Barnehurst supermarket customer billed £1,900 after driving into post 'which shouldn't be there'

Barnehurst supermarket customer drives into post 'which shouldn't be there'

Colin Goodrich with the metal post which has cost him £1,900.

The post has got into plenty of other scrapes.

First published in News
Last updated
News Shopper: Photograph of the Author by , reporter

A Barnehurst supermarket customer ended up with a £1,900 bill after accidentally driving into a metal post he says shouldn’t be there.

Colin Goodrich, 69, stopped off at Sainsbury’s Local in Erith Road and parked his black Nissan Note in one of the shop’s four off-street parking spaces.

Having got what he needed, the retired fishmonger got back in his car and was pulling out onto the main road when he heard that sickening crunching sound all drivers fear.

The father-of-one told News Shopper: “At first you think you’re stupid because you’ve hit someone’s post but it shouldn’t be there.

“You just can’t see that post when you’re pulling out and turning left into the road.

News Shopper:

The damage to Colin's car. 

“It’s three or four feet into where you would drive.”

Colin, who lives in Wynford Way, Eltham, has been quoted £1,890 to replace a front wing and door panel on his car.

When he complained to Sainsbury’s about the offending cylinder he was told the incident on April 11 was his fault and the supermarket chain was not liable for his whacking repair bill.

Colin, who used to run a fish stall at Swanley market, claims the three foot removable post should be got rid of as it is covered in multi-coloured paint stains from where other drivers have come a cropper.

He said: “There are more cars that have hit it and it must have cost people a fortune.

News Shopper:

The Sainsbury's Local with Colin's car on the right. 

“Other people might be embarrassed – young ladies who have gone away having sustained all this damage but don’t want a row.

“If I raise it maybe these people will come forward.”

A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: “While we are sorry Mr Goodrich damaged his car we have investigated this incident and do not believe we are at fault.

“We installed the posts following advice from the council who said they would make the car park safer for customers and motorists and we haven’t had any other complaints or accidents since they were installed in August 2012.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:08pm Mon 19 May 14

Simon bald says...

Only one more year before this old fool needs a new driving licence thank god
Only one more year before this old fool needs a new driving licence thank god Simon bald
  • Score: 3

5:21pm Mon 19 May 14

Merrimart says...

Should have gone to Specsavers!!
Should have gone to Specsavers!! Merrimart
  • Score: 22

9:01pm Mon 19 May 14

danm5577 says...

What next? Hitting a pedestrian because they shouldn't be there?
Surely if it was a squeeze getting in there then you would be more cautious getting out of the space.
Fool!
What next? Hitting a pedestrian because they shouldn't be there? Surely if it was a squeeze getting in there then you would be more cautious getting out of the space. Fool! danm5577
  • Score: 20

6:59am Tue 20 May 14

B L Zeebub says...

It just jumped right out in front of me judge, honest 1
It just jumped right out in front of me judge, honest 1 B L Zeebub
  • Score: 16

7:33am Tue 20 May 14

R_U_Serious says...

How can Sainsburys say " and we haven’t had any other complaints or accidents since they were installed in August 2012" when the post is covered with paint from other vehicles?

The post needs to be higher so it's clearly visible from the driver's seat and not hidden by car's bodywork.

Not fit for purpose springs to mind.
How can Sainsburys say " and we haven’t had any other complaints or accidents since they were installed in August 2012" when the post is covered with paint from other vehicles? The post needs to be higher so it's clearly visible from the driver's seat and not hidden by car's bodywork. Not fit for purpose springs to mind. R_U_Serious
  • Score: 20

8:36am Tue 20 May 14

marc8888 says...

Then again.... when you look at where the pavement drop is..... the post is in a stupid place.....
Then again.... when you look at where the pavement drop is..... the post is in a stupid place..... marc8888
  • Score: 30

10:10am Tue 20 May 14

blogger85 says...

People que to get into the car park at the front of the store but there is a bigger car park around the back. People can be so lazy.
People que to get into the car park at the front of the store but there is a bigger car park around the back. People can be so lazy. blogger85
  • Score: 8

2:46pm Tue 20 May 14

mouthalmighty says...

blogger85 wrote:
People que to get into the car park at the front of the store but there is a bigger car park around the back. People can be so lazy.
Oooh. Never knew about carpark at back. Thanks.

The car driver is at fault, but to be honest, what purpose does that post serve?
[quote][p][bold]blogger85[/bold] wrote: People que to get into the car park at the front of the store but there is a bigger car park around the back. People can be so lazy.[/p][/quote]Oooh. Never knew about carpark at back. Thanks. The car driver is at fault, but to be honest, what purpose does that post serve? mouthalmighty
  • Score: 10

3:16pm Tue 20 May 14

Erastus. says...

I walk past this shop everyday and have witnessed two other motorists who have done exactly the same thing as Mr. Goodrich. The issue with these posts is that because they are an awkward height they give you a false sense that when you look out of your window or in your wing mirror that there are no obstructions next to the vehicle so you automatically turn out of the car park, compared to if there was a permanent structure like a wall/fence.
I walk past this shop everyday and have witnessed two other motorists who have done exactly the same thing as Mr. Goodrich. The issue with these posts is that because they are an awkward height they give you a false sense that when you look out of your window or in your wing mirror that there are no obstructions next to the vehicle so you automatically turn out of the car park, compared to if there was a permanent structure like a wall/fence. Erastus.
  • Score: 7

3:44pm Tue 20 May 14

sarfflondonbird says...

Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say.
Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say. sarfflondonbird
  • Score: -7

5:26pm Tue 20 May 14

the wall says...

Driving without due care and attention.
Driving without due care and attention. the wall
  • Score: 1

5:34pm Tue 20 May 14

rojo174 says...

sarfflondonbird wrote:
Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say.
Yore speling is astroshus
[quote][p][bold]sarfflondonbird[/bold] wrote: Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say.[/p][/quote]Yore speling is astroshus rojo174
  • Score: -3

7:42pm Tue 20 May 14

Gypo.Joe says...

I can always tell the standard of the driver by the state of their wheels. Check out the photo of Goodrichs front wheel, its been kerbed more times than sarflondonturd has.

ThanK YoU
I can always tell the standard of the driver by the state of their wheels. Check out the photo of Goodrichs front wheel, its been kerbed more times than sarflondonturd has. ThanK YoU Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 7

7:33am Wed 21 May 14

sarfflondonbird says...

rojo174 wrote:
sarfflondonbird wrote:
Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say.
Yore speling is astroshus
And pray tell, which institute (if any!) Of education did you attend that gave you any rights to comment on others grammer? O anshant 1...
[quote][p][bold]rojo174[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfflondonbird[/bold] wrote: Bollards to Sainsbury is all I can say.[/p][/quote]Yore speling is astroshus[/p][/quote]And pray tell, which institute (if any!) Of education did you attend that gave you any rights to comment on others grammer? O anshant 1... sarfflondonbird
  • Score: -1

3:18pm Wed 21 May 14

Marty1979 says...

So the post is lower than he could see - so would be a child, who shouldn't be there either........
So the post is lower than he could see - so would be a child, who shouldn't be there either........ Marty1979
  • Score: 11

11:45am Thu 22 May 14

chunkybuster says...

I go in there 2 or 3 times a week. Those posts are dangerous,they are there to close off the car park,after hours,so can the management please take that one out during normal hours please,as you can't see it when you leave. Also I used to do body repairs,I'd get another qoute if i was him!
I go in there 2 or 3 times a week. Those posts are dangerous,they are there to close off the car park,after hours,so can the management please take that one out during normal hours please,as you can't see it when you leave. Also I used to do body repairs,I'd get another qoute if i was him! chunkybuster
  • Score: 13

5:04pm Thu 22 May 14

goldenbroomboy says...

The fact that Sainsbury's have denied liabilty does not mean that a court will not find them liable!

if Colin really does think that he has a case he should sue them through the appropriate County Court, I think it's Dartford in this case. Usually the Judge apportions damages in terms of the percentage of liabilty, whilst Colin is unlikely to receive the full cost of repairs, he may receive a percentage..
The fact that Sainsbury's have denied liabilty does not mean that a court will not find them liable! if Colin really does think that he has a case he should sue them through the appropriate County Court, I think it's Dartford in this case. Usually the Judge apportions damages in terms of the percentage of liabilty, whilst Colin is unlikely to receive the full cost of repairs, he may receive a percentage.. goldenbroomboy
  • Score: 9

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree