Like Tree32Likes

Car Park Barrier Problem

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    I dont believe the garage owner in this case is being honest. I would think he asked his buddy the gate salesmen to give him a bigger invoice in return for a few beers. I have no evidence of this obviously but its a gut feel. If the gate replacement was worth $10,000, why stick a sign on it saying $5000.
    There is absolutely nothing in the OP's commentary which suggests any form of swindle.

    It says a lot about your mentality to impose this upon the facts purely because the cost of damage (something neither you and I have a firm understanding of the extent) exceeded an arbitrary figure stated in a sign (which, again, of we have not seen a photograph).
    Last edited by iliketurtles; 23-07-2014 at 11:03 AM.
    HK_Katherine and TheBrit like this.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,756

    its a swindle - how can an electric motor cost 11k? ( this isnt from a tesla - they will fix it on the side of the street in a million places in HK )

    I seriously doubt that its so easily damaged. there must be a gear linkage from the barrier to the motor...

    this stinks - he's trying it on,, tell him to piss off.. you will pay 5 k or nothing.


    actually I would tell him nothing..

    parryhotter likes this.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tsim Sha Tsui
    Posts
    3,963
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    No, no, no and nope.
    I answered it but you snipped it : I would expect the garage owner to know the cost of an item that gets damaged a lot.
    Again, this is pure assumption:

    1. The barrier may never have been damaged before
    2. The barrier may never had this extent of damage
    3. The car park could be quite new, therefore point 1
    4. The owner maybe had other people running the car park for him beforehand



    So that's a big assumption you've made based on even more assumptions.

    Let's say for a second that the car park and the owner was actually named in this thread. What would you think the legal implications are if you were found to be spreading false information like this?


    Sent from my iPad using GeoClicks

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    There is absolutely nothing in the OP's commentary which suggests any form of swindle.
    He came here because he feels like he is getting cheated. OP says "is he getting the entire thing replaced when it could have been fixed for a small charge.".
    I agree with him, it feels like a scam.

    It says a lot about your mentality to impose this upon the facts purely because the cost of damage (something neither you and I have a firm understanding of the extent) exceeded an arbitrary figure stated in a sign (which, again, of we have not seen a photograph).
    The sign is not arbitrary - its a sign that has been put there by the owner. When the same owner tries to get more than double what the sign says, BS detectors goes up.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452

    Why doesn't the owner let his insurance cover the costs That's surely a scenario civeted by third-party insurance and they will know how much it should be.


  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,880

    Alright, I'll be the first to blink. There's no more for me to add here.

    HK_Katherine likes this.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Proplus:
    Again, this is pure assumption:
    1. The barrier may never have been damaged before
    2. The barrier may never had this extent of damage
    3. The car park could be quite new, therefore point 1
    4. The owner maybe had other people running the car park for him beforehand
    You're grasping at straws.
    So that's a big assumption you've made based on even more assumptions.
    None of which is related to race/ethnicity which you were claiming just a minute ago.
    Let's say for a second that the car park and the owner was actually named in this thread. What would you think the legal implications are if you were found to be spreading false information like this?
    My belief that this stinks is not false information. I believe this stinks and I believe the OP should resist it.

    My advice to the OP : Dont let it waste too much time, dont go to court over it but feel free to not pay for a while, if you have a lawyer-friend draft a stern letter that wont cost much etc etc; do things that wont cost too much time and/or money and resist till you cant resist no more.
    parryhotter likes this.

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6