Consequential Loss Claim?

LincsPoacher

Hi, first time poster here but have read a few of the guides before posting (and before complaining!).


Purchased a Mamas and Papas Rialto 3 piece kids furniture set from the online retailer Precious Little Ones on January 5th with a stated dispatch of 10 - 14 working days.

Following several delays the order was finally sent out on 9th February; we were provided with a single Yodel tracking number.
The consignment was then scheduled for delivery on the 11th Feb.

A single driver delivered 4 large boxes; all marked 2 man lift with one being over the legal weight limit (it was 32kg).
Upon inspection it was apparent that there should be 6 boxes (they were marked 1 of 6 etc.)

Contacting Yodel we were informed another delivery would be made on Monday 13th and we were not able to choose a time that was convenient for us. We arranged to work from home to minimise our loss.

A further 1 box was then delivered on the 13th.
This meant we had 5 out of 6 boxes. Inspecting the boxes further to determine which bits were missing I noticed damage to 2 pieces of the furniture (wardrobe door & changing table), probably caused by being delivered by one guy when all boxes state 2 man lift (with one being illegal for single man lift!).

We contacted the vendor on the 14th and were informed that we needed to wait for delivery of the final box that was scheduled for delivery on the 15th in order to send back the complete consignment to obtain a refund (as we were fed up with the company now).

We requested the tracking information for the last parcel so that we could arrange delivery at our convenience and were provided with same tracking number as previously. This showed all items in the consignment were delivered on the 11th February, we again asked for clarification and were just told that it was out for delivery that day.

The delivery driver did not show on the 15th despite taking a day off work (we had used our 1 day of working from home already).
Contacting the company again on the 16th we were then told that the final box had been marked as "return to sender".
We asked for collection of the remaining 5 boxes (2.5 pieces of furniture, both complete pieces damaged) and we arranged on the Thursday for DPD to be used so that a 1 hour delivery slot could be given to minimise our loss.
We stressed that the boxes were over a single man limit and that they would need to arrange collection of their parcels with the correct delivery options. This was then arranged for pickup the following day.

DPD arrived on the 17th and duly rejected the collection.
The company had failed to provide the correct details (according to DPD they marked 1 box, of 2.5kg. Not 5 boxes totally 130kg).

Contacting them again we were told that they couldn't collect the items as DPD would require it to be palletised (our own DPD driver later said this was nonsense).

Given the size and bulk of the furniture (and my wife being 5'1" and heavily pregnant) the disposal will cost £50 in council fees.
We requested a refund plus compensation for an additional 1 day to stay in doors for a failed collection (the Monday we took as working from home) & 1 hours of waiting for DPD plus half an hour each way to get to the failed DPD collection.

The company offered £64.50 in compensation and told us to put the furniture on Freecycle.
We have subsequently written to them using the Consequential Loss template to say that we don't think that this is acceptable given the time off work and that Freecycling damaged goods is not a suitable method of relieving us of them.
In addition to this the furniture set is now unavailable to purchase as has been discontinued by the manufacturer with similar sets being more expensive than what we originally paid.
Also we have spent a lot of time going back and forth trying to resolve the issues with them and £64.50 less the collection fee for the council would amount to £14.50 compensation.


They have now replied and said that:
a) The goods were split by the courier and that the order information would have shown this on their system and on Yodel
(neither does as we were only given one tracking code, even when we told them it showed as being fully delivered).
b) that they arranged for Yodel to collect the items but that we did not package them correctly
(this is a lie and Yodel have confirmed that no collection was ever scheduled for our address. Also their own order tracking has a message from the 14th telling us that delivery of the last box will be the 15th, my wife was in all day waiting for that and then on the 16th we arranged for DPD. That means that they would have had to have arranged for Yodel to come to collect on either the 15th or the 16th!?).
c) that they admit liability for the failed DPD collection as they input the weight incorrectly
d) that they will arrange for the faulty furniture to be collected by the council and donated to charity (but I will need to move it all outside on my own)
e) that they have given us a refund


They now appear to have rescinded any offer of compensation for any consequential loss, plus are trying to peddle "alternative facts" despite email traffic not supporting that view.

In our letter we said that we would be happy to take £100 compensation and the other half of the undamaged bit of furniture so that at least we had the cot bed and could get the other 2 bits.
Now that we have found out that it is discontinued we wouldn't really want to do that.
Given that we both earn circa. £50k the additional time off as cost a fair bit when pro-rated. Also the jump in the cost of the furniture means that we would be paying quite a bit more for a similar set (we paid £423 delivered... or at least partially delivered... and all broken :-(



It appears as though if we wanted to get any sort of compensation for the additional time off and for the fact that the furniture is now unavailable that we would need to proceed through court; although we haven't yet responded to the vendors message.
Can anyone advise as to what our chances might be and how best to approach it!?

At a bit of a loss as to how best to proceed and whether it is worth our while taking them to court. It is infuriating that they don't appear to care one bit but they apparently won an award for best online retailer!

wealdroam

You mention illegal weight limits more that once.

What are you basing your accusations on?

I ask simply because I cannot find any information on this limit.

This is what I have found on The Health and Safety Executive's website:

Are there any recommended weight limits for manual lifting?

Answer: The law does not identify a maximum weight limit. It places duties on employers to manage or control risk; measures to take to meet this duty will vary depending on the circumstances of the task. Things to be considered will include the individual carrying out the handling operation, e g strength, fitness, underlying medical conditions, the weight to be lifted and distance to be carried, the nature of the load or the postures to be adopted or the availability of equipment to facilitate the lift.

There is no universally safe maximum weight for any load, however, there are varying degrees of risk. The guidance on the Manual Handling Operations Regulations gives basic guideline figures for lifting and lowering which indicate when a more detailed risk assessment should be carried out.

LincsPoacher

Hi,

Thanks for your correction. It would appear as though I have been misinformed as to that law and should have checked before posting.
The guidance on the government website does suggest that a 32kg parcel would be in the higher risk category though.

As far as I am aware DPD and Yahoo policy is not to take parcels over 25kg with a one man delivery team due to their risk assessments. Certainly one of the reasons cited for them not collecting the faulty goods is that it was too heavy for them to get a courier (despite delivering it with one).

daytona0

LincsPoacher wrote: »

They have now replied and said that:
a) The goods were split by the courier and that the order information would have shown this on their system and on Yodel
(neither does as we were only given one tracking code, even when we told them it showed as being fully delivered).
b) that they arranged for Yodel to collect the items but that we did not package them correctly
(this is a lie and Yodel have confirmed that no collection was ever scheduled for our address. Also their own order tracking has a message from the 14th telling us that delivery of the last box will be the 15th, my wife was in all day waiting for that and then on the 16th we arranged for DPD. That means that they would have had to have arranged for Yodel to come to collect on either the 15th or the 16th!?).
c) that they admit liability for the failed DPD collection as they input the weight incorrectly
d) that they will arrange for the faulty furniture to be collected by the council and donated to charity (but I will need to move it all outside on my own)
e) that they have given us a refund

Wow have they really given you a refund?!

And have they really arranged to send the damaged items to a charity?!

That's really cool

If they don't agree to pay you for consequential loss then take them to court. Simple as that. Present your case to a judge and be done with it.

For the record, I think that your point d) is a nice little bit of compensation But each to their own like.

LincsPoacher

The initial delivery was on a Saturday and was, to our knowledge as we'd only had one tracking number and delivery notification, the only one we were expecting. I am not suggesting any loss occurred here.

The second delivery we worked from home to take it; as you say to mitigate our losses as they don't do evening or timed deliveries.
The third delivery we asked for tracking so we could try and reschedule but they only gave us the same tracking number which said it was all already delivered on the first attempt. My wife waited in all day but it didn't arrive.
The next issue was that they came to collect, another 2 hours off, but they didn't cause they'd messed up the parcel details.
So yes we tried to mitigate our losses by asking for a timed slot and asking for tracking details so we could try and arrange around us but didn't get the tracking details.

So you are saying that because it was faulty and they've refunded us means that we aren't as entitled to consequential loss for waiting around for the faulty items, or the fact we can't actually get them at the same price (or at all). I thought that was the point of consequential loss, that it was in excess of a refund for the additional losses you've incurred, or am i missing something ?

Also I hadn't realised that working hard and earning higher than average meant that we weren't entitled to compensation or be money savers. Sure Martin Lewis earns a lot more than us!!

LilElvis

Come off it Daytona! If someone is inconvenienced they're inconvenienced - whether they are higher rate taxpayers or on NMW. Why should they spend any more time, let alone money?

And yes, you must be living on a different plane - one populated by green eyed aliens.

daytona0

LilElvis wrote: »

Come off it Daytona! If someone is inconvenienced they're inconvenienced - whether they are higher rate taxpayers or on NMW. Why should they spend any more time, let alone money?

Well, it depends whether that inconvenience translates to consequential loss. I was exploring why it may possibly not be the case...

Alas, the bottom line is that OP needs to take them to small claims if they refuse to pay out.

And yes, you must be living on a different plane - one populated by green eyed aliens.

Each to their own.

Good luck OP.

bris

You keep mentioning we, it doesn't take 2 to wait for a delivery so you wouldn't be able to both claim for lost wages.


To make the claim you also need proof you actually lost money or a holiday, this means your employer would nee to confirm it for the courts.


Inconvenience is not a consequential loss.

LincsPoacher

No we only waited one at a time.


Yes I assumed that would be the case and happy to show them our holiday records to show that time off was taken for the deliveries.