Incompetent Citylink Barstewards-advice Needed

Blacksheep1979

NONNONONONONONO - Send a letter, recorded delivery. This carries much more weight in court and will be taken more seriously by the company.

custardy

did the package show obvious signs of damage?

antiquerose

Ok, fair point, letter rather than email but is the wording ok?

Custardy, no the customer told us the package wasn't obviously damaged but when he opened it up the polystyrene was broken up and the saw very badly damaged. In fairness even if the box had been a bit battered though, most people wouldn't think to open it and check before signing for it would they?

mute_posting

antiquerose wrote: »

Ok, fair point, letter rather than email but is the wording ok?

Custardy, no the customer told us the package wasn't obviously damaged but when he opened it up the polystyrene was broken up and the saw very badly damaged. In fairness even if the box had been a bit battered though, most people wouldn't think to open it and check before signing for it would they?

I wouldn't usually open a package (thus making the driver wait) before signing for it. I do however tend to write on the ticket "not inspected" or be sure to cross out and initial the phrase that intimates that I have inspected a package before signing.

As a side point, I'm not sure if "duty of care" is the most appropriate term to use (purely based on ollys comments about it being about it being about preventing harm to others) - I know what you are trying to say but would perhaps try and use a different wording if possible - that is just an personal opinion after reading the comment

Blacksheep1979

I would cuty out things like banging head against wall and Do you not have duty of care to your customers? etc. Basically I would state something along the lines of :

I am contacting you one last time to try resolve my issues surrounding package XXYYZZ (insert package ref) and the damage that happened to it whilst in your care.

This package was sent on XX(date) to XX (person + address). Upon recieving the package the recipient was asked to sign to say that they had received it - at no point was he informed that this was to acknowledge that he had checked that the item inside was as expected.

Once XXX (person) had opened the package it was clear that it had not been handled with care, the polystyrene packaging was smashed as was ITEM, which was found to be beyond economic repair - as agreed by yourselves when you stated it could be desposed of.

I have been pursuing you now for XX weeks to try and come to some acceptable solution, something that as of yet you have failed to provide. As such I am now requesting a payment for the full value of the item sent and for the outstanding costs for the shipping to be canceled. If I do not have a satisfactory response from you within 14 days I will have no option but to pursue a legal course of action which, if successful, could result in further costs to CityLink.

custardy

the reason i ask about the packaging is if it doesnt show clear signs of damage you can struggle to get a payout
the carrier will view it as if it doesnt show damage then the internal packaging would be insufficient

antiquerose

Mute-posting, do you know I have never thought to write "not inspected" before when signing for an item - I think in future that is a good way to cover yourself from this kind of thing happening.

Blacksheep, you're right, in view of their response I need to make more of the details of when the package was signed for. Thanks for writing all that out, its a good response and I'm going to revise my letter now.

I wonder if it will take another 8 weeks for a response :rolleyes:.

antiquerose

Custardy, Citylink have gone into no explanation about the state of the package, just a 2 line letter saying that when an item is signed for it no longer becomes their responsibility - I seriously doubt they have done any investigation into the matter at all. I don't see how they could argue that its not entirely plausable that if a courier is throwing an item around in his van that the item could break inside without damaging the outside packaging though, doesn't sound like much of an arguement to me .

custardy

well this is the arguement,if an item can be damaged by moving around within its outer packaging,is it properly packaged?
im not saying it was or wasnt,just this is how it is often rationalised

antiquerose

I do understand what you're saying, thanks for the insight on what they will probably come back with.