Dry cleaners lost my coat

ThumbRemote

ex-homelessdude2 wrote: »

sorry im dyslexic and was typing on phone when auto correct kept changing my words

marliepanda why do i have to proof anything as they're at fault

ThumbRemote its not the same scenario as

“traders have a responsibility of care under the Consumer Rights Act 2015” so their t&c are irrelevant

hollydays i know your just trying to help but i not that fussed in what companies are sick of...as ive said theyve lost it and they have responsibility to correct mistake. i thought MSEwas here to help consumers not big businesses

thanks shaun from Africa

I wouldn't say their terms and conditions are irrelevant. Admittedly they may be found to be illegal if the company is guilty of negligence. But they are part of a package of issues that means things aren't in your favour.

You've been given generally good advice, there's no need to accuse people of helping big business when they are only trying to help you. If the company refuses to pay out, you'll have to take them to court. In that case you'll need to provide some sort of evidence of why you are claiming that amount. That's all you've been told, and it's quite correct advice.

unholyangel

ex-homelessdude2 wrote: »

sorry im dyslexic and was typing on phone when auto correct kept changing my words

marliepanda why do i have to proof anything as they're at fault

Wasn't in reply to me I know but the reason you have to prove it is because of the law.

You're only entitled to your actual losses. You also have a duty to mitigate your losses where reasonably possible. So, how would you prove what your losses are? A receipt is the best way. If thats not possible, you can also see how much it would cost 2nd hand in a similar age/condition etc. You can also provide proof of what reasonable replacements would cost. Although with the last, you're reliant on them agreeing that amount is reasonable else they might dispute it by claiming your coat was a cheaper one. Given they have a clause trying to limit their liability to 10x the value of the service, I can't really see them just agreeing to any old amount you tell them.

They are at fault, and they're liable for that. But they're only liable for the damage they caused, not over and above that. The same that if you break something in a shop, you're only liable for the wholesale value. The same way people are able to challenge "notices" from private parking companies on the basis the amounts they are claiming are not their actual losses.

It works both ways.