimant says at face value but not the OP? Especially when if the tinting causes the hair loss, why did it only partially fall out when the whole thing would have been tinted? Why is the tinting the likely culprit and not (for example) hypothyroidism?

That's a really good point, all the tint is washed off at the same time, so if there was something wrong with the treatment, more hair should have fallen off rather than just the end of one side. And the fact that she was refusing to come in and show me the hair loss at the beginning, makes it less genuine.

BorisThomson

Nicole85 wrote: »

She confirmed that she had done it less than three months ago, the ingredients in the tints are the same regardless of the brand.

That's not going to wash in absolving you of liability. Not all products are identical. You must always do a patch test yourself. Surely you were taught that during training?

unholyangel

Nicole85 wrote: »

My insurance said that I don't have legal protection included in the package. I'd like to focus on the small claims court rather than insurance as I only have two months to prepare for the court.

I believe the point they were making is why are your insurances not dealing with this as a claim of professional negligence.

Nicole85 wrote: »

She confirmed that she had done it less than three months ago, the ingredients in the tints are the same regardless of the brand.


What you're referring to is gradual hair loss after years and years of tinting, not losing a patch after a couple of days. I use the same products for every customer, it's not possible that it only caused her to lose the end of her eyebrow.

OP, look up hypothyroidism eyebrow loss - I believe in women in particular, it causes the loss of the outer third of your eyebrow. You'll want to make a note of that for your case - as well as what I said about failing to mitigate via pencil/semi permanent eyebrows. Damages are awarded on the basis of having taken reasonable steps to minimise your losses and not taking unreasonable steps to increase them - it would be for you to show that she failed to take reasonable steps/took unreasonable ones.

If you have the receipts and know the salon name, see if they have a website with a price list.

DoaM

Nicole85 wrote: »

My insurance said that I don't have legal protection included in the package.

Nobody is asking about legal protection cover ... i.e. help with legal fees and defending a claim.

What's been asked is if you have Professional Indemnity cover. If yes then anyone making a claim should be claiming against your insurance and not directly against you. (i.e. you should direct any claims towards your insurer). If you have Professional Indemnity insurance but it doesn't cover the current situation then the policy is worthless.

Nicole85

DoaM wrote: »

Except in extraordinary cases (and which the judge must approve) my understanding is that costs can only be claimed at the Litigant in Person rate, which equates to about £95 per day. The fact that she's paid far more (allegedly - she'd need to provide evidence to the court) is irrelevant. I don't think you can make "costs for attending court" part of the claim.

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it didn't seem right to claim that much attending 2 hours in court! How about the court fees, she has included like £180 for court fees in her claim as well?

DoaM

Nicole85 wrote: »

How about the court fees, she has included like £180 for court fees in her claim as well?

Court fees can be claimed, both filing and hearing fees (if it gets to a hearing). Fees are generally fixed costs:

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

If "like £180" actually means £185 then it means her claim value would be between £3k and £5k. As she's claiming about £1200 then the filing fee would be £70 and the hearing fee £25+, but the total would be nowhere near £180.

I think she's on another planet and trying to intimidate you.

unholyangel

BorisThomson wrote: »

You prove it with evidence from the manufacturer that the product cannot cause hair loss, and by demonstrating due diligence ie that you carried out a patch test to ensure the client did not react to the product.

You cannot absolutely prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof in civil courts is based on the balance of probability.

They would not be taking the claimant at face value. They would see that the claimant had no previous issues with hair loss, had the treatment and lost her eyebrows. With no other intervening acts it would be reasonable to assume that, on the balance of probabilities, the treatment caused the issue.

There are countless cases relating to inept beauticians doing treatments without taking due care. Although it sounds like this claimant is trying it on, she may well succeed due to the OP's failure to take the most basic precautions.

But how does any of that indicate OP failed to carry out contractual obligations without reasonable care and skill/was negligent in her duty of care?

Why wouldn't they then give weight that OP has perhaps done hundreds or thousands of tints previously without ever having this happen and likewise for her colleagues/other professionals in the field? Why would they give more weight to the claims from someone who has maybe had a few dozen tints at most that the tinting had caused it (especially when tinting had never caused them issues before) than the word of x professionals who have never heard of it happening in the manner described?

I can honestly say I have never been to a salon that has performed a patch test (although they do sometimes ask if you've had similar treatments before/known reactions to any products in the past) and would also point out that patch tests are to test for skin allergies, not hair loss. OP has only said the client was alleging hair loss, not that they had complained eyebrows were swollen/red/itchy/flaky or anything that indicates a skin irritation, let alone allergy.

Nicole85

DoaM wrote: »

I think she's on another planet and trying to intimidate you.

I have actually added the figures on her letter and it doesn't add to £1200, could it be it she's claiming the remaining £95 for emotional damage, is that actually possible?