TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
calm down calm down, he should get nothing, it's called a theft for a reason, let him take his quarrel to ttps and his insurance provider.Kal-El Ward wrote:The guy should get a brand new corolla with GPS all on the company's expense as compensation for their negligence and irresponsibility.
Kal-El Ward wrote:Wow. Someone should spread the news and stain their name then. Disclaimers notice. Is level nonsense on my part. Toyota should lose their building to a fire or something.
Spitfir3 wrote:most companies have a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for theft etc while on the compound im sure toyota has that policy as well so i doubt he would get anything other than their condolences.....also LOL at consumer affairs those guys ain't worth a fart
needless to say the fact that a car was stolen on their security enforced compound well that's just negligence...hope owner gets his ride back
goodear wrote:TTL didn't realize it was stolen till owner came to collect, real negligence on their part. Car gone since lunch time, found to be missing around 4 when owner came to collect. Pressure. Spoke to owner.
zoom rader wrote:Spitfir3 wrote:most companies have a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for theft etc while on the compound im sure toyota has that policy as well so i doubt he would get anything other than their condolences.....also LOL at consumer affairs those guys ain't worth a fart
needless to say the fact that a car was stolen on their security enforced compound well that's just negligence...hope owner gets his ride back
Displaying a disclaimer notice does not prove jack chit it's just scare tactics . I remember years ago a car was stolen at the airport carpark the owner took the car park to court and won his case. The car park company had to compensate the owner for his loss. Owner or insurance company need to sue toyota.
Kal-El Ward wrote:Hustla, I do think before I type. Face it man. Everyday I realize how messed up the world is, and how people are to each other. Yeah. Burn down. I said it. That company full of evil on my part. Justice should be served. Everyday people are exploited. And no one does or gives a flying flute about it. Then again, the world just getting more evil. I should not care for anyone but myself. Right?
zoom rader wrote:Spitfir3 wrote:most companies have a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for theft etc while on the compound im sure toyota has that policy as well so i doubt he would get anything other than their condolences.....also LOL at consumer affairs those guys ain't worth a fart
needless to say the fact that a car was stolen on their security enforced compound well that's just negligence...hope owner gets his ride back
Displaying a disclaimer notice does not prove jack chit it's just scare tactics . I remember years ago a car was stolen at the airport carpark the owner took the car park to court and won his case. The car park company had to compensate the owner for his loss. Owner or insurance company need to sue toyota.
A MAN whose car was stolen from the Piarco International airport car park was on Wednesday awarded $55,000 for a Nissan Sunny in a judgement consented to by the Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (AATT).
Rudy Sookhan of Barrackpore sued the AATT on the basis that since no vehicle is allowed to enter or leave the airport’s car park arbitrarily, the authority’s security firm owes motorists a duty to ensure thieves do not steal people’s vehicles.
Sookhan of Cumuto Road, contended in a lawsuit that AATT’s policy at the Piarco Airport, aims at ensuring that motorists do not leave the car park without producing the electronically generated parking ticket. How, therefore, was someone able to drive out with his car on April 18, 2010, Sookhan’s attorney Asaf Hosein asked in a suit for claim filed in court.
The suit claimed that at about 11.30 am on the day in question, his client parked his car after being issued with a machine-generated parking ticket at the airport’s entrance. In the lawsuit, Sookhan described the airport as fenced and manned by security guards. There are also close circuit CCTV cameras on the compound.
According to the lawsuit, when Sookhan returned at about 12.55 pm to retrieve his car, it was missing. He reported the matter to a security guard who advised him to file a report at the Piarco Police Station.
Sookhan contended as a ground to his lawsuit against AATT, that despite Disclaimer notices in the car park, it was the responsibility of security guards to ensure thieves do not drive off with people’s car from the airport’s car park. He stated that the guard at the exit booth, allowed his car to leave the car park, without the thief presenting a ticket, or paying the penalty fee.
The lawsuit cited the procedure for leaving the airport’s car park with a car, when one loses the machine-generated ticket. And when police officers arrived at the car park to investigate, he enquired from the guard at the booth if the cameras were working, but was questioned why he was politicising the issue of the theft.
The AATT challenged the lawsuit but in a consent order entered into with Sookhan’s attorney in the San Fernando High Court before Justice Mira Dean Armorer, the authority agreed to pay.
The judge ordered that the AATT pay Sookhan $41,000 for loss of the vehicle, $4,000 for loss of use and $10,000 in legal cost. Attorney Robin Ottway represented the AATT.
pete wrote:Make a sign saying 'TTTL let my car get stolen when it was brought for service, dont let it happen to you' and stand up by the entrance from early Monday. Would be interesting to see what they do in response.
~Vēġó~ wrote:yuh mean they irresponsible!
Kal-El Ward wrote:Japanese dealer now? Paid cover up?
