Opinions sought for launderette problem

[fathippy]

Interesting problem arising in my launderette which I would be interested in peoples views on, either just opinion, or with some legal basis.

Customer 1 brings in service wash and gives to attendant to wash. It is finished and put on the shelf. Unfortunately customer 2 comes in afterwards and picks up the three bags next to it plus customer 1's bag. When customer 1 comes in there is nothing to collect.

Customer 1 claims (probably in truth) that he therefore has nothing to wear for a conference the next day and will have "no option" but to buy a whole new set of clothes, as his have been misplaced, even though customer 2 is a regular and will return the bag within a matter of days.

It is further complicated by the fact that "legally" speaking the attendants run their own businesses - they set the price they charge to wash and use the launderettes machines to do it. Therefore any contract is between the customer and the attendant.

The question is "what is a reasonable amount of time allowed to rectify a problem, or is there an immediate liability for any consequential loss caused, even if there is no knowledge of it". Should we be responsible for the fact that the customer only has one set of clothes?

The other question is whether it is reasonable for the customer to assume that the launderette is responsible just because that is the building he walked into, or are the facts of the matter sufficient to differentiate the attendant from the launderette. (This is a fairly commonplace scenario in the majority of launderettes).

I am interested as much is what seems "morally" correct as what the law would decide.

 

[internetspaceships]

I think that customer 1 has a valid point.

 

[kulture]

All these things should be covered in your terms and conditions. Limitations of liability, etc etc.

If you do not have these terms in place, then this is time to create them. Also pay the compensation, and use the time you would otherwise have spent defending this, to draw up your terms.

 

[David Griffiths]

What would you do if an airline lost your luggage and was going to bring it out in four or five days time? I think that you'd expect them to pay for clothing to change into during the interim period?

On the question of the assistants running their own business, is this absolutely clear to the customer on coming in to your premises? Or would it be reasonable for the customer to believe that the contract is with the laundrette direcly?

I agree that the customer has a valid point.

It also shouldn't be possible for any customer to simply take bags from the shelf and walk off with them. To me that doesn't seem to be taking adequate care of the other customer's property

 

[fathippy]

What would you do if an airline lost your luggage and was going to bring it out in four or five days time? I think that you'd expect them to pay for clothing to change into during the interim period?

I guess the question is what is a "reasonable" expectation for the service provider, as well as for the customer. In the case of an airline it may be reasonable to expect that the delay would have a certain impact, however in this situation, it is not clear cut that a delay of a few days would have such a large liability and that it would immediately require rectification. It is not the first thing you think that someone washing some shirts might be left "without clothes" if they were not returned on time. It is also fairly obvious that the disembarking passenger requires his luggage at the point of leaving the airport, however the "average" service wash customer can return at any point from 4 hours to 4 weeks, so there is not such a well defined delivery timetable.

It also shouldn't be possible for any customer to simply take bags from the shelf and walk off with them. To me that doesn't seem to be taking adequate care of the other customer's property

I agree, and this hasnt happened before, but I dont think that there is any way to prevent "honest" accidents happening, save getting individual locked units! I am sure that practitioners in all industries have committed or seen committed the odd human error over the course of many years.

As a follow up question to the replies then, which seem unanimous - what is a reasonable threshold for "related" damage. Could there be liability for the knock on effect, losing a job, failing an interview, etc. I say this as an extreme case, but also in order to work towards where the boundaries might be. It would seem a little harsh for those at the "bottom-end" of the workplace to suddenly be required to make actuarial decisions about the statistical likelihoods of repercussions!

 

[internetspaceships]

A reasonable threshold for damages? In the case of what you're selling here I fear it is zero hippy.

I'd be incredibly pissed if I brought you clothes in that I needed the same, or the next day and you handed them to someone else.

I think you would be too.

 

[Talay]

What would you do if an airline lost your luggage and was going to bring it out in four or five days time? I think that you'd expect them to pay for clothing to change into during the interim period?

On the question of the assistants running their own business, is this absolutely clear to the customer on coming in to your premises? Or would it be reasonable for the customer to believe that the contract is with the laundrette direcly?

I agree that the customer has a valid point.

It also shouldn't be possible for any customer to simply take bags from the shelf and walk off with them. To me that doesn't seem to be taking adequate care of the other customer's property

If you were flying out, away from your home, when your only clothes have been mislaid, then compensation would be obvious but this is not the case here.

Customer 1 has not been deprived of an alternative wardrobe. That he does not have an alternative is not the laundrette's problem. In fact, the customer leaving his laundry until the very last minute is irresponsible and introduces risks which could otherwise be mitigated through better preparation.

Terms and conditions must surely state that laundry is left at "someone's" risk. I would have it at the customer's risk, save for specific limitations, as displayed in many dry cleaners, noted on hotel laundry paperwork etc.

Just how did Customer 2 have access to Customer 1's laundry ? Where was the attendant ?

I do understand that Customer 1 has a grievance but I do not think there is a strong claim for damages. Any valid claim would be highly limited I suggest.

As a customer, I expect the laundrette to be the responsible person handling my clothes and not some subcontracted operative. I bet your receipts have the name of the laundrette on them and not her company or her personal name ! If so, I think you would lose a claim on that separation.

In pragmatic terms, I'd consider compensation unless Customer 1 wants to be stupidly excessive, as it appears. However, if you believe your subcontractor liable, then they should ultimately shoulder the loss. If they refuse, then why are they assuming no business risk when receiving business income and not minimum wage ?

 

[deniser]

This is such an unusual event that I would be inclined to ring a free legal helpline and ask for specific advice. You may have access to one as part of your business insurance policy - we certainly do - or Consumer Direct may also be able to help as they advise businesses as well as customers.

Dry cleaners always have lots of T&C excluding liability for damaging or losing your clothes, I believe, limiting liability to the price you pay for the service only and if you want extra cover, then you can buy separate insurance from them.

It might be an idea in the future to take a phone number, that way you could have contacted the person who took the bag and gone to retrieve it.

 

[fathippy]

This brings up a lot of fundamental questions about the industry as a whole. I think talk of terms and conditions, printed receipts etc, is so far removed from the reality. Whether or not this needs immediately changing is an interesting question, although it has been similar for many years. I guess it is similar to a man walking into a pub, purchasing a beer for cash - there is no receipt, no terms & conditions - it is an age old custom!

I suspect the way it is set up, and I know very few launderettes that are different, is down to the inability to monitor the transactions as they take place, hence the business has evolved to a situation where attendants purchase their own ticket books, pens, carry their own floats etc etc, and in the case of multiple attendants, often compete for custom with their colleagues! I suspect the alternative of a central pot would end up with a slightly bogus claim of "ooh, very quiet this week, guvnor, no-one did any service washes!"

I am honestly interested in the responses above as I am keen to see what a rational view is. This whole argument (apart from the distinction between launderette and attendant which is circumstancial and I can accept may not be comprehended without clear guidance) boils down to the time-frame, and what right someone has to rectify a problem. I think this is very much down to public perception and varies massively from one business to the next. I think if a repair man or builder fixed something but missed a part and had to return a couple of days later to finish it off, people might think it a little strange if the customer was asking for compensation. If an accountant accidentally sent some incorrect figures, the right course of action would be for him to correct them when they were brought to his attention. Yet in this case the ability to remedy the problem is seen as irrelevant, and the minute the oversight occurs, there becomes not just full liability, but one extended to external events.

 

[deniser]

It is an interesting question that you have raised. To get your legal answer, as to whether or not, in the absence of any T&C, the customer is entitled to damages for consequential losses, you would need to look at quite a number of different statutes and there probably wouldn't be a clear cut answer.

The Supply of Goods and Service Act 1982 will apply for starters and this includes a provision that services will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. In this case, that particular provision has probably been breached because the customer's washing was given to someone else. I don't think a remedy is set out for pure services in that Act though.

So you would then have to look at general contract law for breach of contract which generally awards damages for loss. To get damages, they would have to be losses incurred in the normal course of events and either be known by both parties at the time the contract is made or reasonably forseeable. Unless the chap said when he handed over the washing that this was his only set of clothes and it was important that he got them back at a specific time then I don't think any court would say that it was reasonably forseeable that he would have to buy a new set of clothes. Surely he could borrow some anyway to minimise his losses.

I don't think you have too much to worry about provided you can get the clothes back to him quickly.

Presumably your business insurance policy would pay out for third party losses if you were going to face a serious claim over this?

 

[kulture]

Excellent answer. The op still has to create and display terms and conditions. Shops tend to do this by having a refund policy, and displaying it . I see no reason why a laundrette cannot likewise display their terms.

 

[deniser]

Excellent answer. The op still has to create and display terms and conditions. Shops tend to do this by having a refund policy, and displaying it . I see no reason why a laundrette cannot likewise display their terms.

I agree. Dry cleaners also have a disclaimer printed on the back of their receipts which you could easily add to a hand made ticket with a stamp.