Need help with compensation claim for failed bathroom delivery.

Valli

TBH the fact that they are happy to take £50 (near enough) off you with a 'promise' of next day delivery suggests to me they intended a next day delivery.

To then fail to deliver and expect you to accept a refund of that £50 (and no additonal comensation) is rather shoddy. They were quick enough to ask YOU for MORE money!

Who, in their right mind, would be drawn in by an offer of 'We will deliver your order on the next working day and if we don't we will give you the extra money we charged for next day delivery back'?

If they are going to ask for more money then they should pull their socks up to earn that money - and not feel that having a half-arsed attempt at delivering next day, failing and refunding is sufficient

I am inclined to believe, OP, that a court would find in your favour. And you would get your out-of-pocket expenses refunded. A perfectly reasonable claim IMO.

unholyangel

Valli wrote: »

However, Visidigi, given that Victoria Plumb offer a next day delivery service, for which they charge an additional £50, then those T&Cs are overridden by themselves, surely, as they imply that you CAN have your goods next day when they take the additional payment; moreover the courier told the OP that there were two pallets but they (the courier) could only bring 1 pallet on the vehicle. In fact, by accepting the £50 and promising to deliver next day VP have implied different T&Cs to those you quote, and offered a different service to the OP.

In effect they are offering two levels of service; the OP chose to avail herself of the 'higher' level of service. VP failed to deliver the higher level of service (Next day delivery) - VP cannot, surely, simply move the OP back to the 'lower' level of service and think that suffices. The OP's contract was not to have 'delivery next day for £50 extra but if VP failed then she would have to wait and accept a refund'. VP should have made every effort to ensure the OP got her order when it was expected - it was not for the courier to turn up with one pallet and tell the OP that they couldn't fit the whole of her order on their van. Having taken the addtional £50 VP should have ensured the courier had sufficent capacity to transport the whole delivery in one vehicle.

So, (IMO) taking the additional payment from the customer then failing to deliver is, surely, a breach of contract.

(I don't KNOW if this is correct but it seems to me that Victoria Plumb cannot hide behind those ^ T&Cs AND request an additional fee in respect of a promise of next day delivery. It would be very interesting to see this go to court!)

ETA - hope OP is not offended by my assumption, based on username, that OP is female.

Oh it is a breach, but as with every breach.....the other party has a duty to mitigate his/her losses.

IMO wouldnt be hard to argue that OP has failed to mitigate by scheduling installation for the same day as delivery along with paying the builders overtime to stay until 7pm when they said it would be delivered around 7pm.

I do think that OP is entitled to some costs yes, but I think they might struggle to justify them all to a judge.

Unless OP made the company aware that they needed them no later than x pm on x date of course.

Valli

unholyangel wrote: »

Oh it is a breach, but as with every breach.....the other party has a duty to mitigate his/her losses.

IMO wouldnt be hard to argue that OP has failed to mitigate by scheduling installation for the same day as delivery along with paying the builders overtime to stay until 7pm when they said it would be delivered around 7pm.

I do think that OP is entitled to some costs yes, but I think they might struggle to justify them all to a judge.

Unless OP made the company aware that they needed them no later than x pm on x date of course.

But Victoria Plumb have offered to deliver 'next day' and ACCEPTED an ADDITIONAL fee to do so.

The more I think about this the more I am inclined to believe that, by offering a next day delivery option for an additional fee, VP have shot themselves in the foot....

unholyangel

Valli wrote: »

But Victoria Plumb have offered to deliver 'next day' and ACCEPTED an ADDITIONAL fee to do so.

The more I think about this the more I am inclined to believe that, by offering a next day delivery option for an additional fee, VP have shot themselves in the foot....

I know but what i'm saying is that just because someone breaches a contract, doesnt automatically make them responsible for all costs you incur as a result. Only costs you reasonably incur.

Their T&C's effectively are passing risk for losses arising from such circumstances/drawing attention to a real risk that the delivery may not be guaranteed/may arrive incomplete. Such terms can be fair - especially when its circumstances within the consumers control.

I just dont think its as straightforward as you seem to view it.

[Deleted User]

Valli wrote: »

But Victoria Plumb have offered to deliver 'next day' and ACCEPTED an ADDITIONAL fee to do so.

That doesn't mean the OP could start installation work regardless of not actually having received and checked the goods . The company have already refunded the "next Day" element of her purchase, it's unlikely she'll be reimbursed additional costs paid to her builders because the T&Cs clearly instructed her not to start such work prior to delivery.

Valli

unholyangel wrote: »

I know but what i'm saying is that just because someone breaches a contract, doesnt automatically make them responsible for all costs you incur as a result. Only costs you reasonably incur.

Their T&C's effectively are passing risk for losses arising from such circumstances/drawing attention to a real risk that the delivery may not be guaranteed/may arrive incomplete. Such terms can be fair - especially when its circumstances within the consumers control.

I just dont think its as straightforward as you seem to view it.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That doesn't mean the OP could start installation work regardless of not actually having received and checked the goods . The company have already refunded the "next Day" element of her purchase, it's unlikely she'll be reimbursed additional costs paid to her builders because the T&Cs clearly instructed her not to start such work prior to delivery.

I accept what you are both saying hence my suggestion that it would be interesting to see what a court would have to say. IMO (and I have stressed throughout it is only an opinion) they are offering an improved service on receipt of an extra consideration. I feel, therefore, that they cannot just offer this additional service then simply refund the monies they took to provide that service when they fail to perform.
I do not accept that they can resort to their 'bog standard' (deliberate pun;)) T&Cs as defence having accepted an extra fee. IMO the acceptance of the £50 suggests a different level of service which should be covered by a different set of T&Cs.

visidigi

Valli wrote: »

I accept what you are both saying hence my suggestion that it would be interesting to see what a court would have to say. IMO (and I have stressed throughout it is only an opinion) they are offering an improved service on receipt of an extra consideration. I feel, therefore, that they cannot just offer this additional service then simply refund the monies they took to provide that service when they fail to perform.
I do not accept that they can resort to their 'bog standard' (deliberate pun;)) T&Cs as defence having accepted an extra fee. IMO the acceptance of the £50 suggests a different level of service which should be covered by a different set of T&Cs.

Standard delivery is £29.95
Next Day delivery is £49.95

You pay a £30 to get it quicker. If you don't get it quicker there could even have been a case to only have the difference refunded.

The terms and conditions apply to both, they both state arrangements should not be made until the goods have been delivered and inspected.

The second clause is also important there as they are making it clear that delivery is one item and inspection is another - if the item had been damaged in transport then are you saying you also think there is ground for compensation? No, if something is damaged in transit you are entitled to a full refund of all costs associated with the purchase up to the point of delivery.

The express courier industry is a classic example, they promise delivery on x day, if that fails they still deliver, but then you get your money back (when dealing with the courier direct) - no courier pays consequential loss.

[Deleted User]

visidigi wrote: »

The terms and conditions apply to both, they both state arrangements should not be made until the goods have been delivered and inspected.

Exactly. The most the OP can expect from the retailer is perhaps a "goodwill offer", not a full recompense of the cost of a builder (or the inconvenience of having no operational bathroom).

No building work should have started before the arrival and checking of the products.

The Next Day service merely undertakes to deliver within 24 hours, it doesn't provide any extra permission for the OP to undertake prior preparatory work in anticipation.

Mistakes happen with deliveries, it's common sense to make (some) allowance for the possibility.

Valli

visidigi wrote: »

Standard delivery is £29.95
Next Day delivery is £49.95

You pay a £30 to get it quicker. If you don't get it quicker there could even have been a case to only have the difference refunded.

The terms and conditions apply to both, they both state arrangements should not be made until the goods have been delivered and inspected.

The second clause is also important there as they are making it clear that delivery is one item and inspection is another - if the item had been damaged in transport then are you saying you also think there is ground for compensation? No, if something is damaged in transit you are entitled to a full refund of all costs associated with the purchase up to the point of delivery.

.

I haven't said anything at all about damage. I did say, earlier up the thread, that I too wouldn't have started the stripping out until I had the new fixtures on site.

And, re the T&Cs then, if it's clear they apply to any form of delivery service VP provide then the OP may not have any realistic claim to a refund over and above delivery costs charged.

[Deleted User]

Valli wrote: »

if it's clear they apply to any form of delivery service VP provide then the OP may not have any realistic claim to a refund over and above delivery costs charged.

It is clear.
The retailer may well offer a goodwill payment for the inconvenience, but they aren't under any legal obligation to do so.