 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
New skis like for like. They should carry insurance for their feck ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Insurance companies apply depreciation. Typically 20% of value per year on sports equipment. So 4 year old skis are not worth much in the eyes of an insurance company. And after all you did get to ski on them for several seasons, so it's not like you got nothing for your investment. I think any compensation awarded if you sued is likely to be similar. I suspect kicking up a big rumpus might be counter productive.
Therefore your best bet is ask the shop politely what they will do about it. Presumbly they are kind of embarassed about the situation? It shouldn't be that hard to get a deal which is agreeable to both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@auntie masque, in what way have they screwed them up?by the sounds of it you were asking them to re drill skis for new bindings. Am i right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@thecramps, yup, but instead of shifting the mount points 10 mm forward away from the original holes as asked on the contract form, they tried to overdrill some of the original mount points, by hand and the obvious happened 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@auntie masque, ...where was this? Was it a large chain? Ski specialist? Clearly if the form stated a certain approach, and that was breached, then they have broken contract. If they have stock then they should replace them with something equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't matter if they gave stock they should be able to source an equivalent ski far cheaper than AM to make it good. Obviously if they can source a NIP 15 or 16 you have less right to reject that than if you had a pair of 17s screwed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be looking for either a credit of 50% or a suitable replacement, which as @Dave of the Marmottes says won't cost them too much, yes the skis were 4 years old, but why should you have to shell out to replace what was a perfectly serviceable ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
As you've spent most of the past four years injured then the skis were effectively brand new! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can reasonably expect new for old. Assuming culpability is undisputed then I think it's their job to restore you to the position you were in before the incident. That might mean a hefty discount off a new pair, cash compensation, or if it suits you both then a replacement with a nearly new pair. Perhaps the best solution would be, say, £50-£80 to spend on a new pair that they sell to you at trade price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
To me it's a balance between what do you want, and what can they give you at lowest cost to them.
For example, they might have a pair of awesome skis sitting at the back of the shop as there is one ugly scratch on the topsheet, so they can't sell them. Value to them low, value to you maybe high.
I think @foxtrotzulu is right, you can't expect new for old, it should be like for like. As @hyperkub says, ask what they can offer you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| hyperkub wrote: |
| Insurance companies apply depreciation. Typically 20% of value per year on sports equipment. So 4 year old skis are not worth much in the eyes of an insurance company. |
They probably do but that is the shops problem, as it it will be they claiming off the insurance. Since he will be claiming off the shop who naggered them I'd say you go for what you think they are worth, not what the accounting industry of depreciation says they are worth.
My board is 10 years old. But it only gets used 2 - 2.5 weeks a year on average, so in its lifetime, maybe one whole season use. Accountants, and insurance comapnies would argue it has no value at 10 years old but that is clearly horse poo - it has loads of life left in it, I look after and service it properly, it still rides well, it might lack the "pop" of brand new board but I'm not a huge park monkey so it makes no difference, it saves me 130 quid a week renting an equivalent board from a ski shop which may well be 1 yer old but still probably has 20 weeks use in it, and I know the condition of my board, how its setup, I have no idea about a rental or a 1 year old used board from somebody else. 20% p.a.
Agreed though, ask the shop what they are going to do about it, and be prepared to stand your ground if they offer some undervaluation rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no way that a shop would claim on their insurance for something that won't amount to more than a few hundred $.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
New for old IMO.
You can argue you had a perfectly fine pair of ski's & now you have none.
Why should you be financially out of pocket for their shoddy workmanship.
You gave clear instructions & they ignored it.
Chances are their own insurance wont cover them because of that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Obviously you should ask for a replacement, but always best to be polite etc first of all in these cases (they are more likely to help), then if they are being awkward still, that's when you kick up a storm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Good reason to do stuff yourself. Then you only have yourself to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| I don't think you can reasonably expect new for old. Assuming culpability is undisputed then I think it's their job to restore you to the position you were in before the incident. That might mean a hefty discount off a new pair, cash compensation, or if it suits you both then a replacement with a nearly new pair. Perhaps the best solution would be, say, £50-£80 to spend on a new pair that they sell to you at trade price. |
Feck that - that's not restoring you to where you were. That's getting off with screwing your stuff up for less than what you were paying them to do the job probably. Put all the pressure on them to get you the skis you'd contracted for in the state you wanted them. If they don't have used inventory in the right state of repair than that means they should go newer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I would ask politely for a new pair and fully expect to get it. You had a pair of skis, now you don't. How old those skis were is a bit irrelevant. Let us know what the outcome is
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Themasterpiece wrote: |
| Good reason to do stuff yourself. Then you only have yourself to blame. |
Equally that means when you mess it up yourself you can't be compensated for the damage 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| auntie masque wrote: |
| @thecramps, yup, but instead of shifting the mount points 10 mm forward away from the original holes as asked on the contract form, they tried to overdrill some of the original mount points, by hand and the obvious happened |
I'm lost what's the obvious? It's easy to mount quiver killers in original holes, if they're in the correct place and don't get damaged removing the screws, they just need careful over drilling. What did they actually do? drill through the base, not use drill press and get the holes oblique ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@auntie masque, I'd want to be in the position I was before they ruined your skis, which in your case is owning a nearly new pair of skis. Not sure I'd trust them to supply them though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| I don't think you can reasonably expect new for old. Assuming culpability is undisputed then I think it's their job to restore you to the position you were in before the incident. That might mean a hefty discount off a new pair, cash compensation, or if it suits you both then a replacement with a nearly new pair. Perhaps the best solution would be, say, £50-£80 to spend on a new pair that they sell to you at trade price. |
Feck that - that's not restoring you to where you were. That's getting off with screwing your stuff up for less than what you were paying them to do the job probably. Put all the pressure on them to get you the skis you'd contracted for in the state you wanted them. If they don't have used inventory in the right state of repair than that means they should go newer. |
I'm with @Dave of the Marmottes - they are obliged to restore you to the same position you were in before you entrused your skis to them, and not an iota worse off. Whatever that may be.
Tell them in no uncertan terms that that is your expectation (which you're perfectly entitled to) and let them ponder the solution. No doubt they can find one.
If they were any decent, they should have offered this to you without being prompted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| I don't think you can reasonably expect new for old. Assuming culpability is undisputed then I think it's their job to restore you to the position you were in before the incident. That might mean a hefty discount off a new pair, cash compensation, or if it suits you both then a replacement with a nearly new pair. Perhaps the best solution would be, say, £50-£80 to spend on a new pair that they sell to you at trade price. |
Feck that - that's not restoring you to where you were. That's getting off with screwing your stuff up for less than what you were paying them to do the job probably. Put all the pressure on them to get you the skis you'd contracted for in the state you wanted them. If they don't have used inventory in the right state of repair than that means they should go newer. |
+1
Shop messed up so shop should fix it. Fairest would be a new set of last season's skis, but if that's not available the cost of current skis at wholesale price isn't an unreasonable price for the shop to pay IMO.
The only time this has happened to me was the very first pair of skis I bought, from Lockwoods in Leamington Spa - they were already previous season, but new; tech messed up the mount and they immediately apologised and pulled the current season version of the same skis out the rack and mounted them for me. Props to Lockwoods!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| I don't think you can reasonably expect new for old. Assuming culpability is undisputed then I think it's their job to restore you to the position you were in before the incident. That might mean a hefty discount off a new pair, cash compensation, or if it suits you both then a replacement with a nearly new pair. Perhaps the best solution would be, say, £50-£80 to spend on a new pair that they sell to you at trade price. |
Feck that - that's not restoring you to where you were. That's getting off with screwing your stuff up for less than what you were paying them to do the job probably. Put all the pressure on them to get you the skis you'd contracted for in the state you wanted them. If they don't have used inventory in the right state of repair than that means they should go newer. |
I concur. If they bollocksed up a set of usable skis then they need to get you something equal or better, not fob you off with £80 and you have to drop another £200+ to buy some new pair off them. There should absolutely be no requirement for you to outlay any more cash as a result of their balls up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Met 'the boss' this morning and I suggested that since Volkl have a retail markup of about 50% over wholesale I'd be happy to split the 'cost' price with him. That went down well and fingers x'd I'll get a new pair of this year's Mantras for about 260 Can$.
Yup, fingers X'd
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@auntie masque, that would be a result.
Esp as recent previous years (I think as far back as 2014) have a bit of a delamination habit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
New for old IMO.
You can argue you had a perfectly fine pair of ski's & now you have none.
Why should you be financially out of pocket for their shoddy workmanship.
You gave clear instructions & they ignored it.
Chances are their own insurance wont cover them because of that! |
I think Masque has it sorted now, but ..... I agree you shouldn’t be out of pocket but new for old would mean that you are ‘in’ pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I guess it's a similar situation when you have an old, but decent car that you have no intention of replacing for another 5 years as it is still an exceptional runner because you've always looked after it. It then gets written off by a prat and the insurance only pays out its retail value which you can't buy the equivalent car for because you won't be able to find one that's been looked after as well as your one was. Glad to hear that auntie masque has pushed for deal that both are happy with though. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@iSnowhead,
| Quote: |
I guess it's a similar situation when you have an old, but decent car that you have no intention of replacing for another 5 years as it is still an exceptional runner because you've always looked after it. It then gets written off by a prat and the insurance only pays out its retail value which you can't buy the equivalent car for because you won't be able to find one that's been looked after as well as your one was.
|
Yes, identical situation. It's a little harder with skis because there isn't the same sort of second-hand market and therefore I think it's fair to push for a slightly better deal. New for old would obviously be lovely in those circumstances but I don't think you can really expect it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| auntie masque wrote: |
Met 'the boss' this morning and I suggested that since Volkl have a retail markup of about 50% over wholesale I'd be happy to split the 'cost' price with him. That went down well and fingers x'd I'll get a new pair of this year's Mantras for about 260 Can$.
Yup, fingers X'd |
In my experience a reasonable suggestion such as above is far more likely to succeed than stamping feet and expecting New of Old. Nice deal @auntie masque if it works out for you .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
New for old IMO.
You can argue you had a perfectly fine pair of ski's & now you have none.
Why should you be financially out of pocket for their shoddy workmanship.
You gave clear instructions & they ignored it.
Chances are their own insurance wont cover them because of that! |
I think Masque has it sorted now, but ..... I agree you shouldn’t be out of pocket but new for old would mean that you are ‘in’ pocket. |
Well that's still the store's problem for taking on a job without having equivalent replacement stock if they cock it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
| Quote: |
Well that's still the store's problem for taking on a job without having equivalent replacement stock if they cock it up.
|
Possibly, but as few shops are likely to keep replacements for any ski they work on then they simply wouldn't go to the hassle/risk of working on skis. Everyone loses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Nice deal @auntie masque if it works out for you .
|
The trouble is he has still ended up in a situation where he has to put his hand in his pocket for more than the expected cost of fitting the quiver killers in the first place. A rather unfortunate outcome and he will still have revisit the situation to get the skis he does end up with fitted with the set-up he wanted. Hardly an ideal scenario even if he ends up with a nice new shiny set of skis (which I guess are always nice to have) he wasn't budgeting them for in the first place. I guess it's making the best of a bad job, but it's unfortunate to be in the situation in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
@Dave of the Marmottes,
| Quote: |
Well that's still the store's problem for taking on a job without having equivalent replacement stock if they cock it up.
|
Possibly, but as few shops are likely to keep replacements for any ski they work on then they simply wouldn't go to the hassle/risk of working on skis. Everyone loses. |
That's fine but they lose a lot of business if they don't service skis and have nil advantage over online retailers. You're not I believe a ski owner, based on your past posts, but you do seem to be a bit of a fan of ensuring a shoddy service isn't made good in full less the injured party "wins". There are plenty of routes for shops to make it right with other than brand spanking new stock if they have contacts: blems, returns, lightly used demos, trades for all of the forgoing with other stores etc. Personally I think the OP let them off lightly but it was presumably a deal he was happy with (and only he knew the true state of use and abuse his previous skis had had, notwithstanding we know they weren't used much on teh blood wagon and various hospital visits  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
| Quote: |
but you do seem to be a bit of a fan of ensuring a shoddy service isn't made good in full less the injured party "wins"
|
No, I never said that. Simply that 'new for old' is not the usual way of resolving situations like this. As@iSnowhead, points out you don't get a brand new car when someone writes off your five-year-old one, and I don't think you can reasonably expect one. My view is that the shop should do what they can to put you back in the same position as you were in before the incident happened. If they have a pair of identical skis of identical age in identical condition then that is fair recompense. Because of the uncertainties and hassle involved, I'd expect them to improve a bit on that too but as a basic principle that seems fair enough. You also seem to be agreeing that new for old is unnecessary as you are suggesting returns, demos etc. It's just about finding a mutually satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said you'd give him £50-80 for his skis. That's not fair. It might be what an insurer would pay but we all know they skew the numbers in their favour on payout policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch out for your replacements
The mantra has been full banana (fullly rockered, inverse camber whatever) for the last couple of seasons so if you had an earlier model it will be quite different. If you want trad camber make sure you secure the 18/19 model mantra M5. They be going nuts for it at ISPO. Rode a pre launch demarked pair a couple weeks back definitely the best way down the hill....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I'm gobsmacked OP has had to pay out anything. It was the shop's fault, they should sort it FOC and OP should be in the same position or better off than before. Shelling out 260CAD is not cool, better skis or not.
I worked Saturdays and then uni holidays in a small, family-owned, well-respected bike shop. Very occasionally a mechanic would ruin a frame or something by mistake and if we couldn't source the exact replacement, the customer would get a more recent version FOC. No quibbles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@leggyblonde, pays off in the long run too. Customer stays loyal and recommends to his friends, as long as you don’t let people take the wee wee it’s the best way to deal with something like that. Depends on the type of store though, think this approach is best suited to smaller businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
and are now no more than a fond memory, toast, dead, late . . . less than a Norwegian Blue!
