Halfords have written off my pride and joy

caprikid1

"Halfords’ paying Ms R for travel etc. doesn’t mean she was entitled to it."

I give up.

Do you not understand the concept of "Quantifiable losses incurred" I am not sure how obvious and easy it is to quantify alternative travel costs when someone trashes my car !.

photome

Will the OP return

DE_612183

photome said:

Will the OP return

On the basis it took 4 and a half years for him to post his first post - I'll bookmark for June 2028!

Nobbie1967

photome said:

Will the OP return

I suspect Halfords HQ may have seen this thread and contacted them to resolve this to both parties satisfaction which included not posting anything further.

HillStreetBlues

Nobbie1967 said:

photome said:

Will the OP return

I suspect Halfords HQ may have seen this thread and contacted them to resolve this to both parties satisfaction which included not posting anything further.

I do check opening post to see if it's been deleted.

SaidFred

Seeing today's Guardian, I suspect Halfords will now need to behave rather better than they have done for the sake of their reputation.  Readers will draw their own conclusions as to whether the two technicians were carefully testing the car and driving at 25 mph and that for an oil change two technicians were needed to road test the car.  I know what my thoughts are. Witness statements will be very helpful in arguing that Halfords have some additional moral responsibilities here.

Nobbie1967

SaidFred said:

Seeing today's Guardian, I suspect Halfords will now need to behave rather better than they have done for the sake of their reputation.  Readers will draw their own conclusions as to whether the two technicians were carefully testing the car and driving at 25 mph and that for an oil change two technicians were needed to road test the car.  I know what my thoughts are. Witness statements will be very helpful in arguing that Halfords have some additional moral responsibilities here.

The figures are a bit different to what the OP stated in his post. £300 short on valuation and wants £600 for the excess on his hire car because he had a puncture, unless Grauiniad have got the figures wrong🤣

cw8825

Also by the looks of it the Op failed to have any contact with their own insurer to explain what had happened which ended up costing them

If the hire car puncture legitimately cost him £600. I would question his decision making

Aretnap

Guardian article here 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/13/halfords-service-car-owner-alfa-romeo-insurance

After all that, it looks like the extent of the dispute was £300 (or about 1.5% of the car's value - a rounding error basically) along with an error on the recording of the insurance claim which is now being rectified. The fact that he was fleeced for £600 for a puncture by the fire company is obviously not Halford's fault or responsibility (neither the original puncture, nor the subsequent fleecing).

caprikid1

SaidFred said:

Seeing today's Guardian, I suspect Halfords will now need to behave rather better than they have done for the sake of their reputation.  Readers will draw their own conclusions as to whether the two technicians were carefully testing the car and driving at 25 mph and that for an oil change two technicians were needed to road test the car.  I know what my thoughts are. Witness statements will be very helpful in arguing that Halfords have some additional moral responsibilities here.

I think the fact that the insurance company has already paid out for two of the cars clipped tells you that 25MPH cannot cause that much carnage !.