Accident at Coop Petrol Station

allyb79

LABMAN wrote: »

Take the boots to an 'old fashioned' cobbler and see if they can possibly be refurbished.

We did that first and unfortunately they couldn't be fixed

SHAFT

spadoosh wrote: »

Have a look for the boots on ebay, the ones in the shop are not the same as the ones youre husband was wearing. You dont buy shoes from a shop that people have worn before.

Imagine it was £1000 cash. Someone pushes your husband causing him to drop and lose £200. Would you expect the other person to give you £1000 or £200? At the moment you seem to be hung up on expecting £1000. Its not going to happen.

Losing cash isn't exactly the same either the books are damaged or they're not unless you're claiming they can be 20% damaged.

Takmon

allyb79 wrote: »

I'm not expecting the money in cash, just to replace what was damaged without being out of pocket...

Yea so the boots that were damaged were slightly worn. If you look for almost new slightly worn boots of the same age for sale then that is how much compensation you are entitled too. You can then use this money to buy the slightly worn boots and not be out of pocket.

If you had a 10 year old car which was damaged beyond repair would you expect to be paid the full value of a brand new card as compensation?. The same concept applies here.

McKneff

There is no wear and tear on a vase so there is no rcomparison there.

born_again

allyb79 wrote: »

They have offered me 2/3rd of the cost of the boots as compensation as they claim the lesser amount is for wear and tear
Is there anything I can do about this? We only want a replacement pair and i think it's unfair for us to be out of pocket due to their equipment failure.

To repeat what someone else asked.

How long have you had the £150 boots?

The fact that they are hardly marked is not really the point. The idea is they put you back in the position you were before the accident happened. Not a new for old replacement.

So to context their offer you need to provide something to back up your case for a higher amount.

unholyangel

The problem with your comparison to a vase is that value of a vase is not affected by the same things clothes are.

You haven't lost a brand new pair of boots, you've lost a worn pair. Therefore all thats required to put you in the same position is the value of the worn pair, not a new pair.

Further to that, the shut off is to stop highly flammable liquid spilling onto the forecourt because of people like your husband not paying attention....not for the benefit of customers who don't pay attention or their attire. IMO your husband would at least have contributory negligence so any damages would be reduced to reflect that. All things considered, their offer seems like a very good one.

I'd take it before it gets passed up the chain to someone legally trained, who will be aware of the above.

Ms_Chocaholic

You haven't said how old the boots were?

Potbellypig

LilElvis wrote: »

When did you buy them and have you got the receipt or a bank/ credit card statement which would show the purchase?

Ms_Chocaholic wrote: »

You haven't said how old the boots were?

2 pieces of valuable information that OP isn't answering.

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

Further to that, the shut off is to stop highly flammable liquid spilling onto the forecourt because of people like your husband not paying attention....not for the benefit of customers who don't pay attention or their attire. IMO your husband would at least have contributory negligence so any damages would be reduced to reflect that.

Agreed. Unless the person is hearing-impaired then it is audibly noticeable when the tank filling is almost complete.