iPad stolen from repair shop

deanos

as above, as long as the ipad is in same spec and condition as your old one its acceptable, as it was faulty you will be in a better position if they give you a working one

NotRichAtAll

Not a smart move refusing the one he offered you.

susancs

michelefauk wrote: »

Just a quick update.

Letter sent off stating as above on 4th January giving them 14 days to reimburse me.
I received a phone call from the shop yesterday regarding my letter, they said that in the interests of customer service they are prepared to offer me "one of their iPads" which I refused and referred them back to the letter. The chap kept arguing and saying that they only have to replace like for like, then asked why I didn't want one of their iPads, to which I replied I preferred to buy my own with a guarantee and warranty. He kept going on saying they didn't have to reimburse me, but I stood my ground, referred him back to my letter and ended the call.
Watch this space!

The shop are quite right in that they should replace like for like and as another poster says they are actually putting you in a better position giving you a working refurbished ipad, rather than the money to buy a replacement second hand ipad (which I assume your quote was for with examples from ebay).

deanos

could they actually ask for money from the OP as they will have a working ipad ?

peachyprice

michelefauk wrote: »

Just a quick update.

Letter sent off stating as above on 4th January giving them 14 days to reimburse me.
I received a phone call from the shop yesterday regarding my letter, they said that in the interests of customer service they are prepared to offer me "one of their iPads" which I refused and referred them back to the letter. The chap kept arguing and saying that they only have to replace like for like, then asked why I didn't want one of their iPads, to which I replied I preferred to buy my own with a guarantee and warranty. He kept going on saying they didn't have to reimburse me, but I stood my ground, referred him back to my letter and ended the call.
Watch this space!

Why would you refuse a resolution that puts you in a better postion than you were?

You took in an ipad that you couldn't use because it didn't charge, they are presumably offering you an ipad that does work.

You have no right to a brand new replacement, you have the right to either a replacement of the same or better spec the same age or newer, or monetary compensation based on the age and condition of the ipad you left with them, which bearing in mind wasn't working, won't be very much at all.

I fear you have cut off your nose to spite your face and in having done so are likely to lose should you force this to court.

If it's a brand new ipad you're after you'll have to claim on your own insurance, assuming you have new for old cover.

m0bov

Oh dear (((

Latazza

peachyprice wrote: »

Why would you refuse a resolution that puts you in a better postion than you were?

You took in an ipad that you couldn't use because it didn't charge, they are presumably offering you an ipad that does work.

You have no right to a brand new replacement, you have the right to either a replacement of the same or better spec the same age or newer, or monetary compensation based on the age and condition of the ipad you left with them, which bearing in mind wasn't working, won't be very much at all.

I fear you have cut off your nose to spite your face and in having done so are likely to lose should you force this to court.

If it's a brand new ipad you're after you'll have to claim on your own insurance, assuming you have new for old cover.

Another scenario whereby the person thinks they know the law and their entitlement and will end up with nothing. Absolutely stupid to refuse the offer.

Undervalued

Latazza wrote: »

Another scenario whereby the person thinks they know the law and their entitlement and will end up with nothing. Absolutely stupid to refuse the offer.

Yes indeed.

Another point which nobody in this thread has addressed is whether the shop's terms and conditions of business stated that items were left for repair at the owner's risk.

Whilst no terms and conditions can lawfully exclude liability for negligence it is certainly not uncommon for a repair company to require the owner of an item to have it insured or sign a waiver. This is certainly the case when high value arts and antiques are left for restoration. The studio provides the necessary level of security so that the owner can get insurance but cannot possibly be expected to cover items of sometimes enormous value itself.

Assuming the shop had reasonable security for the type of items the dealt with and didn't go home leaving the door unlocked it is unlikely they were negligent.

Had the iPad been stolen from his own home the OP would have had two options. Claim on his insurance (if worthwhile after deducting the excess) or stand the loss himself.

paddyrg

Tomorrow, first thing, call them back and say 'Oh, sorry, I think I misunderstood, yes that would be great, thank you very much'.

As long as it's of a comparable spec (identical might be a stretch, but similar would be fine) this is the right and fastest resolution and leave you ahead. Take it!

zaax

Undervalued wrote: »

Yes indeed.

Another point which nobody in this thread has addressed is whether the shop's terms and conditions of business stated that items were left for repair at the owner's risk.

Whilst no terms and conditions can lawfully exclude liability for negligence it is certainly not uncommon for a repair company to require the owner of an item to have it insured or sign a waiver. This is certainly the case when high value arts and antiques are left for restoration. The studio provides the necessary level of security so that the owner can get insurance but cannot possibly be expected to cover items of sometimes enormous value itself.

Assuming the shop had reasonable security for the type of items the dealt with and didn't go home leaving the door unlocked it is unlikely they were negligent.

Had the iPad been stolen from his own home the OP would have had two options. Claim on his insurance (if worthwhile after deducting the excess) or stand the loss himself.

The shop needs to take reasonable care, they didn't because it was not locked a safe or a secure area.