Saturday, Apr 05, 2008 at 20:41
I thank David for bringing a potential
grey area to our attention. Whilst this may have been going on for some time his situation brings some very valid points.
1. His vehicle he has spent some time preparing is now history.
2. The business appears to have broken off contact. Whilst this may be a legal advise it is poor people skills and as he says RUDE. They could at least acknowledge his queries even if they have nothing further to say.
3. You and others have mentioned insurance for accessories but I find it hard to accept it is possible to insure for accessories being fitted. Surely an insurance company would expect you to have the fitment completed before covering your insured extras.
4. As a retailer I am expected to cover any damage done by anyone to anything inside my
shop. How is that different to David's situation? His insurance should cover all goods within and include all equipment in it's care whether owned by them or not. If they cannot afford to cover a Roll's Royce that is stolen whilst in their care for example, then do not accept a job that involves them.
5. If we all work by the law of the land only, we would not be out there helping others less fortunate than ourselves. We do it because we are compassionate and that is also the way we run our business even if it means we trade a loss for certain jobs.
Why do we hate lawyers, because they only see the law and not morals or compassion.
If the incident David had happened to me I would be cranky too and letting everyone know about it. It's just not right.
FollowupID:
562917