This mornings moron.....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yup. Who knows what else she carried in the boot during that week ...

Nor what condition the boot was in prior to carrying the tiles. The boot could already have been scratched before the tiles went in and she is looking for someone to blame.

Me, I would say that I carry goods in the boot of my car all the time... in fact the boot of the ML at the moment contains a TV, some calor gas regulators, a box of tools, some light bulbs, photo frames, all sorts of stuff. It's done that for 4 years. That's what the boot of a car is for. If the car boot gets scratched by carrying out it's normal purpose, clearly the car itself is defective... "unfit for purpose - sale of goods act" ie it is a faulty piece of plastic because it is not tough enough for the job.

Let the Si**y c*w go and sue Toyota.

:thumb:
 
Did you damage her boot lining by putting the wooden box in the vehicle or by loading the tiles? I presume you did not. Therefore she was responsible for any damage by driving with an insecure load in the boot. Checking the load is secure is the drivers responsibility.
 
nothing much more to add other than i hope common sense prevails and you win when this goes to court.

bloody free-loading society!

good luck!!

Derek
 
RSA's legal advise me it's likely I'll lose if this goes to court as I loaded the vehicle.....

Yes, but surely under her supervision, did she give you the keys or did she open the boot?
 
nothing much more to add other than i hope common sense prevails and you win when this goes to court.

bloody free-loading society!

good luck!!

Derek
Unfortunately commonsense is not allowed into a courtroom, they dealinfacts and the law :(
 
You may well have loaded the vehicle , but I'm sure you will recollect that you did so very carefully , so as to avoid damage to either her purchases or her vehicle .

Therefore , the damage could have only occurred either as a result of her not exercising due care when driving home , or was done by her whilst UNLOADING .

There is no proof that the damage was not present before you loaded said goods into her boot either .
 
Surely if you damaged the boot when loading she would have noticed that immediately (assuming she was watching) and commented upon it. .... No comment = no damage.
 
It's deal or no deal. Go into cash and the market crashes: happy client. Go into cash and the market climbs: unhappy client. In his case stay put, market crashes: unhappy. But he hopes my indemnity will pay out. Everyone else shrugs shoulders.

I was under the impression an IFA can only be sued for negligence and for given inappropriate advice. So unless you put your client into an investment which was inappropriate for their risk level he has no leg to stand on. Otherwise what we all have is a guaranteed product. Guaranteed to rise or we sue to get back our losses.

It will all depend on your file notes...... and letters of recommendation to the client.

Good luck
 
I was under the impression an IFA can only be sued for negligence and for given inappropriate advice. So unless you put your client into an investment which was inappropriate for their risk level he has no leg to stand on. Otherwise what we all have is a guaranteed product. Guaranteed to rise or we sue to get back our losses.

It will all depend on your file notes...... and letters of recommendation to the client.

Good luck

Right. Sue is the wrong word. But a complaint which has been rejected by our PI and he wants to take to the Ombudsman. Maybe he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but quite a worry nevertheless.
 
Yes, but surely under her supervision, did she give you the keys or did she open the boot?

She opened the boot and stood there whilst I loaded.

If the damage did occur it can only have occured when the load shifted....round a roundabout a little fast or a speed bump etc....
 
She opened the boot and stood there whilst I loaded.

If the damage did occur it can only have occured when the load shifted....round a roundabout a little fast or a speed bump etc....

Therefore driver error and not your problem!
 
She opened the boot and stood there whilst I loaded.

If the damage did occur it can only have occured when the load shifted....round a roundabout a little fast or a speed bump etc....
What would be really useful is for someone to play devils advocate and try to see this from the other party's side... thatway it will help prepare you, but if anyone were to dare to do this I fear they would get slaughtered.

Have you seen the paperwork and what it is that you have done, or failed to do? :confused:

Nothing surprises me nowadays and I would not be that surprised if you were found guilty.

You could try dressing up in a Nazi uniform, take a whip and say you did not do it!

That should work :devil:
 
probably wrong here but wouldent the onus be for here to prove the damage happend on your property, once she's left the premises then any damaged incurred would be her fault, she has accepted the goods and left...

bit like a shop where says 'check your change as mistakes can not rectified after you have left'
 
probably wrong here but wouldent the onus be for here to prove the damage happend on your property, once she's left the premises then any damaged incurred would be her fault, she has accepted the goods and left...

bit like a shop where says 'check your change as mistakes can not rectified after you have left'

Well you'd think so, but I just don't know these days.

Also I'm a fan of of the money claim online system, however from the defendants point of view there's not a great deal of upside defending spurious claims....in so much as there's really no penalty for the plaintiff if they persue something which is clearly nonsense.

I'll just let it run, play by the rules. I can make this last a year simply by conversing at the required deadline. It's then likely to be a further 6 months before mediation or a court date.

I'm actually quite interested to hear what my insurers/lawyers will do now I've made it clear there are no circumstances under which I'll agree to pay....

The whole thing is rather silly, but you have to give her credit for persistance....:dk:
 
Amazing thread, I find it interesting that people will go to such lenghts! Too tight to pay for delivery but upset when the boot is damaged buy a heavy dense abrasive material. Fight it all the way, and if you loose ask the local pikeys to dispose of some waiste in her front garden!
 
I'm actually quite interested to hear what my insurers/lawyers will do now I've made it clear there are no circumstances under which I'll agree to pay....

Once you've notified of the claim, can't they simply settle without consulting you? That beef comes up with car insurance quite a lot, where the 1st party is adamant it was 100% the 3rd parties fault and they only find out the ins co has settled and it's done and dusted.

To be honest, galling though it is, I did think you were on dodgy ground when you said you'd created a frame. I would guess that the court will say you should have made sure it was adequate for the purpose - ie transporting the tiles safely and not damaging the car. Ridiculously, even if you'd just chucked the tiles in and they got damaged themselves or done more dmamage to the car, the court might still say you had a duty of care to pack them adequately for the known mode of transport. Bit of a no-win situation, really. Hence the ins co want to settle.
 
Once you've notified of the claim, can't they simply settle without consulting you? That beef comes up with car insurance quite a lot, where the 1st party is adamant it was 100% the 3rd parties fault and they only find out the ins co has settled and it's done and dusted.

To be honest, galling though it is, I did think you were on dodgy ground when you said you'd created a frame. I would guess that the court will say you should have made sure it was adequate for the purpose - ie transporting the tiles safely and not damaging the car. Ridiculously, even if you'd just chucked the tiles in and they got damaged themselves or done more dmamage to the car, the court might still say you had a duty of care to pack them adequately for the known mode of transport. Bit of a no-win situation, really. Hence the ins co want to settle.

Insurers probably would have settled, however they pointed out there's a £250 excess on this particular part of my combined business policy...

I've told them they are welcome to pay the woman if they wish to save the thousand or so in legal costs, but under no circumstances am I paying a penny.

It has been alleged that the wooden frame caused the damage, not the tiles.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom