This mornings moron.....

[crockers]

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

How? Moving whilst driving or upon her removing said frame from the car?

 

[cl55 amg]

Not that I agree, but I bet she would win if it went to court. They look at facts, the fact is you put the frame/tiles in the boot causing the damage. In there eyes you should of made the customer aware of what might happen and ask her to sign a waiver.

 

[davethemus]

she has too prove that the damage was not there before the frame was placed in the car.

 

[recycled]

how can she win? she would need to have pics of the boot before the incident, and another picture immediately after, and explain what was being put in the boot for the week she did not call, and make sure the scratches are consistent with the frame edges

 

[crockers]

Did the frame have a warning notice on it

"Danger Hot Coffee, may burn your mouth" ...oops wrong container...

 

[jonnyboy]

how can she win? she would need to have pics of the boot before the incident, and another picture immediately after, and explain what was being put in the boot for the week she did not call, and make sure the scratches are consistent with the frame edges

spot-on

damage should have been advised before she even took tiles out of car, along with proof ie dated newspaper in photograph

 

[recycled]

she cannot prove it was that frame that caused the damage. She may have gone from his to taskers and bought a bed frame and put that in the boot as well, who is to know.
This is not traffic law, she has to prove that this frame caused the damage. mudster just has to counter.

 

[Rory]

she has too prove that the damage was not there before the frame was placed in the car.

..it's a civil claim and they go on the balance of probabilities, so they'll likely assume the frame did the damage. Calling the claimant a liar probably wouldn't be helpful.


Mudster: have you been given the opportunity to see the damage? When I got my ex-MB management 5mth old car, it looked like brand-new except for a very out of place deep gash in the light grey centre console. The salesman at MB Direct dismissed it with a wave of his hand and said it would be repaired invisibly, and it was too. Perhaps if you offer to have it repaired, she may refuse and the court will see her as unreasonable?

 

[glojo]

I think Rory is being very helpful and his posts should be making us all think. Far better to think now... Think about the answers that are required, rather than be confronted in the court room.

 

[MrT]

I agree, very good advice from Rory there.

Helping her to load the car is just asking for liability TBH. If she's not willing to pay for collection, why do half the job for free?

Just goes to show that most of the public are retarded ****holes.

 

[Mudster]

..it's a civil claim and they go on the balance of probabilities, so they'll likely assume the frame did the damage. Calling the claimant a liar probably wouldn't be helpful.


Mudster: have you been given the opportunity to see the damage? When I got my ex-MB management 5mth old car, it looked like brand-new except for a very out of place deep gash in the light grey centre console. The salesman at MB Direct dismissed it with a wave of his hand and said it would be repaired invisibly, and it was too. Perhaps if you offer to have it repaired, she may refuse and the court will see her as unreasonable?

I've never been shown the damage, simply been told to pay for replacement of the part in question and never been given an opportunity to anything different other than pay for repairs at a main dealer.

I've been polite since day one, explained I had insurance for this eventuality and passed it over to insurers, who also refused the claim.

As the insurers refused she issued against my Ltd Company...I'm insured to defend that.......

I think there's nore to this becasue of the insurance but I'm not quite sure how I stand if they refuse to defend on econmic grounds alone?

 

[recycled]

could be a new scam. worth googling to find out if she has been trying it on for other people.

 

[Mudster]

Just goes to show that most of the public are retarded ****holes.

The best one I've had is a guy that turned up in a Fiat Panda with a roof rack and asked me to load 3 pieces of granite onto his roof...total weight 480 kg. I declined obviously and as a result actually lost the sale.

Really, it doesn't surprise me how dumb people are.

 

[oldcro]

Just goes to show that most of the public are retarded ****holes.

What a statement to make, most of the public are decent honest hardworking individuals. I count myself as an average person, which places me in the 'most of the public' category. Now unless you know most of the public personally, I suggest you edit out such a rude statement.

 

[Meldrew2]

Just goes to show that most of the public are retarded ****holes.

In my experience in dealing with the public, this is almost exactly true.

I'd say that a minority of the public are retarded ****holes, but they are certainly more noticeable than the rest.



I'd also say that any forum members attacking what you write should either become Moderators, or respect your freedom to have an opinion.

 

[Rob77]

Sorry to join the doubters. She is the claimant and so she will need to prove her case on the balance of probability.

Are you liable? You loaded the car. You made a wood frame to try to protect the car, thereby indicating that you anticipated that damage might and did occur. The wood frame didn't protect but actually caused damage. Did you warn of possible damage, either to the tiles or the car? This is your job. Did you use reasonable care and skill in making the frame and/or loading the tiles?

It sounds as if you are probably liable.

What is the cost of repair? A new panel is £380. What was the condition like before and is there any betterment?

Sounds like you'll be required to cough up.

 

[219]

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.

I think I'd take the line that the frame was only to prevent damage to the tiles , and that any damage to the vehicle was at the owner's risk , just as it would be if any damage occurred to her vehicle in your car park .

Marks being made in the boot of a car are , quite simply , 'fair wear and tear' that can be expected by normal useage over the lifetime of any vehicle . She had the opportunity to have the goods delivered but CHOSE to transport them in her own vehicle , thus occasioning the damage . If she chose to pick up a load of paving slabs/building bricks/red whinn chips , the situation would be no different .

I'd shut my business down and start up a new one before paying her a penny .

 

[Rob77]

I think I'd take the line that the frame was only to prevent damage to the tiles , and that any damage to the vehicle was at the owner's risk , just as it would be if any damage occurred to her vehicle in your car park .

Marks being made in the boot of a car are , quite simply , 'fair wear and tear' that can be expected by normal useage over the lifetime of any vehicle . She had the opportunity to have the goods delivered but CHOSE to transport them in her own vehicle , thus occasioning the damage . If she chose to pick up a load of paving slabs/building bricks/red whinn chips , the situation would be no different .

I'd shut my business down and start up a new one before paying her a penny .

Hahaha I like the sentiment but I doubt you'd stay in business very long with that attitude

 

[oldcro]

In my experience in dealing with the public, this is almost exactly true.

I'd say that a minority of the public are retarded ****holes, but they are certainly more noticeable than the rest.

In mid 2007 the UK population was given as 60,975,000. So providing you have met two people who were regarded as retarded ****holes, then your statement is correct as a minority are.



I'd also say that any forum members attacking what you write should either become Moderators, or respect your freedom to have an opinion.

As I stated. I am an average person which makes me one of the majority of the population. This puts me in the retarded ******** category which in my opinion is extremely rude, particularly as MrT knows nothing about me except what information he has gleaned from my posts here.

That is my opinion by the way.

Sorry Mudster for hijacking your very important thread by the way.

 

[219]

Going by the very first post on this thread

"We made a little wood frame to stop them sliding around and keep them intact until she arrived home."

it sounds to me as if the frame was only intended to protect the tiles , not the 'car' .

Since the 'car' is a Rav4 , which is not a 'car' but a utility vehicle , like a Land Rover : it would be expected to be used for carrying goods , building materials etc . This is a bit like crying because the inside of your wheelbarrow got scratched the first time a load of bricks was dumped in it ! If the 'liner' of the boot was not up to the expected task then perhaps the woman ought to claim against Toyota and see how she gets on . I doubt their lawyers would have any more sympathy with her than the OP .