Tool Hire Damage - Refunded Deposit, Now Trying to Claim a Week Later

GianBel

Rented 2 * SLA10 Genie lifts to lift a 575kg beam in to place (2.3m high). They have a capacity of 454kg each, so I figured they'd easily handle this.

They were collected last week Friday (29/10), I received a refund of my deposit on Monday (01/11), and yesterday (04/11, nearly a week later), I receive a call to say both have been damaged due to incorrect usage, and I owe them 500GBP for repairs.

I have no idea how they could've been damaged, as I watched them being used and the installation of the beam was textbook stuff. We lifted a lighter beam too, of which I took a video, but sadly I didn't take a video of the larger beam, which may have helped my case.

Is there anything I can do here? I am convinced they're just trying their luck, but it feels like they have me over a barrel here and I have no recourse.

The hire contract says that the customer is liable for damaged goods, but  they wouldn't let me sign the handover certificate when they arrived, instead the builder who was going to use the genies had to. This shows the builder has signed to be "solely responsible for the correct use of the equipment".

What would you do?

Manxman_in_exile

Was it you who hired the jacks?  Who paid for them - you or the builder and he recharged you?  I suspect the builder might argue he signed the handover acting as your agent and on your behalf.

(Did the builder tell you to order them yourself?      )

GianBel

Builder told me to order them. So I paid for them. Then on Monday got the deposit refunded, but with a message later saying they had found issues and now wanted money (more than the original deposit).

Alderbank

So the jacks were spaced at each end of the beam, you had a sling across each pair of forks to lift the beam and you raised the beam by winding up the two jacks together? I have only used jacks like these to lift a compact object like a pallet but I know they are fussy that the centre of gravity of the load is kept within narrowly defined limits. When lifting the beam the c of g would be well outside those limits.

Weight isn't everything, direction of force is important too. Could you have applied a twisting force to the winching mechanism or the heel of the forks?

Manxman_in_exile

I don't know - you'll need to see what others say.

I think if you hired them you may be liable for any damage regardless of the builder signing the handover.  (The hire firm will argue - rightly or wrongly - that he was acting as your agent).  I think you'd then have to claim off the builder if he caused the damage while doing a job for you.  (There's an implied term in your agreement with the builder that he will carry out the work for you competently and with reasonable care and skill.  Obviously that means he shouldn't be damaging equipment he's instructed you to hire for him to do the job).

What does the builder say about the damage?  Wasn't there some sort of handover when the jacks were returned?

How well do you know your builder?  Is he reputable?  In my view a reputable builder would organise the hire of all the equipment he might need for a job and not ask the client to do it.  I'm sure he could hire stuff on better trade terms than a consumer could, so why wouldn't he?

Sandtree

In the first instance, ask them for evidence of the damage.

You have a handover form for them giving you the kit... was anything signed on the return? What does it state about condition etc?

Aylesbury_Duck

Alderbank said:

So the jacks were spaced at each end of the beam, you had a sling across each pair of forks to lift the beam and you raised the beam by winding up the two jacks together? I have only used jacks like these to lift a compact object like a pallet but I know they are fussy that the centre of gravity of the load is kept within narrowly defined limits. When lifting the beam the c of g would be well outside those limits.

Weight isn't everything, direction of force is important too. Could you have applied a twisting force to the winching mechanism or the heel of the forks?

That was my thinking.  They may be rated to lift 454kg each, but that's presumably with a centred mass of a defined size.  OP used them in a different way, and I suspect it took them over their capacity and caused the damage.  It's far too simplistic to just think the mass of the beam can be halved across two jacks.

I will come down to who the hirer was and whether the builder was simply acting as OP's agent, but ultimately one of them is liable for the cost of repair.

Manxman_in_exile

GianBel said:

Rented 2 * SLA10 Genie lifts to lift a 575kg beam in to place (2.3m high). They have a capacity of 454kg each, so I figured they'd easily handle this...

GianBel said:

Builder told me to order them...

Did the builder specify which jacks to order, or did you decide?

GianBel

Sandtree said:

In the first instance, ask them for evidence of the damage.

You have a handover form for them giving you the kit... was anything signed on the return? What does it state about condition etc?

Nothing was signed on delivery apart from the form you I shared. Nothing was signed on return.

Manxman_in_exile

And who handed the jacks back over to the hire company - you or the builder?  And whoever did do so did not ask for a receipt regarding condition, or it was refused?

[Edit:  Did the builder check the condition of the jacks when they were delivered?  He wasn't asked to sign anything saying they'd been delivered in good condition?]

GianBel

I was home when we returned them, but was in a meeting, so didn't speak to them. They were on the driveway at that point.

Don't think any checks were done when delivered or returned. I wasn't expecting any issues with this stuff, clearly I should have gone for the full foreign-car-rental approach.