iPad stolen from repair shop

Undervalued

zaax wrote: »

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

Where does it say that?

Take reasonable care? How do you know they didn't? That doesn't extend to providing a bank vault for a couple of thousand pounds worth of assorted consumer electronics.

If the items were in a normal business premises secured in a way that would satisfy an average insurance company then I would say they were not negligent. If it fell well short of this or they went home for the weekend leaving the doors and windows open that is another matter.

unholyangel

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.

In consumer contracts, its not enough to bury disclaimers in T&C's. You need to specifically draw them to the customers attention before the contract becomes binding. You cannot disclaim liability for risks that you could remove or at least reduce by taking reasonable care. A risk lies more appropriately with the supplier if 1) its inside their control, 2) the consumer cannot reasonably be expected to know about or 3) the supplier can insure against it more cheaply than the consumer.

Even if it is a risk that the consumer can insure cheaply against (such as loss or damage in their own possession) they need to be aware of what they need to do and have it adequately drawn to their attention.

Also, no idea why you've mentioned what would happen had it happened while in OPs possession. What would happen under different circumstances is irrelevant - because thats not what happened.

peachyprice

zaax wrote: »

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

How do you know that? Safes/secure areas and not impenetrable.

hollydays

Also, I think several of these phone repair shops just outsource the repairs to random people, who offers dirt cheap repairs , not necessarily business premesis. This is just a gut feeling with a poor company I dealt with.

shaun_from_Africa

zaax wrote: »

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

Even if they didn't take reasonable care of the OP's goods (and at the moment that is pure supposition) , it's totally irrelevant as they have accepted responsibility for the loss by offering a replacement iPad which should hopefully be of about the same age and specification (or better) as the one stolen.

mattyprice4004

Wow, I'm speechless.
You gave in a faulty ipad, they've offered to replace it with a working one and you said no?

Take it to court and let us know how you get on.