Damage during removal

[Skeptisk]

We recently moved. It went well but when everything was unpacked we noticed that our dining room table had been damaged.

We didn’t take out the (very expensive) insurance offered by the remover.

They are saying that their terms and conditions exclude responsibility for damage. Does anyone know whether such terms are legally enforceable? Are they really able to exclude liability for the quality of their work (given that safely moving your goods is what you are paying for)?

[anonymous-user]

It depends. A blanket exclusion might be seen as an unfair contract term.

A quick glance at Pickfords T&C's says they don't exclude liability. They do try and limit the cost to £40 per item and offer a higher rate if you're willing to pay more.

[geeks]

Bad review is the easiest way to get what you are after. We had a different issue when we moved, we were promised an 18t lorry what turned up on the day were 2 3.5t luton boxes that were not big enough for the task, they eventually sent a 7.5t vehicle out with some extra bodies but the stress and ballache was not inconsiderate, having got nowhere complaining on the phone I left a very factual review on Trustpilot, they couldn't give me a partial refund quick enough after that. Not naming names but they have already been mentioned in this thread

[Glassman]

geeks said:

Bad review is the easiest way to get what you are after. We had a different issue when we moved, we were promised an 18t lorry what turned up on the day were 2 3.5t luton boxes that were not big enough for the task, they eventually sent a 7.5t vehicle out with some extra bodies but the stress and ballache was not inconsiderate, having got nowhere complaining on the phone I left a very factual review on Trustpilot, they couldn't give me a partial refund quick enough after that. Not naming names but they have already been mentioned in this thread

This does seem to be the way to get those who under perform or under deliver to pay attention. If, after trying by email/letter/telephone a resolution cannot be reached, it is somewhat justified to take it to social media which a lot of firms will find potentially damaging to their reputation. That said, some people do hold firms to ransom without trying to resolve matters by being reasonable. It sometimes smacks of if you don't get what you want, throw a tantrum like a kid in a supermarket who has just been told no.

[swisstoni]

Citizens Advice is always a good place to start, where free impartial help on Consumers Rights are concerned.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

You paid a removal company to move your chattels and didn't insure, and now you want a payout?

Ok.

[anonymous-user]

Skeptisk said:

We didn’t take out the insurance offered by the remover.

You took a chance, it didn't pay off. Move on.

[No ideas for a name]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

You paid a removal company to move your chattels and didn't insure, and now you want a payout?

Ok.

Surely insuring againt the loss just makes the claim easier. It doesn't mean that, if the removers were negligent, that you can't claim off them.
However, the removers will try to use this to wiggle out of the liability.

With an insurer, it would be a simple claim against the insurer.
Without, a far more difficult claim against the mover - who will no doubt blank you. You then have to enforce that damage payment somehow - which might not be easy.

[CanAm]

Skeptisk said:

We recently moved. It went well but when everything was unpacked we noticed that our dining room table had been damaged.

We didn’t take out the (very expensive) insurance offered by the remover.

They are saying that their terms and conditions exclude responsibility for damage. Does anyone know whether such terms are legally enforceable? Are they really able to exclude liability for the quality of their work (given that safely moving your goods is what you are paying for)?

As your profile mentions Denmark, are we talking about a British remover here? If so I would imagine the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is your friend. Refer your problem to the CAB.

[Glassman]

Take out our insurance and nothing gets damaged. Decline? Don't say we didn't offer.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

There is no obligation to take the removers insurance. There are other options available.

[Skeptisk]

Chris Peacock said:

Skeptisk said:

We didn’t take out the insurance offered by the remover.

You took a chance, it didn't pay off. Move on.

I took a chance that the van was involved in an accident or was set on fire. Those are risks outside the control of the remover. Why should I pay for insurance for them to do their job? When you give your car in for a service do you take out insurance to cover the risk they damage your car doing the work?

[otolith]

I would, as a general principle, expect a service which handles other people's valuables and carries a risk of damaging them to insure itself against the consequences - not to expect the customer to insure against their incompetence.

[Skeptisk]

CanAm said:

As your profile mentions Denmark, are we talking about a British remover here? If so I would imagine the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is your friend. Refer your problem to the CAB.

Thanks. I have sent an equity to my local CAB

[BertBert]

otolith said:

I would, as a general principle, expect a service which handles other people's valuables and carries a risk of damaging them to insure itself against the consequences - not to expect the customer to insure against their incompetence.

They may well have insurance against successful customer claims. Doesn't mean that they won't have a contractual clause saying they are not liable for their damage to transported goods. That might be a requirement of their insurance.

If there is damage caused by their negligence then you'd likely be able to hold them liable, bit might have to go to court (small claims?) to do it.

[otolith]

Moral is to read the fine print.

[XCP]

We had water damage to an expensive sideboard during storage/removal.

Had a lot of faff, including getting a furniture restorer to confirm it was water damage.

Paid up in the end, and I managed to get rid of the damage myself. Had to deal with the removal firm's insurers direct. They just refer all enquiries to them.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

otolith said:

I would, as a general principle, expect a service which handles other people's valuables and carries a risk of damaging them to insure itself against the consequences - not to expect the customer to insure against their incompetence.

Then you'll be very shocked at, for example, the road haulage industry.

Most goods are moved under miniscule recompense terms, it is expected that the customer (generally) sorts their own insurance.

I'm guessing removal firms are the same. Move under RHA terms or take the upgrade or insure yourself.

[otolith]

That seems more reasonable in a business-to-business context than a business-to-consumer one.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

otolith said:

That seems more reasonable in a business-to-business context than a business-to-consumer one.

I don't think it's reasonable in any context to be honest. In my 20 years in the freight & general trucking business I never got over how poor the ethic is.

But, as OP said, there was the offer to do the "upgrade".