Dog injured at holiday cottage...what to do

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

OP you are better off seeking legal advice, this isn't really a consumer rights issue.

If the owner and their agent is deemed to have been negligent you may have a claim but this forum isn't the place to get advice on a complicated matter like this.

Microwave missing is the sort of thing where a bottle of wine goes a long way to appease a small annoyance.

The place not being as described is hard to say, as another poster asked, a link to the place you rented might help.

But why would the OP need legal advice?


They've already ascertained that the agents were negligent ( post #24: "If they have to make a safety measure during a second risk assessment, that demonstrates that they were negligent [my emphasis] in the first as it was foreseeable and therefore, this could be used against them. Ensuring an accident doesn't happen again obviously means it shouldn't have occurred in the first place.")


So it's obviously an open and shut case and the OP can break new legal ground by being awarded damages for the psychological distress caused to their dog. No need for a lawyer. In fact, no need for the thread.


(They may also have a novel claim for the psychological distress caused to themselves by imagining what might have happened to a hypothetical toddler who was never there).

JosephK

"The cottage is actually in its own grounds, there isn't another house nearby or anything" - sounds pretty out of the way

Pollycat

I don't think the OP is going to get the advice she's looking for on this forum.
Maybe time to try a different forum or CAB.

Sad that the dog was injured.

couriervanman

Gavin83 wrote: »

I'll bite my lip a bit here as your attitude OP is frankly disgusting and I'm not sure how much help you actually want as you seem to be ignoring all the questions put to you. I'll try again:

1) Did you stay the entire week?

2) What did they say when you complained during your stay?

3) How much compensation are you after?

4) Are you able to post a link to the property?

I think number 3 is the main thing OP is after;)

swingaloo

Its a shame they didn't slip on the wet grass or perhaps get a splinter. Think how much that would have been worth.

Going by the Ops argument 'it could have happened to a child' begs the question- If the op had a child who fell down and hurt them selves would they blame the property owner rather than admitting they were not supervising the child properly themselves?

PasturesNew

Is it "safe and secure" for dogs, or "dogs allowed"?

Fosterdog

swingaloo wrote: »

Its a shame they didn't slip on the wet grass or perhaps get a splinter. Think how much that would have been worth.

Going by the Ops argument 'it could have happened to a child' begs the question- If the op had a child who fell down and hurt them selves would they blame the property owner rather than admitting they were not supervising the child properly themselves?

Based off some of their posting history they are certainly the type to play the victim, argue unreasonable excuses for not wanting to pay for things they owe, seem reluctant to work, and like to claim compensation for things. They've thrown their toys out of the pram on a few of their threads when they haven't been told what they want to hear.

chili1496

who let the dog out woof woof woof

Murphybear

Would the OP have complained if the windows were dirty?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But why would the OP need legal advice?


They've already ascertained that the agents were negligent ( post #24: "If they have to make a safety measure during a second risk assessment, that demonstrates that they were negligent [my emphasis] in the first as it was foreseeable and therefore, this could be used against them. Ensuring an accident doesn't happen again obviously means it shouldn't have occurred in the first place.")


So it's obviously an open and shut case and the OP can break new legal ground by being awarded damages for the psychological distress caused to their dog. No need for a lawyer. In fact, no need for the thread.


(They may also have a novel claim for the psychological distress caused to themselves by imagining what might have happened to a hypothetical toddler who was never there).

People get payouts for accidents all the time, a lot of us may take the view that we should be responsible for our actions but it seems the world doesn't work that way.

To some it's 'just a dog' to others their pet is part of the family.

I would certainly feel "distressed" if I had to see our dog suffer as I hope most people would with regards to any animal.

That's not to suggest I agree with whether a claim is the right thing to do or not but Praise, Vents and Warnings is the place to discuss morals around the claim culture.

In terms of OP pursuing this matter if they wish they should seek legal advice is the advice I would give as they may have a claim for compensation beyond any direct loses suffered.