Property damaged by delivery driver

unholyangel

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

While I agree the company cannot avoid responsibility based solely on the customer having signed a delivery note, the OP is attempting to maximise any compensatory payment and offers no real evidence that the "damage" was in fact caused by the delivery

A chipped kerbstone costs approximately £1.50 to replace. It's not an expert job to re-position the kerbs and doesn't require a day off work to carry it out. A cement mixer, while useful, is not essential.

That all depends. If an appropriately skilled tradesman would have charged say £100, then OP has (imo at least) taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses. If a skilled tradesman would have only taken £50 including the price of materials then they might only be entitled to that amount

Tbh I didn't mention the day off work as I don't think they have a claim for that. Theres really no reason the neighbour/workman couldn't have fixed the damage while OP was at work as its not like it requires leaving them unattended in your house/with a key to your property.

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

If an appropriately skilled tradesman would have charged say £100, then OP has (imo at least) taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses. If a skilled tradesman would have only taken £50 including the price of materials then they might only be entitled to that amount

If you carefully read the OP, you'll see that he apparently did the work himself with only the "help" of his neighbour who happens to be a retired builder. He apparently gave the neighbour £50 for his trouble and for (apparently) using his cement mixer.

I still think this is an excessive claim for consequential loss. The work would have taken no more than an hour to complete and even his £25 for materials is far more than a new kerbstone and some sand and cement mortar would reasonably cost.

Don't get me started on the "unfinished" look to his block paving in the first place...

societys_child

Not to mention that the broken concrete doesn't look anywhere near thick enough to do the job it was intended for.

unholyangel

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If you carefully read the OP, you'll see that he apparently did the work himself with only the "help" of his neighbour who happens to be a retired builder. He apparently gave the neighbour £50 for his trouble and for (apparently) using his cement mixer.

I still think this is an excessive claim for consequential loss. The work would have taken no more than an hour to complete and even his £25 for materials is far more than a new kerbstone and some sand and cement mortar would reasonably cost.

Don't get me started on the "unfinished" look to his block paving in the first place...

I know, but its not as simple as that.

I did have a big long sea of text typed out, but I've decided that this page probably explains it better than I ever could.
http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/duty-mitigate-loss-misnomer

The scope of the mitigation principle
The court outlined the scope of the general principle:

a. The question of mitigation of loss involves whether or not the claimant has acted reasonably in response to the defendant’s wrong. If it has, then the costs and benefits accrued by the claimant in doing so, form part of the damages calculation. But if the claimant has not acted reasonably, then its damages are assessed as if it had.

b. There is no legal duty to mitigate loss; a claimant is free to act as it wishes in response to a breach of contract. The point is that its damages will be limited by an assumption that it has taken reasonable steps in mitigation of loss whether or not it has taken these steps.

c. The law gives a fair degree of latitude to the innocent party in responding to a breach of contract. Mitigation of loss does not require actions involving unreasonable expense, risk or inconvenience. Also, where the innocent party’s response was reasonable, the fact that there were other reasonable or arguably ‘more reasonable’ options will not be a reason to reduce the claimant’s damages claim. Rather, the defendant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the claimant’s actions were not reasonable and that there was an alternative course of action which was reasonable, and which the claimant did not adopt.

societys_child

unholyangel wrote: »

Satisfaction on delivery disclaimers really aren't worth the paper they're written on in consumer contracts. Indeed most of them are usually void under law.

They are worth the paper they're printed on if a note is made about any damage at the time of delivery!

The main part of my post mentioned proof, are there any witnesses?
As far as the delivery co is concerned, the op could have done it himself (not saying he did)

The "clean signature" was a secondary observation. Most people would note any problems on a delivery note.

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

They are worth the paper they're printed on if a note is made about any damage at the time of delivery!

The main part of my post mentioned proof, are there any witnesses?
As far as the delivery co is concerned, the op could have done it himself (not saying he did)

The "clean signature" was a secondary observation. Most people would note any problems on a delivery note.

If you note damage on the delivery sheet thats one thing because the disclaimer never comes into play.

But they cannot use a disclaimer to restrict or remove their liability. It is legally void and unenforceable in consumer contracts as well as potentially amounting to a criminal offence under the CPRs.

societys_child

But they cannot use a disclaimer to restrict or remove their liability. It is legally void and unenforceable in consumer contracts as well as potentially amounting to a criminal offence under the CPRs.

Did you actually read my post? Can you prove their liability?

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

Can you prove their liability?

To be fair, the discussion is about the company's attempted use of a disclaimer to remove any liability (even if they are responsible).

I notice the OP hasn't returned yet to clarify any of these issues.....

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

Did you actually read my post? Can you prove their liability?

Yes I did, you said the OP would struggle to prove liability because they have a signature on a form.

I responded that such disclaimers hold no legal validity in consumer contracts. Therefore, the signature cannot be used to reject the OP's claim or as an indication that there was no damage committed by the company.

As for proving it...its small claims. Theres no requirement to prove conclusively. And given the photos on the OP's photobucket (which are probably time/date stamped around the time of delivery due to our digital age), and the location of the purchased goods being in such close proximity to the damaged area....well I'm sure you realise where its going.

Also as someone else indicated, that disclaimer only relates to the condition of the pallet(s) and says nothing on the matter of damage to property.

ETA: Oh yeah and the paint on the stones match that of the pallet!

foxtrotoscar_2

I can supply date stamped pics. of your choice any day of the week. They are meaningless.