Who should cover cost of repair?
Discussion
A piece of equipment I use for work had a part malfunction a couple of weeks ago.
Sent off to manufacturer to replace the part.
Equipment returned nearly 2 weeks later and new part is not quite working right so I sent it back to be sorted. Problem sorted and equipment delivered back to me.
On arrival its found the equipment now has a new, unrelated problem (a piece inside broken) meaning it cannot function at all.
I personally took it straight back to manufacturer to diagnose. They can fix it but its going to cost ME nearly £5k for the part and labour.
I feel a bit miffed about having to cough up £5k for a problem that I have not caused.
The unit was working fine when it last left the manufacturer but broken on arrival to me.
Surely this should be a case of manufacturer claim costs from the courier they employed and I don't pay anything?
I'm desperate for the equipment back but the manufacturer won't release it until I give them a Purchase Order for full payment.
In my mind I'm likening this to my car being collected for a service, and coming back with the front smashed in but I'm expected to pay for the repair? This can't be right?
Sent off to manufacturer to replace the part.
Equipment returned nearly 2 weeks later and new part is not quite working right so I sent it back to be sorted. Problem sorted and equipment delivered back to me.
On arrival its found the equipment now has a new, unrelated problem (a piece inside broken) meaning it cannot function at all.
I personally took it straight back to manufacturer to diagnose. They can fix it but its going to cost ME nearly £5k for the part and labour.
I feel a bit miffed about having to cough up £5k for a problem that I have not caused.
The unit was working fine when it last left the manufacturer but broken on arrival to me.
Surely this should be a case of manufacturer claim costs from the courier they employed and I don't pay anything?
I'm desperate for the equipment back but the manufacturer won't release it until I give them a Purchase Order for full payment.
In my mind I'm likening this to my car being collected for a service, and coming back with the front smashed in but I'm expected to pay for the repair? This can't be right?
I had similar with a car - but was able to clearly prove that the damage was not done before the car arrived at the garage - supported by the AA.
Your issue here may be ability to prove whether or not damage was done prior to sending in...
If the manufacturer was sending it back as working, and it arrived at your not working, then indeed the courier may be liable - and that will presumably be down to the manufacturer to sort out... you simply need to show (e.g. in court) that the manufacturer was sending it back to you as working, so the fault must have occurred in transit - if they argue against this (implying that the fault was there previously) then your line of attack is around the fact that they wouldn't have sent it back not working etc.
Your issue here may be ability to prove whether or not damage was done prior to sending in...
If the manufacturer was sending it back as working, and it arrived at your not working, then indeed the courier may be liable - and that will presumably be down to the manufacturer to sort out... you simply need to show (e.g. in court) that the manufacturer was sending it back to you as working, so the fault must have occurred in transit - if they argue against this (implying that the fault was there previously) then your line of attack is around the fact that they wouldn't have sent it back not working etc.
It doesn't matter who damaged it as long as it wasn't you and it wasn't your courier.
So whose courier was it?
As long as it wasn't yours and it arrived damaged it doesn't matter if it was damaged by asylum seekers in the back of lorry or the driver or the person who wrapped it.
I expect the firm who repaired it have goods in transit insurance, if they don't then I expect they will get after they've had to pay your claim.
So whose courier was it?
As long as it wasn't yours and it arrived damaged it doesn't matter if it was damaged by asylum seekers in the back of lorry or the driver or the person who wrapped it.
I expect the firm who repaired it have goods in transit insurance, if they don't then I expect they will get after they've had to pay your claim.
Is the item a Japanese fusion splicer ?.. We had a similar tale of woe, but the manufacturers repair agent took on the repair, mainly as in the points made by the poster above. They undertook to repair and return. On return it was broken due to rough handling. Their liability overall.
Just to update this is the reply I got when I asked about claiming from the courier
"Hi, Will
XXXX has spoken to me with regards your instrument. I can understand your frustration as it is not a cheap repair, however knowing how courier companies work it would be futile to try and make a claim, the reason being is that there is no proof that the shipment caused the problem. I presume when you received the instrument back, there was no damage to the packaging, this would be the first thing the courier company would ask for evidence of, the next thing would be evidence that the instrument is damaged and again, visual inspection of the instrument again shows no sign of damage.
I really apologise for the issues you have had and the cost it has incurred, but I do not think either of us would get anything out of trying to make a claim from the courier company, as far as I am aware there is no evidence that the courier mishandled the package, even if he did, unless you tell me differently."
So would I be right in thinking if they can't be arsed chasing the courier for it then they should have some insurance in place and a duty of care to return the instrument to me in working order so they should cover the cost of repair?
"Hi, Will
XXXX has spoken to me with regards your instrument. I can understand your frustration as it is not a cheap repair, however knowing how courier companies work it would be futile to try and make a claim, the reason being is that there is no proof that the shipment caused the problem. I presume when you received the instrument back, there was no damage to the packaging, this would be the first thing the courier company would ask for evidence of, the next thing would be evidence that the instrument is damaged and again, visual inspection of the instrument again shows no sign of damage.
I really apologise for the issues you have had and the cost it has incurred, but I do not think either of us would get anything out of trying to make a claim from the courier company, as far as I am aware there is no evidence that the courier mishandled the package, even if he did, unless you tell me differently."
So would I be right in thinking if they can't be arsed chasing the courier for it then they should have some insurance in place and a duty of care to return the instrument to me in working order so they should cover the cost of repair?
RB Will said:
So would I be right in thinking if they can't be arsed chasing the courier for it then they should have some insurance in place and a duty of care to return the instrument to me in working order so they should cover the cost of repair?
Yes you would be right to so think. If they undertook to send it back to you and the courier was their agent then it's their responsibility and it's up to them to claim on their goods in transit insurance. It is highly likely that the courier will have terms and conditions that firstly exclude certain delicate or scientific instruments and secondly limit the value to a few hundred quid. I honestly think that is a dead end.
I'd be shocked that a company that is regularly sending out such expensive equipment did not have Goods in Transit insurance. Perhaps a bit shortsighted if they haven't. Maybe they have it but are trying to avoid submitting a claim on their record. I'm sure someone will give you the legal position but I'd have thought that it is in their custody and control until it is returned to you so I'd have thought it is their problem. It may well have records calibrating it at their facility but that doesn't mean to say the ape in the packing department didn't drop it before putting it in a box.
I think for £5k you might need to get a professional opinion on who if anyone could be held liable. Maybe the best solution for both parties is that the repairer tells you the trade cost of the part he replaces it free and you go halves on it??
I'd be shocked that a company that is regularly sending out such expensive equipment did not have Goods in Transit insurance. Perhaps a bit shortsighted if they haven't. Maybe they have it but are trying to avoid submitting a claim on their record. I'm sure someone will give you the legal position but I'd have thought that it is in their custody and control until it is returned to you so I'd have thought it is their problem. It may well have records calibrating it at their facility but that doesn't mean to say the ape in the packing department didn't drop it before putting it in a box.
I think for £5k you might need to get a professional opinion on who if anyone could be held liable. Maybe the best solution for both parties is that the repairer tells you the trade cost of the part he replaces it free and you go halves on it??
Just been and picked it up myself.
Seems people at their end are getting ideas mixed. The MD is sticking to the Its broken and nobody can prove anything while the engineer that fixed it is saying its a part that can wear with age that just happened to fail while not being used.
They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
I have the box it was shipped to me in and its pretty abused and has a hole in one end from a heavy impact. The only indication of contents being fragile is a 0.5 x 2 inch sticker, part hidden under the tape sealing the lid. The whole box is about 2ft X 1ft x 1ft.
Seems people at their end are getting ideas mixed. The MD is sticking to the Its broken and nobody can prove anything while the engineer that fixed it is saying its a part that can wear with age that just happened to fail while not being used.
They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
I have the box it was shipped to me in and its pretty abused and has a hole in one end from a heavy impact. The only indication of contents being fragile is a 0.5 x 2 inch sticker, part hidden under the tape sealing the lid. The whole box is about 2ft X 1ft x 1ft.
RB Will said:
Just been and picked it up myself.
Seems people at their end are getting ideas mixed. The MD is sticking to the Its broken and nobody can prove anything while the engineer that fixed it is saying its a part that can wear with age that just happened to fail while not being used.
They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
I have the box it was shipped to me in and its pretty abused and has a hole in one end from a heavy impact. The only indication of contents being fragile is a 0.5 x 2 inch sticker, part hidden under the tape sealing the lid. The whole box is about 2ft X 1ft x 1ft.
I can't give you much advice but make sure you take some photos of the box for evidence before you lose it or it gets old. Totally different end of the scale but I had a £75 blind delivered by UPS, box was a little beat up and the blind inside had buckled/twisted and wouldn't hang on the wall. The first stuff they wanted from me was photographic evidence of damage and photos of packaging. Seems people at their end are getting ideas mixed. The MD is sticking to the Its broken and nobody can prove anything while the engineer that fixed it is saying its a part that can wear with age that just happened to fail while not being used.
They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
I have the box it was shipped to me in and its pretty abused and has a hole in one end from a heavy impact. The only indication of contents being fragile is a 0.5 x 2 inch sticker, part hidden under the tape sealing the lid. The whole box is about 2ft X 1ft x 1ft.
RB Will said:
Seems people at their end are getting ideas mixed. The MD is sticking to the Its broken and nobody can prove anything while the engineer that fixed it is saying its a part that can wear with age that just happened to fail while not being used.
They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
I was waiting to see if this would come up. If a component has simply failed whilst the equipment was in their custody, that isn't their fault or the fault of the courier.They have previously told us that it is an extremely rare part to fail.
Not saying that this is what has happened but it is what they are likely to use as a response to any legal action.
You would need to demonstrate that the courier had caused the damage by handling the package in a way that was below the standard expected, this may be tricky even with the damage to the box if it wasn't marked VERY clearly as fragile; you could try chasing the repairer on the basis that they had packaged or marked it poorly but either way you would still have to show that the damage was caused rather than just being a failure that was waiting to happen.
Steve H said:
You would need to demonstrate that the courier had caused the damage by handling the package in a way that was below the standard expected, this may be tricky even with the damage to the box if it wasn't marked VERY clearly as fragile; you could try chasing the repairer on the basis that they had packaged or marked it poorly but either way you would still have to show that the damage was caused rather than just being a failure that was waiting to happen.
Are you addressing that to the OP? It needs to be addressed to the person whose agent the courier is. And as the repairers are claiming that the new fault is because of a failed part, it's all irrelevant anyway.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff