Removals company ripped my kitchen floor!

g0wfv · 1 September 2015 at 8:57PM

Ladies and gents,

I normally hover around another forum, so I am not so up-to-speed on consumer rights!

The facts ..

Whilst moving my fridge freezer into position in a new build property, the removals men created 2 rips in the vinyl flooring.

I have complained to the company as per their Ts&Cs (link). I brought it to the attention of their personnel on the day, completed their damages paperwork and following up by both phone and email (which they obviously accept as 'in writing' by the wording of their Ts&Cs) within 7 days.

The company have offered me £50 as I did not take out extra insurances for Regular Liability. This to me seems to be a value applied via 'Restricted Liability' covered in Clause 9 which I am arguing does not apply as the flooring is part of the premises covered under Clause 11 which applies whether or not I took out the extra insurances.

Whilst I initially accepted the offer of £50 (under the stresses of the move, I couldn't be bothered with the arguement) I have now had time to read their Ts&Cs in more depth and informed them I now decline that offer and their offer to repair the rips and would like the flooring replaced like-for-like at their expense which they are refusing.

Any ideas where I stand?

daytona0 · 1 September 2015 at 9:15PM

I now decline that offer and their offer to repair the rips

Wait, did they offer to fix the rips AND give you £50?!

Why have you declined that offer? Good offer there!

Also, I'm a bit skeptical about your interpretation of section 11. To me it says that you are only covered for damage to premises where they are negligent (and where you inform them in writing). The clause 9.3 is also interesting, as it suggests a relationship between those set out in section 9 (titled "Our Liability for loss or damage" which defines your problem) and section 11. In a nutshell, I am struggling to see how you can interpret section 11 as implying that section 9 does not apply, and to what level you are owed reimbursement above what has been offered.

dacouch · 1 September 2015 at 9:23PM

They define "Goods" as being "The goods being moved or stored"

Section 9 is solely referring to "Goods" eg what they moved house for you and any requirement for you to inform them of increased values relates solely to "Goods" eg what they moved.

They obviously would not want you to inform them of the value of the structure of the home or the fittings of the home.

Refer then to Section 11 which describes damages to "Premises".

They're just trying to fob you off.

Speak to them politely. If that does not work, try the National Guild Removers who they appear to be members of and if that does not work the Ombudsman.

I suspect that if you're polite and they realise they cannot confuse you with small print that they'll pay up.

g0wfv · 1 September 2015 at 9:46PM

Thanks for the reply Daytona.

No, they've offered to fix the rips OR give me £50.

My clause 11 negligence interpretation is just as you say - they were getting tired and 'snippy' at the end of the day, and accidentally ripped the floor whilst moving the fridge/freezer, therefore negligence on their part (granted, not wilfully!) so I told them so verbally and in writing.

Clause 9.3 relates to other exclusions set out elsewhere in the document. I'm reading that as unless another clause excludes the goods that clauses 9.1 or 9.2 deal with, then clauses 9.1 or 9.2 no longer apply.

Clause 11 deals with damage to premises, which I interpret as not the goods I contracted the company to move, and part of my house which my flooring is.

As for the level of reimbursement, clause 11 is mute on the level so as the house is new-build the flooring is (or was) brand new - I expect them (quite reasonably IMHO) to replace it like-for-like, ie another brand new floor (for the record, valued at £270 supplied and fitted).

beeg0d · 1 September 2015 at 9:56PM

How big is the kitchen? Though not directly related to the issue it could give the removals company an "out" in case of a neglance claim.

A ripped vinyl suggests permitor fix only (vinyl stuck round the edges only) any area over 12 square meters should bee all over stuck with a suitable non-plastasizing glue (F44/F46). Not complying with this would leave the vinyl highly suspetable to ripping.SO any neglance would be on the side of the floor layer/ person comissioning the floor and NOT on the removals people.

g0wfv · 1 September 2015 at 10:28PM

Under 12m²!

mattyprice4004 · 2 September 2015 at 3:54PM

You're not necessarily entitled to a brand new vinyl floor - if yours wasn't brand new when damaged, this would be betterment.
If it's more than say a year old, they'd be allowed to reduce the amount paid as it's part-way through its expected lifespan.

Shelldean · 2 September 2015 at 4:08PM

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

You're not necessarily entitled to a brand new vinyl floor - if yours wasn't brand new when damaged, this would be betterment.
If it's more than say a year old, they'd be allowed to reduce the amount paid as it's part-way through its expected lifespan.

Op says moving into a new build property. So presume the floor is brand new?

g0wfv · 2 September 2015 at 5:41PM

Brand spanking new as we moved in

Removals company ripped my kitchen floor!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free