Shark Battery Exploded and caused house fire

user1977

Also - the incident was only a couple of weeks ago. I think you need to be more realistic about the likely timescales for this to be sorted out, I don't get the impression anyone is really dragging their heels.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

First of all do NOT go down the media route. You could seriously hamper your case. 

Genuine question Why would that be?

mr_stripey

PHK said:

First of all do NOT go down the media route. 

Also interested to know why you would advise against this? Social media often creates pressure for companies to fold and respond to complaints. Exploding batteries and house fires are do not create good optics for a company so if they aren't talking then some social media pressure might certainly help?

TELLIT01

user1977 said:

Also - the incident was only a couple of weeks ago. I think you need to be more realistic about the likely timescales for this to be sorted out, I don't get the impression anyone is really dragging their heels.

Timescales can certainly be lengthy.  My wife put a personal injury claim in through the Legal Protection element of our home insurance in August 2023, that is still ongoing.

DullGreyGuy

Bianca4685 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Bianca4685 said:

The Landlord doesn't have contents cover, so unfortunately all of my things aren't covered.

I have claimed £3558, which covers new sofa/carpets in lounge and hall/staircase, MW, kettle toaster, placements, vase and flowers, pot, cooker wood.  I have also requested a refund for the vacuum cleaner, extra battery purchased.

I have also claimed £520 to have the other carpets and kitchen chairs cleaned and deoderised.

Even if the did have contents it would only cover their contents not yours (think a place rented as fully furnished)

As mentioned before, this isn't home insurance and so you are entitled to "indemnification" not "new for old" so if it was a 5 year old sofa you are entitled to the value of a 5 year old sofa not a brand new one. Obviously nothing stopping you from aiming high to give room to negotiate down but to set expectations its how the courts would see it. 

How did a kitchen fire lead to a hallway carpet needing replaced esp given it was small enough for you to fire fight? If its an argument a bit of it in another room was damaged and its all matching... I'm not sure how that would hang even if you claimed it at a depreciated value. In insurance claims they'd only pay for the carpet in the room of the incident and the fact you now have unmatched carpets isn't their problem. I haven't come across the situation in a third party claim as most my claims were either motor or trips/falls... did a few cars entering living rooms when they missed a bend but dont recall any matching carpets in those. 

The whole property is smoke damaged.  The smoke from the kitchen went up through the boiler cupboard.  Also the trailing of the damage from the kitchen through to the lounge/hallway.  The insurers said they would have covered all carpets, if they were the Landlords.

If my wife lost one of her earrings the insurer would payout on the pair and the matching neckless, ring and bracelet because we've paid extra to have Matching Set cover. 

You aren't claiming from insurance and didnt pay anyone extra for Matching Set cover. As such you are most likely asking for indemnification under the tort of negligence. If we'd sent the earrings for cleaning and they'd lost one then at best we'd get the pair replaced and certainly no consideration of the other items that we still have and are undamaged. 

You aren't covered by the Landlords insurance and so what they'd have done is irrelevant 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
If two or more parties are liable for the same damage, their liability will be joint and several (which means a claim could be made against either or both of them).

So looking to claim from both Shark and another company may assist in getting a result. 

Just for the avoidance of doubt, joint and several means each party is liable up to 100% of the losses however you can only claim a total of 100% otherwise that is undue enrichment. You cannot receive 100% of the damages from each of the parties. So if one paid up in full then you have to discontinue your claim against the others... does make issuing proceedings more complex with multiple defendants 

Exodi

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

PHK said:

First of all do NOT go down the media route. You could seriously hamper your case. 

Genuine question Why would that be?

mr_stripey said:

PHK said:

First of all do NOT go down the media route. 

Also interested to know why you would advise against this? Social media often creates pressure for companies to fold and respond to complaints. Exploding batteries and house fires are do not create good optics for a company so if they aren't talking then some social media pressure might certainly help?

I'd hope they mean "do NOT go down the media route while they are still engaging with you" but I could be wrong. If this was the case it's understandable why you wouldn't want to start slinging mud at someone that is in the process of helping you.

Otherwise, I'll join you both: I think it would be daft to not consider using social media [after the company has stopped engaging].

I have had success first hand with this sort of stuff, two immediate examples off the top of my head:

1. I bought a boiler that came with a 7 year warranty, it was installed in late November. Their T&C's stipulate that you must register the warranty within 30 days of installation, but unfortunately Christmas stole our attention and we registered it slightly later in early January. I contact their customer service team to apologise for the slight delay and ask to register the warranty. They inform me that "At this stage we can offer you a 1 year warranty"... suffice to say I was disappointed in their response, telling them that the 7 year warranty was one of the biggest reasons I purchased the boiler, and they ignored my reply.

Eventually I leave a review warning future customers that the company will miss no chance to pull their warranty if their is an opportunity to, despite my week delay having no affect on them. Within the same day, the Customer Service Manager calls me directly, issues a full 7 year warranty and apology for the previous customer service response. He also covertly asks me to consider my previous negative review.

This would not have happened if I hadn't left a public review.

2. I attended a gym that advertised two methods of registering your parking - a physical slip that can be displayed or entering your reg on a digital keypad every visit. I opted for the former for a few months and then I started to receive a lot of ANPR-driven PCN's - it transpires that the physical slip was no longer a valid option. Great, I am about to receive 20 parking tickets. I speak to their customer service team who totally wash their hands of me 'As a matter of policy, we don't get involved in parking disputes.' - 'but it was your instructions that caused the fines?' - 'Sorry, but as a matter of policy, we don't get involved in parking disputes'. Again, eventually ignoring me.

I make a fuss of it online, and once again I'm promptly reached out to by the club manager asking me to send him scans of every PCN. All are cancelled quickly and without issue.

I certainly would encourage the use of public forums if you genuinely have a valid cause (I get that everyone thinks they have a valid cause for complaint, but I think we can all agree that some of the complaints raised on the consumer rights forum can be pretty pedantic or unreasonable, to say the least).

PHK

The difference between going to the media over a consumer rights issue and this case is that:

This is not a comparatively trivial issue. 

Based on whats written here,  it's not been proven (yet)  that the battery was faulty in any way. It will need to be examined to determine what happened. 

Should this end up with a court decision then  an attempt to "shame" or pressure  the company into a settlement or attempting to punish them will be frowned upon. The courts do not like claimants doing the courts job. 

This case is already referred to the legal team which means the firm and or their insurers are planning to defend. (Can't say whether that's amount claimed or defend the total because they have some information eg battery was damaged)

The time since incident is quite short so far. Again trying to speed things up with outside pressure is going to reflect poorly as there is apparently still a long way to go. 

Finally, it's not a good thing to attempt to embarrass someone or some firm when they are still talking to you. Albeit not as fast as you would like. 

ThumbRemote

PHK said:

Should this end up with a court decision then  an attempt to "shame" or pressure  the company into a settlement or attempting to punish them will be frowned upon. The courts do not like claimants doing the courts job. 

It is encouraged to try all means necessary to obtain a resolution before going to court. It is not 'doing the courts job' to attempt this prior to making the court claim. Social media is a perfectly valid mechanism for communicating with the company, and the press is a valid step if you feel a company are not being responsive. 

Since this would be a matter for the small claims court. I'm not sure how the judge would know if the OP had gone to the media or to social media. If part of Sharks defence is that the OP posted about the matter on Facebook then they really don't have a leg to stand on!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

Should this end up with a court decision then  an attempt to "shame" or pressure  the company into a settlement or attempting to punish them will be frowned upon. The courts do not like claimants doing the courts job. 

I don't read The Mail that often but the money section sometimes has a brief article where a consumer type of question has been asked, the paper gives advice and sometimes contacts the company involved on behalf of the person asking the question. 

I'm not suggesting OP shames the company, it's not much different to programs like Watchdog (does that still air these days?), if consumers shouldn't contact such places for assistance then Watchdog would have had a lot less content. 

I agree something like this will take time, ultimately Shark should be reassuring OP they are handling the matter, maybe they have, maybe they haven't, we obviously can't see the communication. If my house had a fire because a battery caught fire I'd be expecting the company to make maximum effort to either resolve the situation or clearly explain in detail why they aren't liable.

OP another option to consider is the Environmental Protection department at your local council, they may be interested in something lie this or at least offer some advice. 

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

PHK said:

Should this end up with a court decision then  an attempt to "shame" or pressure  the company into a settlement or attempting to punish them will be frowned upon. The courts do not like claimants doing the courts job. 

I don't read The Mail that often but the money section sometimes has a brief article where a consumer type of question has been asked, the paper gives advice and sometimes contacts the company involved on behalf of the person asking the question. 

I'm not suggesting OP shames the company, it's not much different to programs like Watchdog (does that still air these days?), if consumers shouldn't contact such places for assistance then Watchdog would have had a lot less content. 

I agree something like this will take time, ultimately Shark should be reassuring OP they are handling the matter, maybe they have, maybe they haven't, we obviously can't see the communication. If my house had a fire because a battery caught fire I'd be expecting the company to make maximum effort to either resolve the situation or clearly explain in detail why they aren't liable.

OP another option to consider is the Environmental Protection department at your local council, they may be interested in something lie this or at least offer some advice. 

A number of newspapers have a similar column but realistically they only take on and publish a tiny fraction of the hundreds or thousands of such stories. 

However this may be a little more newsworthy than most. Not long ago there was a run of similar stories relating to electric scooters and bikes catching fire, some with far worse consequences than this.