PDA

View Full Version : UK - 5,250 compensation for bad dye job....?!



katienoonan
September 18th, 2011, 06:03 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2038104/Nottingham-hair-salon-pays-5k-compensation-customer-left-looking-like-scarecrow.html




A girl here in the UK has just been awarded £5,250 for having her hair ruined by a salon. :bigeyes:




The article states that girl had "luscious brown locks" to begin with and wished to make the switch to platinum blonde. It doesn't state how long her hair was to begin with but in light of the recent thread about a girl in the USA who got $5,000 I think a payout of this size is ridiculous. If you want bleached blonde hair from dark brown your hair will get damaged. Yes, the damage here is excessive, but you are ripping apart your hair chemically.. Why do people think that getting it done at a salon is going to minimise the damage until it is non-existant? :bs:




There are good professionals out there, I know that... but noone is a miracle worker. I think the main negligence was on the part of the trainee in not telling the girl to begin with that to go from Brown to Platinum in one sitting was going to be nearly impossible to do without creating a mess. :shrug:





What does everyone thing? Do you think £5,250 is deserved for 23inches of damaged hair? :undecided:

vanity_acefake
September 18th, 2011, 06:13 AM
The article states that the girl had not dyed her hair before so how the hairdresser managed to screw up so badly on virgin hair is beyond me. I have vast experience bleaching my hair over the years and my virgin roots always turned White blonde, not orange. Either the girl is lying and she had dyed her hair or the hairdresser really didn't have a clue.
Yes the money seems like a lot but I feel it was well deserved. The hairdresser ruined her hair, the salon lied to her and she was obviously traumatised by the experience.

starlamelissa
September 18th, 2011, 06:39 AM
Holy moly that is some bleached out mess! I dunno about a lawsuit, or a 5000 payment, but I would be pleased with a full refund and a stern word with that employee from the owner, if not a firing.

katienoonan
September 18th, 2011, 06:54 AM
The article states that the girl had not dyed her hair before so how the hairdresser managed to screw up so badly on virgin hair is beyond me. I have vast experience bleaching my hair over the years and my virgin roots always turned White blonde, not orange. Either the girl is lying and she had dyed her hair or the hairdresser really didn't have a clue.
Yes the money seems like a lot but I feel it was well deserved. The hairdresser ruined her hair, the salon lied to her and she was obviously traumatised by the experience.

(bold added by me!)

I thought this didn't ring true, I too have bleached my hair... once on virgin hair and once on hair previously dyed red and brown... the first instance my hair turned white and the second my hair turned various shades of orange. Perhaps the first application wasn't left on for long enough and it was at the orangey stage of the bleaching process... if thier is even one...

As for the payout, my main issue is the amount given, and even you said that it seems liek a lot... if this girl was left with patches on her scalp which were irreparable and unable to grow then this would be absolutely justified... but the image of her bad dye job shows hair that appears not to have been conditioned or dried in the most flattering way anyway... and even so, I don't feel 5k is right to be awarded if it would take a year or a little over a year to grow out the majority of damage.





Holy moly that is some bleached out mess! I dunno about a lawsuit, or a 5000 payment, but I would be pleased with a full refund and a stern word with that employee from the owner, if not a firing.

A full refund, a stern word with the employee and possible costs incurred from subsequent deep treatments and a session to amend the damage for the time being. I think even 1,000 would be excessive, in all honesty.

swetiepeti
September 18th, 2011, 06:54 AM
I'd not be please with them simply returning my money. She did everything everyone here suggests. The salon let a trainee bleach her hair not one, but a total of 5 times.
I'm still ticked about 25 years ago when I got talked into a seond perm when the first did not "take". I'd had virgin tailbone hair in great condition and ended up with a short pixie when all was said and done and had to keep cutting until it was all virgin again.... well, the hair that didn't crack and fall off. Took ten years to grow it back. I'd originally simply asked for my money to be refunded but the owner insisted she could easily fix it and my inexperienced self let her. After she ruined my hair she did return my money (they'd charged me triple originally for having long hair), and gave me about $500 worth of salon conditioners but my hair was fried enough that when you touched it, it simply cracked off, same with combing it.

pepperminttea
September 18th, 2011, 07:14 AM
I'm showing my lack of bleaching knowledge here, but I thought the orangey colour was fairly common and that you often have to use toner to get it to the whiter platinum-type colours?

heartgoesboom
September 18th, 2011, 07:32 AM
oh she deserved it... who would bleach someone's hair five times in one day? (it was one day, right?)

florenonite
September 18th, 2011, 07:34 AM
It seems excessive to me, if only because her hair has grown back. It would be different if she needed money for a wig or extensions, because to my understanding that's the point of compensation.

OTOH, she did seem traumatised by the experience, so there should of course be some form of repayment for her experience :shrug:

Syrena
September 18th, 2011, 07:58 AM
Well, I guess she will never bleach her hair again...

julierockhead
September 18th, 2011, 08:14 AM
I am amazed at the controversy over this. If that happened to me, I would consider 5,000 about right for the emotional trauma, the time it would take for my hair to grow back, and the purchase of a good human hair wig and/or extensions while growing.

pink.sara
September 18th, 2011, 08:31 AM
I'm showing my lack of bleaching knowledge here, but I thought the orangey colour was fairly common and that you often have to use toner to get it to the whiter platinum-type colours?

When you bleach brown or darker hair it goes through set stages of lightening brown becomes red - orange - yellow - blonde - ultra pale yellow - White.
Roots will often turn White if bleach is applied on scalp or close because of the extra processing from head heat.
But all brown hair will have to have the pigments lifted in this order, most hair beyond about a medium 7 brown will need toning to reach platinum without being destroyed.

I've bleached my own hair over 10 times in the space of a few weeks but would never go more than twice in a day.

The stylist does seem to be negligent and unskilled but without actual harm to her person I don't feel this amount is justified.
Scalp burns preventing hair regrowth would I feel justify this amount or more but the cost of a wig (couple of hundred pounds) or some decent human hair extensions (200-1000) would have been my max award as a judge.

But also... What kind of salon let's a trainee loose on a bleaching to platinum job? That should be the domain of a colour technician or senior stylist only. :(

pepperminttea
September 18th, 2011, 08:38 AM
Thanks for the clarification pink.sara. :)

julierockhead
September 18th, 2011, 08:47 AM
The stylist does seem to be negligent and unskilled but without actual harm to her person I don't feel this amount is justified.

But also... What kind of salon let's a trainee loose on a bleaching to platinum job? That should be the domain of a colour technician or senior stylist only. :(

It was harm to her person, I think...her hair is part of her. A person's appearance is extremely important, both for self-image and public image.

The only way to get salons and so-called beauty professionals to act professional as a group is to get their legal status changed. As long as people let this stuff happen without punishment, it will continue. There are many people out there doing great, beautiful work, but there are also many loose cannon out there who think nothing of experimenting or learning their craft on the heads of unsuspecting customers.

florenonite
September 19th, 2011, 04:02 AM
I am amazed at the controversy over this. If that happened to me, I would consider 5,000 about right for the emotional trauma, the time it would take for my hair to grow back, and the purchase of a good human hair wig and/or extensions while growing.

Ah, but there's the rub. Her hair had already grown back by the time she got the money. To me that's why it seems maybe too much.

Oh, and for non-UKers, 5250 is approximately $8300 USD, $8100 CAD, or 6000, just to help put the value into perspective.

Alaia
September 19th, 2011, 04:34 AM
The article doesn't mention really whatever traumatising effects she was claiming.

For all we know, losing her hair like that gave her a clinical condition (depression, etc).

The main point to take away from this was that the money was not awarded by a judge. This was what the salon was willing to pay her to keep it out of court.

If it had gone to court, it probably would have been less.

florenonite
September 19th, 2011, 04:52 AM
The article doesn't mention really whatever traumatising effects she was claiming.

For all we know, losing her hair like that gave her a clinical condition (depression, etc).

The main point to take away from this was that the money was not awarded by a judge. This was what the salon was willing to pay her to keep it out of court.

If it had gone to court, it probably would have been less.

Ah, good point about it not being awarded in court.

I didn't think of something like depression or another psychological condition; that may well be a factor.

annieangel149
September 19th, 2011, 08:51 AM
thank god that didn't happen to my god daughter! She came round the other month with her long hair highlighted with little light blonde streaks! It looked good! She told me that she went to the hairdressers and asked for bleached light blonde hair! her natural colour is dark brown! The hairdresser told her that it would not be able to be done well atall because her hair was very dark! but that they could highlight it! Thankyou hairdresser for not trying to bleach my god daughters hair! lol!

Cupofmilk
September 19th, 2011, 09:27 AM
It was harm to her person, I think...her hair is part of her. A person's appearance is extremely important, both for self-image and public image.

The only way to get salons and so-called beauty professionals to act professional as a group is to get their legal status changed. As long as people let this stuff happen without punishment, it will continue. There are many people out there doing great, beautiful work, but there are also many loose cannon out there who think nothing of experimenting or learning their craft on the heads of unsuspecting customers.

I guess this is where some of us differ in mentality. I think she should have received some money - to cover the costs of wigs/ extensions/ treatments etc maybe some hats, scarves or whatever.
I struggle with the concept of paying out for emotional distress in these circumstances. I can see if someone had as a result, soley due to this, developed clinical depression and could not leave the house and lost earnings as a result - that could be compensated.
But lots of things happen to us in life which make us feel down and bad about ourselves which our outside of our control or someone else's fault. Yet we don't sue for hurt feelings and worse. I had a car accident totally 100% someone else's fault they "pulled out without looking" and settled that way. I was mildly injured but it caused me extreme distress as my son was in hospital having an operation at 3 months old and 7lbs. This set off a chain of events leaving me struggling to leave my own house.
Did I sue for damages or claim compensation for the injury or distress. No. why? I don't want to be a part of the "blame and claim" culture. I am not saying I am right - just this is another angle. I was brought up this way and I guess it stuck.

swetiepeti
September 19th, 2011, 10:47 AM
If the stylist had acted as any reasonable hair stylist would do, and the girls hair had been damaged I would have a different opinon. However, I'd be willing to bet that some form of standards of care were incorporated in the trainee's learning, but were ignored. The trainee's actions would be negligent at best, perhaps even gross negligence. The same could be argued about the salon. They hired a trainee and did not bother to adequately supervise her, nor check to see if she was insured, nore even stop her on times 3, 4 and 5 of bleaching. The girl with the ruined hair might have been clueless, but I'm sure that any professional stylist would have known it was wrong and would never have done such to thier own customer.

swetiepeti
September 19th, 2011, 10:51 AM
So the longer it takes you to actually collect what should be yours the less you should collect?

>>>Ah, but there's the rub. Her hair had already grown back by the time she got the money. To me that's why it seems maybe too much.

florenonite
September 19th, 2011, 11:01 AM
So the longer it takes you to actually collect what should be yours the less you should collect?

>>>Ah, but there's the rub. Her hair had already grown back by the time she got the money. To me that's why it seems maybe too much.

You're taking my comment out of context. The poster to whom I was replying said that the money should take into account the cost of wigs or extensions while she grows her hair out. Her hair is past shoulder-length (and the article said it has 'grown back', so I would presume that's the length it was originally, or close to it), and she therefore has no need of a wig or extensions to regain the hair she had. The money for the wig/extensions is not money that 'should be hers' if she did not buy a wig or extensions and has no need of them now.

I never said that "the longer it takes you to actually collect what should be yours the less you should collect" because, frankly, that's ridiculous. I just said that I don't think you can argue it's money to pay for a wig or extensions when she clearly has no need of either. Now if she had said she had poured her savings into a quality wig while she was growing out then she should be reimbursed for that. However, the article says she wore a hat, and I'm willing to bet that didn't cost thousands of pounds.

pepperminttea
September 19th, 2011, 11:06 AM
I don't want to be a part of the "blame and claim" culture. I am not saying I am right - just this is another angle. I was brought up this way and I guess it stuck.

1. :grouphug:
2. This is what caught me off guard me about this - that it happened in the UK. A pay out for this in the USA wouldn't surprise me, but here, it seems a little... frivolous. I'm not saying the hairdressers shouldn't have paid out, and goodness knows using a trainee for that kind of job was short-sighted at best, but I'm a little shocked that someone would even take legal action over it here. :shrug: It's just not the 'done thing' - who knows Cupofmilk, maybe we were just brought up in a similar way. :)

swetiepeti
September 19th, 2011, 11:23 AM
A hat may have been all she could afford or tolorate wearing. Wigs can be very hot, and very miserable to wear. It's one of the reasons many chemotherapy patients opt not to wear wigs even though they have no hair. Extensions... well what was she going to hook them onto without further damage to her hair? I also wonder if her hair would have even held extensions.
I know that mine looked better than hers after my disaster perm, and yet mine literally looked and felt like straw. It cracked when I tried to comb it out and I spent hours and hours trying to repair at least the top part of my hair. Extensions would have just made my hair crack and fall off faster and there would be no way to match them to her straw textured hair. They apparantly burned her scalp. I'm betting that hurt quite a bit.
But even so, she lost a great deal of time, money and effort literally down the drain when the trainee ruined her hair. The question you should be asking is how much money would someone have to pay you to cut off your hair to a short pixie or to purposely ruin your hair like hers. Because that's then what it's worth to you. This was not an accident, this was negligence. Gross negligence at that most likely

Quote:
Originally Posted by swetiepeti
So the longer it takes you to actually collect what should be yours the less you should collect?

>>>Ah, but there's the rub. Her hair had already grown back by the time she got the money. To me that's why it seems maybe too much.

You're taking my comment out of context. The poster to whom I was replying said that the money should take into account the cost of wigs or extensions while she grows her hair out. Her hair is past shoulder-length (and the article said it has 'grown back', so I would presume that's the length it was originally, or close to it), and she therefore has no need of a wig or extensions to regain the hair she had. The money for the wig/extensions is not money that 'should be hers' if she did not buy a wig or extensions and has no need of them now.

I never said that "the longer it takes you to actually collect what should be yours the less you should collect" because, frankly, that's ridiculous. I just said that I don't think you can argue it's money to pay for a wig or extensions when she clearly has no need of either. Now if she had said she had poured her savings into a quality wig while she was growing out then she should be reimbursed for that. However, the article says she wore a hat, and I'm willing to bet that didn't cost thousands of pounds.
__________________

florenonite
September 19th, 2011, 11:31 AM
A hat may have been all she could afford or tolorate wearing. Wigs can be very hot, and very miserable to wear. It's one of the reasons many chemotherapy patients opt not to wear wigs even though they have no hair. Extensions... well what was she going to hook them onto without further damage to her hair? I also wonder if her hair would have even held extensions.
I know that mine looked better than hers after my disaster perm, and yet mine literally looked and felt like straw. It cracked when I tried to comb it out and I spent hours and hours trying to repair at least the top part of my hair. Extensions would have just made my hair crack and fall off faster and there would be no way to match them to her straw textured hair. They apparantly burned her scalp. I'm betting that hurt quite a bit.
But even so, she lost a great deal of time, money and effort literally down the drain when the trainee ruined her hair. The question you should be asking is how much money would someone have to pay you to cut off your hair to a short pixie or to purposely ruin your hair like hers. Because that's then what it's worth to you. This was not an accident, this was negligence. Gross negligence at that most likely

It doesn't matter why she didn't wear a wig or extensions, the point is that she didn't and should therefore not be reimbursed for them. Thus when discussing the value she received, it is irrelevant to mention the cost of a quality wig or extensions as something that might have been considered. That is my point. I mentioned it because I thought the previous poster might have skimmed the article and not noticed the bit that said her hair had grown back. In this context, it doesn't matter how much she spent at the salon, or how much emotional distress she experienced, or any of the other factors, I was merely commenting that I don't think the expense of wigs or extensions is relevant because, as far as we know, she did not buy them at the time, and has no need of them now.

Juneii
September 19th, 2011, 11:50 AM
Geez, I understand emotional trauma but money doesn't make it better no matter the amount. Honestly I don't think it looks that terrible. Maybe money to deep condition it, re color and whatnot is enough in my opinion.

on a totally different topic, I am in love with the white dress she has on in the second picture!

Cupofmilk
September 19th, 2011, 11:50 AM
1. :grouphug:
2. This is what caught me off guard me about this - that it happened in the UK. A pay out for this in the USA wouldn't surprise me, but here, it seems a little... frivolous. I'm not saying the hairdressers shouldn't have paid out, and goodness knows using a trainee for that kind of job was short-sighted at best, but I'm a little shocked that someone would even take legal action over it here. :shrug: It's just not the 'done thing' - who knows Cupofmilk, maybe we were just brought up in a similar way. :)

Thank you .

And yes we must have been brought up in a similar way. As I said before It doesn't mean it's right not to claim and wrong to claim or vice versa - there are just so many ways of viewing these things.

gretchen_hair
September 19th, 2011, 12:05 PM
I think that salons and stylists need to be very clear in warning someone when they want to do a procedure that will likely fry their hair beyond repair. Sometimes unscrupulous people (not just stylists, sales people in general) will do anything, sell anything, perform any procedure, for a buck.

It is about time that people pay for the botch jobs and mistakes that they do to others. Many people are clueless and ignorant about the damage and harm that chemicals can do and are completely clueless that certain procedures will cause irreparable damages.

If I go somewhere and want a procedure that will most likely cause harm and I am not aware and no one alerts me and causes horrible damages, I will seek out compensation for the damages they caused. If they alert me and I am *fully* aware of what may and what will most likely happen, and I sign a paper stating that I won't sue, and these damages happen....it's my own fault.

Of course, other than the occasional trim from a trusted stylist that I have known for years, I do not trust anyone to do anything to my hair. Plain and simple, I am too chicken to mess up my hair after years of growing and caring for it.

I do think that 1) consumers need to be made very fully aware of the damages that will possibly occur and if they take that chance it is on them to suffer the outcome. 2) salons need to be more vigilant and make sure the customer knows what will probably happen and get a waiver signed. 3) people everywhere need to be more responsible for the things they do to consumers and be held accountable for their actions and mistakes.

It is easy to sit here and tsk tsk tsk and call the person who sued a greedy money grubbing skinflint, (my words, no one elses) but, until it happens to you, you can't say with certainty that the compensation for the damage was too much.

I am glad to see that people are being made to pay for their mistakes. I see actors and actresses on tv who have had obvious face lifts/ plastic surgery and they look odd. I think to myself, *why would they do that to themselves*? (not meaning they did it, bu they had it done and it is botched and now they are stuck with it, looking horrible and worse than any act of natural aging) It boggles my mind. In the end it comes down to the perception of beauty, in the long run that quest for beauty ends up being a disaster beyond repair. It's sad.

Cania
September 19th, 2011, 12:49 PM
I can't help but think that as someone who claims to have spent so much time and money on her hair she should have known not to let her hairdresser bleach it 5 times in a row. She said she'd done lots of research when picking a stylist, but she didn't bother reading about the procedure? Hmmm.

I'm not saying that the salon didn't seriously mess up, but something seems funny to me.