Ooops. Expensive mistake. Pay up or argue to the death?

+1 for pay up, but only if they give you a copy of the cctv. Send it off to You’ve Been Framed and that is almost all your money back there. Plus you get to play it at every opportunity.

Excellent!

The safety switch is there for exactly this type of incident. It is expected to happen which is why it is there therefore the company have to take responsibility for their own procedures. They can claim on their insurance if they want. Wifey has done what was expected and the safety system now needs replacing. Isn’t that the companies responsibility unless they pre warned me that any use of the safety system could result in a charge.
If the coupling hadn’t released and the wife had died in a horrendous catastrophe then I would be suing the garage for a faulty system.. So they use a safety system to cover their backsides and make a profit by selling a dangerous fuel. The cost of using that safety system is the odd replaceable coupling.

The way you have arrived at this conclusion to try and get out of your wife having to take responsibility for her actions is astonishing. do you even believe it?

She broke it, she pays for it. Pretty simple isn’t it…?

Isn’t that the companies responsibility unless they pre warned me that any use of the safety system could result in a charge.

The B Ark awaits you.

Clearly a descendant of the B Ark already as is the OP.

Marketing exec or telephone sanitiser do we think?

The B Ark awaits you.

Genuine LOL at that, good work.

Pay up!
By all means question the bill but why does the garage (and owner) have to accept any financial penalty for your wife’s blonde moment. So it’s going to cost, perhaps she will remember next time …

Would you dry and sue the garage if you filled up your car with petrol rather than diesel – because you were able to get the nozzle into the filler?

Time to take some responsibility for you actions …
Christ, i hate this culture where nobody can be a fault for there own stupid actions

Airbags/Network Rail.. I don’t think those analogies work.

Oohh no sir. Liability is never that simple I’ve seen Perry Mason you know.

The safety coupling on an LPG filler is there as a protection from a basic human handling error, designed because of the way you use an LPG filler. The only way a garage can sell the LPG fuel is if they have that coupling in place. Legally there because the possibility of an unintentional driveaway is great. You do not hold the pump like petrol you walk away and stand pushing a button as much as 10 feet (10 whole feet) away allowing your mind to wander to other more interesting things. I bet she was thinking of me.. Bless her!

The benefit of having the coupling is that they can then make a profit from selling a dangerous fuel without an attendant.
The cost for them of having that coupling is that occassionaly they will need to replace the coupling because of basic human handling error. (They knew this when deciding to sell LPG)

The ins and outs of the safety mechanism for the companies legal responsibility is not my concern. It worked and saved a disaster.. everyone is happy. This is part of their business cost.

If my Gran stumbled and fell on an escalator (an expected basic human error) and I quickly hit the safety stop button to save her from getting mangled to a pulp by the innerworkings of the machinery. The shopping centre can’t then charge me £300 for some strange safety cut off switch.

If someone has a fire exit door and the fire exit door got damaged by using it while in a fire exit situation. Can the owner of said fire exit door claim that the person owes money for the damage to that fire exit door.

I think I’m onto a winner..

I think I’m onto a winner..

I’m beginning to think this is a troll.

Have the Huhnes been forgotten so soon ….

Op – when you get banned from all forecourts of the comapny involved, and the price of LPG goes up to cover the cost of F***wits driving off, will you whinge?

Yes – it’s a troll or a very hen pecked husband …

…I think your trolling!

I suppose the colour the OP thinks he sees below is white? 🙄

I think I’m onto a winner..

It’s just a pity the rest of the world disagrees with you 😉

Refuse to pay if you genuinely feel you have a case, but be prepared to pay out a lot more if they take you to court and win.

Yep, troll. Very obvious.

Started well but got a bit too vehement too soon. Poor form. 🙂

Do you get to keep the nozzle?

Trolling, Hen pecked. No siree, I’m sticking it to the man; I’m standing up for the little people.. I’m fighting for the likes of many of you who would bend roll over as soon as the bill hits the floor.

If it had failed I would be suing him because it is his legal responsibility so how does it become my responsibility when it works. I think your all calling Troll because your beginning to see my sense.

Do you get to keep the nozzle?

It’ll be his once he’s paid for it

The benefit of having the coupling is that they can then make a profit from selling a dangerous fuel without an attendant.

Er, you can’t complain about them selling dangerous fuel, when the only reason they are selling it is because YOU are buying it.

Lucky not to be done for theft.

This is the result of a sugar explosion;

Perhaps we need attendants in the baking aisle too?

If his wife is only doing what is expected I wonder if she has to leave the house with one of those special helmets to stop her hurting her self when she head buts the walls all day.

I don’t understand what the safety button is, or how using it has caused damage.

Is it an emergency cut off thing that had to be pushed *after* the OP’s alleged wife drove off, allegedly, with the hose still attached to the car and ripped it off/broke a coupling?

I thought you had to replace the nozzle to the pump to end the fueling cycle to allow you to pay

The baking aisle is serious business:

http://sky1.sky.com/brainiac-flour-explosion-slow-motion

If it had failed I would be suing him because it is his legal responsibility so how does it become my responsibility when it works. I think your all calling Troll because your beginning to see my sense.

Would you?

Or would they be claiming on your car insurance as you and your car just blew up their forecourt?

Is the pump safe to use with basic human errors taken into account?

If Yes great I will buy my fuel
If NO then I’ll buy my fuel elsewhere

At no point is a safety device on the LPG pump my responsibility unless I am behaving in a manner that is not expected or deemed unreasonable. (driveaways are expected and considered likely to happen more with LPG refuelling because you are not near the nozzle hence the legal obligation to have a release coupling)

Agreed. A simple ‘can’t pay until nozzle is replaced’ would fix the issue.

Am I winning yet.. I can sense it! March with me brothers and sisters.

?

Like Dogbert – if you can finish the transaction and pay without removing the nozzle then it’s not surprising that you might just drive away – unless she tried to scarper without paying.

Very informative

Pay up

I’m beginning to think this is a troll.

It’s more than that 🙂

From what I can see, He started off seriously asking if he should dispute the bill, expecting someone to agree and give him a good get out.

When everyone told him to pay up and stop whining, he decided to cover his tracks and over compensate and turn it into a way too obvious wind up.

It the (all new) Edinburgh Troll Defence

😆

so how does it become my responsibility when it works.

Cos it’s a disposable safety part that costs money to fix.

Your actions cost the garage money. End of. They may be expecting people to drive off, but that doesn’t mean you should. You still need to bear responsibility for it even if it was expected.

We expect people to cause car accidents, but we still hold them responsible when they do.

You can be charged for crash barrier repairs if the damage is caused by negligence even though the presence of a barrier may be a legal requirement. So I think you can also be charged for the breakage of the safety mechanism

No troll here. Strange behaviour to keep calling troll though, that would mean you are trolling a troll 😕
I was expecting 400 voices of ‘I know best’ but I had hoped for 1 or 2 legal views of where the liability could possibly lay. I think I got somewhere inbetween.

Just light hearted stuff peeps, everything on here doesn’t have to be all angry and aggressive does it?? It seems as though some of you are offended that I’m not offended by the lighthearted mocking.

The car accidents analogy doesn’t fit.

I’m interested to know what a court would make of it all. The pump is poorly located,poorly signed and right next to a outdoor car wash (that someone was using on the day) so could be considered a distraction and a poor environment for such a pump. And the safety feature seems flawed to me.
I just don’t think a judge would be quite as quick to say ‘pay up’.

I have had a chat with the Manager and he has said he will compromise so the Bill will be £114 which seems reasonable based on the bill sent.
I think he got tired of my ramblings too 😀

Many posts made me laugh. Cheers.

theocb – Member

everything on here doesn’t have to be all angry and agressive does it?

There’s two “g”s in aggressive you **** ****! 👿

No idea what you mean.

The pump is poorly located,poorly signed and right next to a outdoor car wash (that someone was using on the day) so could be considered a distraction and a poor environment for such a pump.

If your wife is that easily distracted then she shouldn’t be driving.

Distracted by an outdoor car wash??

Women and washing, it’s a fascination that can lead to all sorts of trouble. There’s always loads of adverts outside car washes due to this.

Hope you don’t live near me,wouldn’t want to share the road with a driver who is that easily distracted 😯 when staionary,ooh look a bird in the sky?? what was that thing I’ve just hit ??

Distracted by an outdoor car wash??