Re: Halfords overfilled engine oil and refuse to repair vehicle fully!
1. On XXXXX 2014, the Claimant visited the premises occupied by the Defendant at XXX. The claimant had permission to enter the premises and as such was a visitor of the Defendant.
2. After the Claimant had entered the premises he purchased the engine oil suggested by the defendant’s staff and an engine oil top up service offered by the defendant. After receiving the engine oil top up and being informed it was complete the claimant left the premises. Approximately 2-3 miles from the defendant’s address, the claimant’s vehicle began appearing with smoke from the exhaust and engine. The claimant stopped the vehicle at roadside safely and conducted an inspection of the engine oil dipstick, this showed the engine oil to be topped up 3 times over the maximum mark.
3. The claimant's car damage was caused by defendant's negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982.
PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE AND/OR BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
4. The defendant was negligent/in breach of the Supply of Goods Act 1982:
(a) Did not conduct the work to a reasonable standard with a reasonable duty of care.
(b) Did not check that the service offered was to a satisfactory quality
(c) Failed to give any or adequate warning to the Claimant of staff lacking knowledge and training to conduct work to a reasonable standard with a reasonable standard of duty of care
5. As a result of the Defendant's negligence/breach of statutory duty, the Claimant suffered financial loss, illness and damage.
1. On XXXXX 2014, the Claimant visited the premises occupied by the Defendant at XXX. The claimant had permission to enter the premises and as such was a visitor of the Defendant.
2. After the Claimant had entered the premises he purchased the engine oil suggested by the defendant’s staff and an engine oil top up service offered by the defendant. After receiving the engine oil top up and being informed it was complete the claimant left the premises. Approximately 2-3 miles from the defendant’s address, the claimant’s vehicle began appearing with smoke from the exhaust and engine. The claimant stopped the vehicle at roadside safely and conducted an inspection of the engine oil dipstick, this showed the engine oil to be topped up 3 times over the maximum mark.
3. The claimant's car damage was caused by defendant's negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982.
PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE AND/OR BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
4. The defendant was negligent/in breach of the Supply of Goods Act 1982:
(a) Did not conduct the work to a reasonable standard with a reasonable duty of care.
(b) Did not check that the service offered was to a satisfactory quality
(c) Failed to give any or adequate warning to the Claimant of staff lacking knowledge and training to conduct work to a reasonable standard with a reasonable standard of duty of care
5. As a result of the Defendant's negligence/breach of statutory duty, the Claimant suffered financial loss, illness and damage.
Comment