CRA 2015 - consequential loss for non-delivery of goods?
Discussion
I'm currently laid up feeling grotty and dazed with a case of ophthalmic shingles so apologies if this doesn't read well.
The question
Does the CRA 2015 make any provision for consequential losses due to a supplier of goods messing up? I've tried reading the legislation but in my groggy state I'm really struggling to understand and I really haven't a clue if it does or it doesn't.
The problem
A few weeks ago I ordered one car battery charger and some "fit and forget" cables to attach to my cars, online, from a national retailer to keep my batteries topped up during the COVID lockdown. They sent an envelope containing just an extension cable (NB not one of the "fit and forget" cables) a few days before the delivery date, so I thought there would be a second delivery with the rest coming from a different warehouse.
After the delivery date passed, still no charger. So, I got in touch and their system claims that the parcel I received with just the extension cable contained the whole order. After filling out a "goods not received" form and having several exchanges they have agreed to send my order (although they haven't explicitly accepted that they never dispatched it).
As of today, still no charger, still no cables, still no dispatch e-mail. The charger is a well-known brand, it's a middle-of-the-range standard model, nothing esoteric or special-order.
My consequential loss
To try and mitigate the lack of battery charger, yesterday I fired up my car and left it idling for 15 minutes. When I fired the car up it displayed the "Battery protection. Convenience functions temporary unavailable" message that comes up when the battery voltage is too low (whether due to deep discharge or battery getting old). As the battery is only 2 or 3 years old, the alternator is healthy and the car never gets used for journeys shorter than 30 minutes, on balance I'd say the battery is deep-discharged due to lack of use and whilst not useless, I doubt will get to 5 years in a satisfactory state.
The supplier sells batteries and it would cost a little over £200 to replace the main battery and an unknown amount to replace the aux battery... So let's say £300 total for both batteries to be fitted. If I've only got 2 or 3 years out of an expected 5 year life of the batteries the consequential loss would be pro-rated to £120 or £180.
I paid £110 for the charger and cables.
The question
Does the CRA 2015 make any provision for consequential losses due to a supplier of goods messing up? I've tried reading the legislation but in my groggy state I'm really struggling to understand and I really haven't a clue if it does or it doesn't.
The problem
A few weeks ago I ordered one car battery charger and some "fit and forget" cables to attach to my cars, online, from a national retailer to keep my batteries topped up during the COVID lockdown. They sent an envelope containing just an extension cable (NB not one of the "fit and forget" cables) a few days before the delivery date, so I thought there would be a second delivery with the rest coming from a different warehouse.
After the delivery date passed, still no charger. So, I got in touch and their system claims that the parcel I received with just the extension cable contained the whole order. After filling out a "goods not received" form and having several exchanges they have agreed to send my order (although they haven't explicitly accepted that they never dispatched it).
As of today, still no charger, still no cables, still no dispatch e-mail. The charger is a well-known brand, it's a middle-of-the-range standard model, nothing esoteric or special-order.
My consequential loss
To try and mitigate the lack of battery charger, yesterday I fired up my car and left it idling for 15 minutes. When I fired the car up it displayed the "Battery protection. Convenience functions temporary unavailable" message that comes up when the battery voltage is too low (whether due to deep discharge or battery getting old). As the battery is only 2 or 3 years old, the alternator is healthy and the car never gets used for journeys shorter than 30 minutes, on balance I'd say the battery is deep-discharged due to lack of use and whilst not useless, I doubt will get to 5 years in a satisfactory state.
The supplier sells batteries and it would cost a little over £200 to replace the main battery and an unknown amount to replace the aux battery... So let's say £300 total for both batteries to be fitted. If I've only got 2 or 3 years out of an expected 5 year life of the batteries the consequential loss would be pro-rated to £120 or £180.
I paid £110 for the charger and cables.
Drumroll said:
Sorry but I feel you are being unreasonable to even think you are entitled to something.
You have no idea how long the batteries will last, with or without your "issues".
I didn't say I was entitled to anything, I'm trying to understand what provision CRA 2015 has where there is consequential loss due to the action/lack of action of a seller.You have no idea how long the batteries will last, with or without your "issues".
If you understand CRA 2015, I would be interested to hear what your view is on whether it has any provisions for consequential loss.
Consequential losses are usually straightforward contract law. Their online T&Cs will probably have something covering this and giving them an out, it wouldn't allow them to avoid negligence or any statutory terms. There is a contract, there is a breach, there may be damages if you could prove them.
However, consequential losses, that are not obvious, are much harder and usually covered in T&Cs. They will likely say, for them to be liable you would need to make them aware and for them to agree.
So had you said "I need this by Friday or my battery will fail" and they said "No problem, we can do that" then you might have somewhere to go. As it stands, you might have a better chance of some goodwill if you raise a complaint.
However, consequential losses, that are not obvious, are much harder and usually covered in T&Cs. They will likely say, for them to be liable you would need to make them aware and for them to agree.
So had you said "I need this by Friday or my battery will fail" and they said "No problem, we can do that" then you might have somewhere to go. As it stands, you might have a better chance of some goodwill if you raise a complaint.
donkmeister said:
The question
Does the CRA 2015 make any provision for consequential losses due to a supplier of goods messing up? I've tried reading the legislation but in my groggy state I'm really struggling to understand and I really haven't a clue if it does or it doesn't.
I can find nothing in that Act which deals with it.Does the CRA 2015 make any provision for consequential losses due to a supplier of goods messing up? I've tried reading the legislation but in my groggy state I'm really struggling to understand and I really haven't a clue if it does or it doesn't.
Have a look at pp 23-25 here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
And Annexe A here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
You need to know what the supplier's contract T&Cs say. In any event, a key point in any dispute will be whether such losses are reasonably foreseeable. That may be where you might come unstuck.
More importantly though, you have yet to show that you have incurred any actual loss. Merely that one might accrue at some point in the future and I don't think that will suffice.
Thanks all, so the conclusion is no.
I'm not ordinarily a compo-face type, but having been given the runaround for nearly a month I was getting peeved, especially as I made the decision to order it from them rather than for the same price from a popular South American rainforest-themed retailer/tax-dodger.
Outcome was that one of their reps got in touch, apologised for the balls-up and offered to upgrade me to the next model up, I've taken that offer.
So all sorted now, hopefully battery life not impacted too much.
I'm not ordinarily a compo-face type, but having been given the runaround for nearly a month I was getting peeved, especially as I made the decision to order it from them rather than for the same price from a popular South American rainforest-themed retailer/tax-dodger.
Outcome was that one of their reps got in touch, apologised for the balls-up and offered to upgrade me to the next model up, I've taken that offer.
So all sorted now, hopefully battery life not impacted too much.
Marcellus said:
Unless you specified at the time of ordering that "time was of the essence" they may not even be in breach of contract.
If no specific time is set then they have a "reasonable time to deliver", in these times how long would people think was reasonable?
Thinking is not required. In the latter case the maximum permissible time frame for delivery is stated in the legislation. If no specific time is set then they have a "reasonable time to deliver", in these times how long would people think was reasonable?
See CRA 2015 Section 28(3) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/sectio...
You could presumably have used the car, or at least left it idling, more often to avoid this problem entirely, couldn’t you? If you had used it more often wouldn’t it have ceased to be a problem?
Not trying to be snippy but claiming “lack of use” caused these issues when you’re the only person in the contract that *could* use it, and chose not to (sufficiently), seems rather counter intuitive?
Not trying to be snippy but claiming “lack of use” caused these issues when you’re the only person in the contract that *could* use it, and chose not to (sufficiently), seems rather counter intuitive?
Red Devil said:
Marcellus said:
Unless you specified at the time of ordering that "time was of the essence" they may not even be in breach of contract.
If no specific time is set then they have a "reasonable time to deliver", in these times how long would people think was reasonable?
Thinking is not required. In the latter case the maximum permissible time frame for delivery is stated in the legislation. If no specific time is set then they have a "reasonable time to deliver", in these times how long would people think was reasonable?
See CRA 2015 Section 28(3) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/sectio...
OP, you have no claim. Please try not to join in the horrid compo culture mindset. I know that some lawyers are partly to blame for that mindset, but there's a chicken and eqq question as to what drives the urge to see everything exigency of life as being something that should give rise to a claim for compensation.
IAAL, IANYL.
IAAL, IANYL.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff