Sainsbury’s supply driver reversed into our electrical gate leaving us with a £12,000 invoice: SALLY SORTS IT
On December 15, 2024, we ordered £400 of Christmas food from Sainsbury’s online. When the delivery arrived, the driver got the angles wrong and reversed his van repeatedly into our electric gates.
They haven’t worked since and despite the driver admitting his mistake we are getting nowhere with Sainsburys’ insurer over meeting the £12,000 cost of replacement. Please help.
S.C, Tonbridge, Kent.
Sally Hamilton replies: By the time you came to me you had been battling with Sainsbury’s for a year to sort out the damage caused by its van. This was having an impact on your business.
You board dogs during the holiday seasons and without a functioning gate had to reduce the number you could take in, for safety reasons. If this was a political scandal, I would call it ‘Sainsbury’s gate-gate’.
You explained that the driver’s error led to the bolts for the automatic mechanism being ripped through, causing them to drop 3in, and preventing them from opening or shutting.
The driver advised you to report the incident to the company, which you did. You were then put in contact with the supermarket’s insurer, which you said took four months to ascertain that the vehicle had been on your property. There was, it seems, a mix-up over the exact date.
Once this was confirmed, you were asked to seek two quotes to assess the cost of repairs. Both contractors said the gates couldn’t be repaired and advised replacement with oak gates and a new automation system.
As it was now a replacement rather than repair claim, you were passed to another department and there followed more exchanges over six months. This new contact offered you £500 to replace a couple of slats. You threatened legal action.
This prompted the insurer to send its own assessor, who you said agreed with your tradesmen and believed the gates were oak.
The insurer finally agreed to replace the existing gates – but would only pay for softwood. It refused to agree to the pricier oak option unless you provided more proof. Not being a timber expert, you didn’t know whether the originals were oak. At the end of your tether, you asked me to step in.
I approached Sainsbury’s, which simply said it was sorry and that it was working to resolve the matter. As I could see it, the main stumbling block was the dispute over the type of wood so I suggested you find an independent expert.
This took weeks, but in the end, you did one better and tracked down the original contractor who fitted the gates. You asked them to quote for a like-for-like replacement, confirming the wood type. They also pointed you to the specialist used for the original gates. This outfit confirmed the system could not be repaired.
Your detective work ended with the contractor confirming the gates were not made of oak, as three other people had suggested, but a high-quality soft wood. The firm then quoted £8,639 for replacement.
You sent this estimate to Sainsbury’s’ insurer in March. More weeks passed with no progress, so on April 20 I gave the company another shove. Shortly afterwards you received communication ‘out of the blue’, agreeing to settle on the full amount of the most recent quote. You will now arrange for the replacement to be done, 16 months on.
You were grateful for my help but it was unacceptable that the innocent party had to wait so long for her claim payment.
Sainsbury’s may have been right over the wood type but it could have helped confirm that at the start.
Sainsbury’s says: ‘We’ve been in touch with S.C. to resolve the matter and can confirm that a settlement has now been agreed and is being finalised. We’re sorry for the damage and thank her for her patience.’ The dilatory approach offers a cautionary tale for others.
With as many as one in five households buying groceries online, that’s a lot of delivery vehicles on the road, making such incidents more likely. Anyone whose property falls victim to clumsy manoeuvring should ask the driver to confirm the incident, keep a photo record, ask for witnesses and complain quickly to the firm’s customer service.
If you don’t get anywhere at first, escalate the complaint to the chief executive’s office and, if ignored, threaten legal action.
There may be an option of pursuing a claim through household insurance under accidental damage to buildings. This is often a paid-for extra on policies.
But check the small print, as gates are sometimes excluded. Claiming via home insurance will also usually mean contributing an excess and the risk of higher premiums at renewal.
Insurer refused our claim for a refund on show tickets
Last summer, my husband bought four tickets for the Wicked Wizard of Oz Cirque Spectacular at BP Pulse LIVE Birmingham as a Christmas present for our eight-year-old granddaughter.
Some months later she was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A few days before the show in December, she became anxious about going and on the day had an meltdown and refused to go. We stayed at home to help the family support her.
I tried to sell the £500 tickets at half price on the day but was unsuccessful. I then remembered we had ticket insurance with XCover. But it refused our claim. Please help.
K.L., Worcester.
Sally Hamilton replies: You wondered what the point was of taking out your £43 ticket protection insurance if a claim was going to be denied following a family emergency. The reason you did not attend was you needed to support your granddaughter and her parents.
The insurer wanted a doctor’s note but as it was not a medical emergency, no such note was possible. You did however provide a copy of her autism diagnosis, but this was dismissed.
I thought you had a compelling case, so I contacted Cover Genius, the parent company of XCover. A few days later, after reconsidering, it confirmed you would receive the full claim sum of £500 after all.
Cover Genius says: ‘In this instance, the claim was initially declined. Following a request for reassessment through our appeals process, the claim was reviewed again and has now been approved.
‘We are pleased the matter has been resolved and appreciate the customer’s understanding.’
- WRITE to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, 9 Derry Street, London, W8 5HY or email [email protected] — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
