The multiple sets of tracks show that to be incorrect...
Driven over wet tarmac - who is at fault here?
- Thread starter MG42Maniac
- Start date
- Status
The multiple sets of tracks show that to be incorrect...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Another dumb woman with a barely viable company?
I dont think her gender, company, earnings come into this issue. All that matters is where the blame should be placed and adequate to meet standards or not, there was signage and a traffic cone to block the entry. Regardless of whose standards the signs and cones meet, she is at fault.
It is up to you whether you feel that it is worth exploiting local council standards to put the blame on someone else, so you can get your money back. If you are found to be correct, likely an investigation launched and those responsable will be dealt with appropriately.
At the end of the day, it's night.
Pay for it yourself or exploit the local government to cover her mistakes
If you look at the first photo, you will see that in order to do that she would have had to have driven up the drive on two wheels. Perhaps she is a skilled stunt driver and could have done that, but I think it unlikely that she did so.
Thanks.
What's being argued exactly?
The tar/grass/pavement has been mounted twice and reversed off twice as can be seen by the two inverted V's in tar marks.
One is very deep and goes right onto the clients drive.
The other is shallow and only goes as far as the tar limit on the pavement.
Since it's identical tyre marks I'll put it out there that the same vehicle did both tracks.
Obviously the deep mark is the GF pulling up into the drive then reversing out.
The second could be a range of things but a realistic reason could be a vehicle was approaching and the GF was not happy with her position to drive off so mounted the kerb again to get out of the way.
Alternatively on reversing off the drive the GF realised she was leaving black tyre marks on the clients drive and as as result stopped the vehicle and was blocking the road when a vehicle approached. As in first scenario she mounted the kerb again to get out of the way.
May not be what happened but I can see it being a reasonable scenario to explain why the same tyres mounted the kerb and tar twice.
The tar/grass/pavement has been mounted twice and reversed off twice as can be seen by the two inverted V's in tar marks.
One is very deep and goes right onto the clients drive.
The other is shallow and only goes as far as the tar limit on the pavement.
Since it's identical tyre marks I'll put it out there that the same vehicle did both tracks.
Obviously the deep mark is the GF pulling up into the drive then reversing out.
The second could be a range of things but a realistic reason could be a vehicle was approaching and the GF was not happy with her position to drive off so mounted the kerb again to get out of the way.
Alternatively on reversing off the drive the GF realised she was leaving black tyre marks on the clients drive and as as result stopped the vehicle and was blocking the road when a vehicle approached. As in first scenario she mounted the kerb again to get out of the way.
May not be what happened but I can see it being a reasonable scenario to explain why the same tyres mounted the kerb and tar twice.
Nothing was intended from me to insult her intelligence, however now knowing the business is quite successful and earns a very good living then I think the advice to fix it quickly and yourself is even more proven. As the potential loss of earnings from PR damage is higher than expected and that this also should be very affordable for her should someone need to be employed to repair the damage.
From what you say anyway it looks like now the right approach has been taken, its just one of those live and learn moments.
From what you say anyway it looks like now the right approach has been taken, its just one of those live and learn moments.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,173
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Council should be covering most of the drive fixing in my opinion, as they only had a single warning sign in place at time of incident, which driver could have approached house from other direction and not seen warning.
Funny how there are so many more warning signs on the road for the photo taken later on, after complaint is made by house owner, the council is trying to retrospectively cover their back.
Multiple warning signs should have been in place, facing both directions, before the fresh tarmac was laid.
Funny how there are so many more warning signs on the road for the photo taken later on, after complaint is made by house owner, the council is trying to retrospectively cover their back.
Multiple warning signs should have been in place, facing both directions, before the fresh tarmac was laid.
She made a mistake and it will cost some money to rectify, It was definitely a blonde moment.
I think most of us have had some "wtf was I thinking moments".
Signage was crap but the logic failure was the issue.
As for people hounding (ha) you once you mentioned her earnings, you don't need to divulge so much information. Some people are just bitter and twisted.
I think most of us have had some "wtf was I thinking moments".
Signage was crap but the logic failure was the issue.
As for people hounding (ha) you once you mentioned her earnings, you don't need to divulge so much information. Some people are just bitter and twisted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
I'm more shocked that people buy a dog to then pay someone else to walk it.
I'm interested in her business. That's an obscene amount of money for doing a quite nice job.
How many dogs can you board at a time?
If I could earn that I'd give up my job in a second.
I know it takes time etc etc.
Yeah I'm genuinely interested, I'm sure my partner would be too
How many dogs can you board at a time?
If I could earn that I'd give up my job in a second.
I know it takes time etc etc.
Yeah I'm genuinely interested, I'm sure my partner would be too
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,342
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
OCUK does what OCUK does.
Lets face it, people make mistakes and we take the hit and move on. Yes the signage wasn't great but there was a cone in place to stop people just driving straight through the soft tarmac. She went passed (via the verge) it maybe thinking it was a prank or something. If she had got out and moved it she would have most likely smelled the tarmac and read the notice. C'est la vie.
In a customer service business reputation can make you and most definitely break you. She needs to apologise to her client, pay up and carry on.
Hope it all gets sorted and I don't see why the local authority has to cough up here.
In a customer service business reputation can make you and most definitely break you. She needs to apologise to her client, pay up and carry on.
Hope it all gets sorted and I don't see why the local authority has to cough up here.
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
This so much. Some seriously sanctimonious people on these forums..
Doesn't matter what it is, it's very easy for people to start grumbling if it's not dealt with in a way they deem acceptable and considering many people treat their pets better than their kids word of mouth could have a massive effect on this sort of business.
I think the issue was more whether the GF should fight it if she was say earning only £200 a week and scraping a living or whether in this case, she earns double the national average and hence the quick fix of £200 to save her business reputation is a no brainer.
Yeah I'm sure the "I own a dog but can't be arsed walking it Union" will be in uproar
Or more likely that she'll get the drive sorted, the client maybe grumble a little then life and her business will go on as usual and no one will bat an eyelid
Scroll up and read my mutterings on it then.
The same vehicle mounted the kerb and reversed off twice.
Once to the drive and all the way out = long V mark.
Also mounted the kerb separately only onto the pavement and out again hence the short V mark.
Not necessarily in that order, can't be sure which marks overlap which but I give a scenario it could happen in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,173
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Were the house owners notified of the planned tarmac work with some notice?
If so, did they not think to let the dog walker know, presuming they knew the dog walker always drove on to their drive?
If so, did they not think to let the dog walker know, presuming they knew the dog walker always drove on to their drive?
- Status