Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Daily Mirror
Daily Mirror
Business
Dean Dunham

Storage wars erupt after woman's inheritance destroyed by rats

More people than ever before are opting to put their property into storage, but while it’s a cost-effective solution for some, it doesn’t always work out as planned – as Sunday People reader Patricia knows only too well.

When her mother died, Patricia inherited her house and its contents, including three original paintings worth up to £15,000 each.

She couldn’t immediately decide what to keep and what to sell so agreed a six-month contract with a local storage company.

Patricia handed over a list of everything being stored, then went on to take out insurance after the company informed her that it was her responsibility to do so.

The belongings were moved into storage (Evening Gazette)

But when she returned to collect her belongings four months later, Patricia was horrified to discover that rodents had moved in to the storage unit, destroying two of her mother’s precious paintings.

She lodged a complaint with the storage company in February 2018, but was referred to its terms and conditions, which stated that she must insure the goods.

Patricia then contacted her insurer who confirmed that while she was insured, rodent damage was not part of her policy.

After referring the matter back to the storage company, Patricia was pointed to another section of the terms and conditions which said “goods are stored entirely at your risk”.

Furious, at this stage, Patricia contacted me.

Does she have a claim

Who's to blame if rats get in? (AFP/Getty Images)

After speaking to staff at the storage company, it was clear they felt sure they had absolutely no liability due to these exclusions – but I explained they were wrong.

The Consumer Rights Act clearly states that services (such as providing a storage facilities) must be provided with “reasonable care and skill”.

In Patricia’s case, this means the facility should be clean, secure, water-tight and free any other factors that would cause damage – such as rodents.

By failing to meet this obligation, the storage company became liable and the obligations set out in the Consumer Rights Act trumped all of the exclusions in its terms.

The company has now made Patricia an offer and, in my view, will end up accepting full liability.

See more advice from Dean on theconsumerlawyer.blog.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.