Item sent for repair damaged in transit

Fire_Fox

You needed to package it properly, it was in its original box, courier can't be expected to know you only used half the polystyrene and that the top was only protected by thin cardboard! That stuff is in there for a reason, ALL the pieces are specifically designed to work together. The courier is expected to use "reasonable care and skill" in providing their service (Supply of Goods and Services Act) that means not dropping the thing, crashing the van or putting a solid wood wardrobe on top. Those would be classed as accidental damage or negligence.

However the box will reasonably be laid down, stacked in transit, wobble and slide a little as the driver corners, be picked up and put down many times. That is all part and parcel of transportation. Therefore the item needs to be sturdy and protected, couriers don't offer a packing service so the sender does this.

You might have covered your backside if you'd used loads of tape saying "FRAGILE" and "THIS SIDE UP" but even then IMO you are on shaky ground. You should have sent the courier away OR made them wait while you packaged the computer properly.

Legislation, terms and conditions cannot possibly cover every eventuality and tell you how to pack every single item that might ever be couriered. There are 'implied terms' in many Acts or contracts. Using the full manufacturer's packaging or an equivalent is common sense or, in the eyes of the law, 'reasonable'.

The eBay analogy is a red herring, this computer was the OP's property at all times as it was only going for repair. The eBay item becomes the property of the buyer either at the point of delivery (if seller employs a courier) or at the point of collection (if buyer chooses to collect). Outside organisations again are responsible for using "reasonable care and skill" when the item is in their possession (but never their ownership).

George_Michael

ryantcb wrote: »

Plus if they had come on the day arranged for collection it would have been packaged correctly, was only because they came unexpected firt thing in morning I packed it in a hurry

You admit that you packed it in a hurry and that you didn't pack it correctly, so how can you really hold anyone else liable for the damage?

ryantcb

Just to update and close the thread
The repairer has agreed to to cover the costs of the damage. At the point of collection the repairer became responsible for the item and as such where liable for the way it was transported and ultimately packed.
May not be fair but the law doesnt care about fairness

custardy

ryantcb wrote: »

Just to update and close the thread
The repairer has agreed to to cover the costs of the damage. At the point of collection the repairer became responsible for the item and as such where liable for the way it was transported and ultimately packed.
May not be fair but the law doesnt care about fairness

and to not close the thread
hopefully a lessen for you on how to actually package something

Equaliser123

custardy wrote: »

and to not close the thread
hopefully a lessen for you on how to actually package something

Really, really patronising...

custardy

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Really, really patronising...

Nope. read the whole thread and see how it was sent

unholyangel

Whether it was in the couriers T&C's is irrelevant given that the OP cannot be bound by third party terms that they have had no chance to become acquainted with (wouldnt pass the fairness test).

The only questions really imo is a) whether the OP had breached his duty of care with his packaging choice and b) Whether that breach of care was solely responsible for the damage or whether there was an element of negligence/breach of care on the couriers part (or perhaps even apples part for failing to notify the OP of their responsibilities).

2.2.6 Disclaiming liability where the consumer is at fault. Terms which disclaim liability for loss or damage (for example, to the consumer's property) which is the consumer's own fault may be acceptable. But this does not mean that a disclaimer which operates only where the consumer is in breach of contract is necessarily fair.
2.2.7 Such a term is unlikely to be acceptable if it could deprive the consumer of all redress in the event of a trivial or technical breach, or where the supplier may be partly responsible for loss or harm suffered by the consumer. For example, failure to take specified precautions against the risk of damage or theft by third parties should not be a basis on which the supplier can escape all liability where he, or any employee of his, is negligent or dishonest. That is especially so if the precautions consumers are required to take are unusual or unreasonable in character, or not stated with sufficient clarity.

And possibly this:

18.2.5 If a risk is transferred to consumers on the basis that they can themselves reasonably control it or insure against it, such as loss or damage to goods in their possession, they need to be aware of what they are supposed to do.