My bag got muddy from the open wagon on the way up to Wengen, should I put in a claim for a new one?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
provenjohn, do up yer flies next time
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
the power of social media. I wonder if they will pay up now? InghamsHolidays, The reality is that now I have read this, if I am chosing my next ski holiday I will remember this story and it will influence my decisions based on the different providers I am looking at
I still think it's perfectly reasonable for Inghams to ask for the original receipt, and you're just mad because you don't have it but that's not Ingham's fault. If you want to claim something on warranty you need a proof of purchase.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Timmaah, but why would anyone keep a receipt for three years +? Its just a cop out by Inghams.
Timmaah, it's not on warranty. Inghams should just provide new equivalent bag like wot others do.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Timmaah, Do you keep receipts of everything (or even just suitcases) that you bought a couple of years ago?
After all it is free
After all it is free
What an epic saga - can't wait to check this out tomorrow evening
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
dobby, didn't say it was but I get how my wording might have given that impression.
Alastair Pink, usually everything I buy has a paper trail, so yes. I realize that the situation isn't great for OP but how does Inghams know he had the bag for 3+ years? If he bought it last week and was in the same situation what would people's perceptions be? Would you still think he should have the receipt?
If he bought the suitcase via credit or debit card maybe he could try and find that purchase in his account history and give that to Inghams?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Timmaah: "... usually everything I buy has a paper trail ..."
I wouldn't wish to be pedantic and ridiculous, Timmaah, but do you keep receipts for everything you buy?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Mosha Marc wrote:
provenjohn, do up yer flies next time
I never thought of that! There goes another opportunity, I'll have to revert to claiming for the 50mm shallow scratch on one of my ski's
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Quote:
"Inghams - terrible customer service"
-
Inghams are only trying to ascertain 2 things:
Is your loss their responsibility?
What is the accurate value of your loss?
It is perfectly reasonable for them to try and work out an accurate answer to both of these questions
"Terrible" is miles from the mark in my view.
Years ago our party had an incident with Ski Olympic where a staff member who worked in a neighbouring chalet, but slept in ours (but we didn't know him from Adam), came back to our chalet in a drunken state at 3am and went into one of our guest bedrooms instead of his own. There were 2 girls in the room aged 19 & 23, he took ALL is clothes off and got into bed with 1 of them and cuddled up to her. She awoke and was too petrified to move or say anything. After a while the other girl, a rather feisty Norwegian, awoke and it all kicked off BIG style. Our party of 24 had lots of young kids in it and he could have gone into a room with MUCH younger girls in. Had he done so then I think the fathers involved could well have killed him.
The girl was terrified and her holiday ruined. We had a Chalet meeting with the resort manager over dinner to discuss the problem and our complaint but it still took be 2 months of complaining to get her 50% of her holiday back.
The girl decided to move on and was grateful for what recompense she received nut many of us were fuming with how the complaint had been handled. The group had some trips with Silver Ski but Ski Olympic have still been used although we reckoned their handling of the situation meant we spent £40k elsewhere over the next few years. The girl in question finished her degree and the did 2 years working in resort for....... Ski Olympic
Sorry for the rant but just trying to help the OP define Terrible Customer Service and the issues TOs have when dealing with claims.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Hells Bells wrote:
Mosha Marc wrote:
I think it's the age and value they're interested in.
But that shouldn't really matter. The case is no longer fit for purpose, and was damaged by the coach driver.
No. In law, OP is only entitled to be put back in the position he was before the incident. So he's entitled to the value of a second-hand case. Now, of course, decent customer service would buy you a new one just to stop threads like this one...
Very modern suitcases have a short life, IMO. They aren't really fit for purpose.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
TheGeneralist wrote:
Years ago I got on the Metrolink without a ticket because the machine wouldn't take the huge pile of change I tried to use.
Revenue Protection got on the train and I got pulled off [the train]
Needless to say I was fuming. I was now late for my appointment because their poxy machine didn't work. The Revenue man didn't care. Took my address.
Got the fine a week later.
Sent them a very stroppy letter.
Got another letter reiterating the fine and telling me to pay up.
Sent them another stroppy letter, but with no more evidence that the machine had been faulty.
Got another letter apologising profusely and offering me a travel voucher to use in future.
There wasn't any new information came to light between the first letter and the second. They just figured that only people who really felt strongly that they'd been wronged would take it that far. Their policy was to fight until that point then capitulate.
My guess is that Inghams are doing something similar. If your suitcase had only been slightly damaged, or it hadn't actually cost you £60 or actually you'd been making the whole thing up then you'd probably have left it by now and found a more trusting company to go after. They're just hurdles they put in place to filter out the chaff.
So play the game and prove your case, any way you can.
Yeah that's all very well but what about all the totally genuine people this policy filters out too who now have a reason to badmouth your business e.g. those of an older generation who are more trusting of businesses. Take a vulnerable pensioner who was upset in the first place by the stress of a disrupted journey. They might easily be convinced a receipt was an essential and blame themselves for not keeping it.
I don't really believe the majority of customers of any business are frauds they just want what they have paid for. Businesses are too ready to convey the impression that they think you are a liar. It's corrosive.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
James the Last wrote:
Hells Bells wrote:
Mosha Marc wrote:
I think it's the age and value they're interested in.
But that shouldn't really matter. The case is no longer fit for purpose, and was damaged by the coach driver.
No. In law, OP is only entitled to be put back in the position he was before the incident. So he's entitled to the value of a second-hand case. Now, of course, decent customer service would buy you a new one just to stop threads like this one...
.
so were talking about maybe £20
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I think this thread is becoming a little unkind. The original complaint was the poor customer service by the tour operator. All they needed to do was to verify that what they had been told was correct and to offer a contribution towards the cost of a replacement case. As has been said the right of the complainant is to a replacement of what he lost ie a second hand case but his real complaint is around how he has been treated. The tour operator could/should have said sorry you are unhappy and sent a token cheque and that would probably have satisfied the complainant. Its not about the amount its about the response.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
Now, of course, decent customer service would buy you a new one just to stop threads like this one...
This ^
Having your case trashed is anoying and someone giving you days/weeks/months of agro and finally giving you £20 so you can try to source a second hand case like the broken one or having to fork out another £40 to get a new version of something you were not planning on replacing is doubly anoying.
Sure £40 may be insignificant compared to a Ski holiday but if I'm chosing a TO then I'm not going to pick the one that I hear makes people anoyed and I'm certainly not going re-book with one who made my life difficult for the sake of £40.
So Inghams may not be legally obliged to replace the case with a new one, but it would be a hell of a lot cheaper for them to not be ladies' front bottoms about it.
If their first post had been quickly followed by a second saying they had replaced the OPs case we would all be singing their praises now, rather than debating poor customer service in a thread with Inghams name all over it.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
In trying to get all of the luggage into the boot of the bus, he huffed and puffed and pushed and shoved for ages.
On retrieving one of our cases from the bus, I found that it had been wrecked - as a result of the huffing and puffing and pushing and shoving, the handle was bust and the plastic base was shattered.
Case clearly wasn't up to the job. Only a matter of time before it fell apart by the sounds of it. Airport baggage handlers huff/puff push/shove too so whatever case/bag you use has to be fit for purpose. Nope, sorry, this is just someone looking for an argument. It's an open and shut case.
As an aside, I happen to know that Inghams HQ lost power for three days pre Christmas thanks to flooding. I'd imagine some things have been given low priority while they catch up and this would certainly fit the bill of low priority.
I still think it's perfectly reasonable for Inghams to ask for the original receipt, and you're just mad because you don't have it but that's not Ingham's fault. If you want to claim something on warranty you need a proof of purchase.
I'm not claiming anything on warranty.
I might if there there were something intrinsically wrong with the bag (in which case my claim would be against the manufacturer of the bag, but in which case, from a legal point of view, I would still not need a receipt*), but my claim is precisely that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the bag until the Inghams employee jammed it into a bus hold that was so small that we had to carry half the luggage in the passenger gangway.
I don't think it's very hard to understand, but think of it this way: you are parked at Tesco, and someone reverses into your car.
They refuse to pay for your repairs because you don't have a receipt for the car.
OK... sounds fair to me.
*Seriously, if you learn anything from this thread, learn that any time anyone refuses you any statutory or common law right on the basis of the fact that you cannot produce a receipt they are treating you like a mug. A receipt is one form of proof of purchase; it is not the only form. If you buy a computer from PC World tomorrow, and lose the receipt the next day, and then the PC goes kaput on day 3, do you really think PC World can wash their hands of it?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
James the Last wrote:
No. In law, OP is only entitled to be put back in the position he was before the incident. So he's entitled to the value of a second-hand case. Now, of course, decent customer service would buy you a new one just to stop threads like this one...
Very modern suitcases have a short life, IMO. They aren't really fit for purpose.
Yeah, all I want is to be put back in the position I was in before, ie I had a decent-sized wheelie suitcase that will cost me about sixty quid to replace.
If Inghams want to provide me with a three or four year old suitcase, of the same size and make, perhaps bought from one of those second-hand suitcase dealers that you see on most high streets, that would be fine by me.
I suspect it would take them more time and effort (and thus more expense) to provide a second-hand one than a new one, but that's their call.
How do you define 'short life'? I have used this one three or maybe four times.
After all it is free
After all it is free
I'm wondering how long this case is going to run, and whether it will set case law.
There's a limit to how long I'm prepared to sit in the public gallery of this courtroom of nutcases.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Frosty the Snowman wrote:
Quote:
"Inghams - terrible customer service"
-
Inghams are only trying to ascertain 2 things:
Is your loss their responsibility?
What is the accurate value of your loss?
It is perfectly reasonable for them to try and work out an accurate answer to both of these questions
I'd agree with that. But that isn't what they are doing. What they are doing is refusing to go beyond 'have you got a receipt?' which, for the reasons stated above, is quite the wrong question.
[quote="Frosty the Snowman"]
Quote:
"Terrible" is miles from the mark in my view.
Matter of opinion, I guess. To me, no business is worth anything without its customers, so any failure to deal with a legitimate complaint, or even to assess its legitimacy, is terrible.
Still waiting to hear back from Inghams following their appearance on the thread yesterday, btw.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
Seriously, if you learn anything from this thread, learn that any time anyone refuses you any statutory or common law right on the basis of the fact that you cannot produce a receipt they are treating you like a mug.
Yep - I had a very similar discussion with a duty manager in Debenhams regarding a faulty set of source pans that had cost over £100. He basically called me a fraud and said I could have bought the pans from anywhere as they were Jamie Oliver branded and sold in lots of shops and I was just trying it on. He had to eat humble pie when I showed him the box of said pans that was still for sale, complete with its "exclusive to Debenhams" branding.
So now I have a replacement set of pans and won't be shopping there again.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
northernsoulboy, My guess is that they have procedures for such claims and that you are on the treadmill. Odds on you will get some settlement, just not as promptly or as easily as you would have wished.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
That's not actually true. Barristers are officers of the court, and are expected to adhere to higher standards of truth than the average joe.
This is reflected in higher sentences for any barrister found to be lying to the court, and career death for any caught committing criminal offences such as, I dunno, suitcase fraud.
The point being... really? Would we?
Some QCs are dodgy, of course. Are Inghams suggesting my friend is?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Bode Swiller wrote:
northernsoulboy wrote:
In trying to get all of the luggage into the boot of the bus, he huffed and puffed and pushed and shoved for ages.
On retrieving one of our cases from the bus, I found that it had been wrecked - as a result of the huffing and puffing and pushing and shoving, the handle was bust and the plastic base was shattered.
Case clearly wasn't up to the job. Only a matter of time before it fell apart by the sounds of it. Airport baggage handlers huff/puff push/shove too so whatever case/bag you use has to be fit for purpose. Nope, sorry, this is just someone looking for an argument. It's an open and shut case.
As an aside, I happen to know that Inghams HQ lost power for three days pre Christmas thanks to flooding. I'd imagine some things have been given low priority while they catch up and this would certainly fit the bill of low priority.
Go buy a new one.
Thanks for the advice.
Try this on for size.
Next time you're going on tour somewhere, I'll meet you at the airport and jump up and down on your case and smash it.
Then I'll tell you to go and buy a new one.
(I'll also charge you five or six grand before I do it.)
Sound good to you? Just name the time and place, I'll drive anywhere.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I had a damaged suitcase on an Easyjet flight from Valencia to Gatwick - the handle was broken when it came along on the carousel - it did have a label on it saying Heavy or something similar. And I know it was very heavy. It was quite late at night and I had a stinking cold and felt awful but OH went off to collect the car and I went through whatever the procedure is for damaged luggage at the airport, filling out forms etc. I had a phone call the next day from whoever handles their claims, they came and collected the suitcase a few days later, then phoned and said it could not be repaired and would be accept a replacement. So a few weeks later (and that delay was only because we were away from home again) they delivered a very nice Antler suitcase replacing my rather ancient Delsey which must have been at least 20 years old. No requests at all for receipt - it was covered in labels so had obviously been used for a long time.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
provenjohn wrote:
My bag got muddy from the open wagon on the way up to Wengen, should I put in a claim for a new one?
I'd probably just clean it.
Unless you were not told it was an open waggon, and you can't clean it, and you're bothered, in which case, yep, obviously claim for a new one.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
northernsoulboy, have you thought of entertaining and informing us with a YouTube?
I suppose it depends on how important repeat business is to them.
For Inghams, a £60 suitcase is highly unlikely to break the bank, and what they should be doing is initially assessing the damage, get a few statements to verify that it is something they could have avoided, then just apologise and send a shiny new case. If they were smart, they'd send an smart Inghams branded one and on top of that a token extra, say £20 off their next transfer booking. Might not be quite to the same standard/price/whatever as the original case, might be better, but there wouldnt be a bust up on the internet about their customer service, might get a comment along the lines of "well they broke my bag, but promptly replaced it, so i'll let them off" and everyone is happy. They might even win a bit more business. Breaking the bag was probably an accident, I highly doubt the driver thought that if he snapped a few in half he'd fit more in.
The old give them what they want, then give them something extra... works for many. Accept it is their problem and deal with it, instead of making the OP feel like they're in the wrong for not keeping a receipt.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
northernsoulboy wrote:
I don't think it's very hard to understand, but think of it this way: you are parked at Tesco, and someone reverses into your car.
They refuse to pay for your repairs
costing thousands and give you the value of the £250 your old banger was worth as their liability is limited to the value of your car (and associated costs).
northernsoulboy, No, of course no one would risk their career for a £60 suitcase. I suppose there are many people who would consider a QC a more reliable witness than us mere mortals. That must be due to all that "wisdom of Solomon" that rubs off on them when they're training! It always irks me though that just because someone or their relative or friend is a QC we should all be expected to quake in our boots and treat them differently from everyone else. As you say "Some QCs are dodgy, of course"!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
James the Last wrote:
northernsoulboy wrote:
I don't think it's very hard to understand, but think of it this way: you are parked at Tesco, and someone reverses into your car.
They refuse to pay for your repairs
costing thousands and give you the value of the £250 your old banger was worth as their liability is limited to the value of your car (and associated costs).
Yep, but you are missing the point James - in this analogy, Inghams are refusing to pay anything (to repair the car/replace the case).
Sure, if they offer me 'the value of my case' (there are no associated costs), that's fine.
In fact, it's all that I'm asking for (as I've said, I'm happy for them to give me a new case, a good enough second-hand case, or the cash to buy a new case).
I suspect the latter is the easiest and cheapest for them (it would actually be better for me to have options one or two, thus obviating the b@llache involved in getting a new case myself), but I don't mind.
look we all get that being put in the same state is the objective - just that there isn't much of secondary market in lightly used 3 year old luggage so it's easier just to replace with standard modest new stuff. Look in Tacky Maxx - most luggage comes in around £50-60 there so he's not exactly claiming it was limited edition, exclusive print Louis Vuitton. Airlines have standard supplies of stuff to provide because stuff gets smashed up all the time by baggage handlers.
I'd have thought a photo of the damage and a cross check that the customer was indeed on the transfer as identified would suffice as proof. Personally I might have made the rep in uniform stand by the damaged case while I took a photo if they wouldn't provide me with their written statement.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Rareperk wrote:
northernsoulboy, No, of course no one would risk their career for a £60 suitcase. I suppose there are many people who would consider a QC a more reliable witness than us mere mortals. That must be due to all that "wisdom of Solomon" that rubs off on them when they're training! It always irks me though that just because someone or their relative or friend is a QC we should all be expected to quake in our boots and treat them differently from everyone else. As you say "Some QCs are dodgy, of course"!
I'm not expecting anyone to 'quake', or suggesting that only a lawyer is a reliable witness.
I'm making the (to me) trivially obvious point that someone with a great deal to lose is less likely to involve himself in a fraud earning £30 (assuming half shares) than is someone with nothing to lose.
To put it even more simply, if I'd been travelling with an unemployed timeshare salesman with 30 convictions for fraud, I would expect Inghams to look a bit more closely at my complaint.
(Even then, with no evidence to contradict him, I'd still expect them to pay out, mind.)
This may be too nuanced for some, I accept.
After all it is free
After all it is free
lampygirl wrote:
I suppose it depends on how important repeat business is to them.
For Inghams, a £60 suitcase is highly unlikely to break the bank, and what they should be doing is initially assessing the damage, get a few statements to verify that it is something they could have avoided, then just apologise and send a shiny new case. If they were smart, they'd send an smart Inghams branded one and on top of that a token extra, say £20 off their next transfer booking. Might not be quite to the same standard/price/whatever as the original case, might be better, but there wouldnt be a bust up on the internet about their customer service, might get a comment along the lines of "well they broke my bag, but promptly replaced it, so i'll let them off" and everyone is happy. They might even win a bit more business. Breaking the bag was probably an accident, I highly doubt the driver thought that if he snapped a few in half he'd fit more in.
The old give them what they want, then give them something extra... works for many. Accept it is their problem and deal with it, instead of making the OP feel like they're in the wrong for not keeping a receipt.
My sentiments exactly.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
fatbob wrote:
look we all get that being put in the same state is the objective - just that there isn't much of secondary market in lightly used 3 year old luggage so it's easier just to replace with standard modest new stuff. Look in Tacky Maxx - most luggage comes in around £50-60 there so he's not exactly claiming it was limited edition, exclusive print Louis Vuitton. Airlines have standard supplies of stuff to provide because stuff gets smashed up all the time by baggage handlers.
I'd have thought a photo of the damage and a cross check that the customer was indeed on the transfer as identified would suffice as proof. Personally I might have made the rep in uniform stand by the damaged case while I took a photo if they wouldn't provide me with their written statement.
Also my sentiments exactly.
To be fair to the rep, he was very busy because (having missed our first flight to BHX) two planes were being held for us, ours to BHX and a second to Gatwick (for the poor s0ds who couldn't get on the flight to Brum), and he needed to get us off the bus and into the terminal and then move the bus on for the Gatwick lot.
That said, I did show him the case, and followed his instructions, which were 'Get a photo and contact Inghams when you get back.'
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I'm not sure why some posters are giving northernsoulboy such a hard time about this.
Inghams indirect-employee converted a usable case into an unusable one. They need to (somehow) replace it.
(When my son was mugged, we claimed on the household insurance - their claims handlers purchased replacements - presumably at a discount and ex-VAT - and sent them to us. Not difficult I would have thought).
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
There goes another opportunity, I'll have to revert to claiming for the 50mm shallow scratch on one of my ski's 
