QLD Paddleboard Lost During Transport - Is This a Debt Dispute?

[Jonkier82]

Hello all,

I recently purchased a stand-up paddleboard from a guy in Adelaide. He had advertised the board through a website titled seabreeze.com.au where people sell used watercraft. We agreed on a price of $1100 AUD, which I paid to him via bank transfer and thus have copies of the transaction.

I then used the website Airtasker.com to post the 'task' of transporting the board from the seller in Adelaide to myself in Brisbane. I was clear on the dimensions of the board and offered $100 to complete the task. A person who works through the website completing 'tasks' responded to the job posting saying he could complete the job for a cost of $150 AUD. I agreed to this and transferred the $150 AUD to the Airtasker website to be held by them until I notify the website that the task is complete.

The tasker collected the board from the seller in Adelaide and put the board on roof racks on top of his vehicle than from my understanding he had purchased to complete the job. The driver lost the board. Apparently one of the roof racks failed. He did not find the board.

He contacted the seller asking how much the board was worth. The seller then contacted me and informed that the tasker had lost the board. Upon contacting the seller myself he accepted no responsibility and would not agree to reimburse me any of the $1100 AUD that I had paid to the seller for the board.

Upon informing Airtasker.com that the job was not completed and my property lost, they advised me to make a claim to their insurance. The claim was formally denied under the grounds the scenario being excluded from their cover. Airtasker.com also would not offer any compensation to me.

I now want to make a claim to QCAT against the tasker who lost the board. Do you think he has been negligible and is liable to reimburse me what I paid for the board?

I was advised by a solicitor on justanswers.com that the tasker is liable as we had a verbal agreement and I am relying on him to complete the job, and if he cannot he should not accept the job, irrespective of how the manner in which the board was lost i.e. roof racks failing.

Would the application be a minor civil dispute or a debt dispute?

Thank you so much for any assistance on this matter.

Kind regards,

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

In answer to your first question: Can't tell, but he's the likely person to be liable for negligence if it is there. He might have done everything reasonable. Maybe it was a failure of his roof rack. Maybe he didn't install them properly, or attach the board properly. You might also wear some hurt for taking a risk in using an ad-hoc system instead of a dedicated transport provider. It may be a matter of percentages of blame. Either way, you get 0% if you don't try.

As to your second question: It would be a minor civil dispute as it's not over a fixed or agreed sum of money - on the basis you'll be claiming the value of a board you say is worth $1,100, and reimbursement of the $150 (if not already otherwise returned).

 

[Jonkier82]

Thank you so much for responding.

I was worried there could be grey areas around if he has been negligent or not. My thought process is that roof racks, when used according to their respective specifications i.e. correct racks for the vehicle used, not exceeding their tolerable capacity, do not fail. He said via text to me that the seller of the board attached the board to the rear roof rack via and he himself attached the board to the front roof rack, thus arguing that he isn't liable.

Is it not as simple as we had an agreement for delivery of the board and I did not receive the board and he was in possession of the item when it was lost? Would the QCAT representative delve into how he lost the board rather than focusing on he was responsible for the board while it was in his possession and he lost the board through his own actions i.e. it was not stolen from him or damaged by another vehicle or the negligence of someone else?

I am thinking of contacting the guy via phone and informing him that I plan to proceed with a civil claim against him and offer to settle prior to this if he pays me 80% of the $1100, thus I am accepting 20% responsibility for using Airtasker.com rather than a dedicated courier service. Is this illegal or will it work against me in further proceedings?

Thanks again,

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

There are hundreds of things that could have happened to that board from point A to point B - most of which you aren’t going to know. Hypothesis doesn’t work in these situations. I’d be sticking to the big picture of ‘he contracted to deliver the board and failed to do so’, and let him try to mitigate his actions by blaming anything else. You weren’t there, so you can’t comment one way or the other.

Send a demand for the full amount you want to claim. If that doesn’t work, file a demand for the whole amount. QCAT will give you a mediation opportunity, that’s where you offer your proposed discount. Doing it outside of that, if not handled properly, will hurt your case.

 

[Jonkier82]

There are hundreds of things that could have happened to that board from point A to point B - most of which you aren’t going to know. Hypothesis doesn’t work in these situations. I’d be sticking to the big picture of ‘he contracted to deliver the board and failed to do so’, and let him try to mitigate his actions by blaming anything else. You weren’t there, so you can’t comment one way or the other.

Send a demand for the full amount you want to claim. If that doesn’t work, file a demand for the whole amount. QCAT will give you a mediation opportunity, that’s where you offer your proposed discount. Doing it outside of that, if not handled properly, will hurt your case.

Rob

Thank you so much for help with this. I'll move forward with your recommendations.

Kind regards,

 

[Scruff]

As someone who has escorted oversize trucks all over the country, I can tell you that if this was a single one off delivery, the numbers here don't make any sense at all.

Adelaide to Brisbane = 2,000kms.
I assume he has to get back as well, so that's a 4,000km round trip.

So how much is petrol these days? Let's be generous and say $1.20 a litre. (It's considerably more than that were I am in Western Sydney.)

How much fuel does the average car use? Let's be generous again and say 8 litres / 100 kms (which is just ridiculous with something on the roof causing extra drag - so we're actually being really generous here.)

So now do the math...
Adelaide to Brisbane = 2000 / 100 x 8 = 160 litres x $1.20 = $192 one way.
Round trip? Well that's $384 - plus around 4 days of meals on top of it.

The whole deal here is not even close to being realistic. Even if this was legit, $150 would only get him as far as northern NSW at best - he wouldn't even reach the QLD border.

So my bet is that you've been well and truely scammed.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

@Scruff - You're discounting the possibility that he was going to take the trip anyway. It's quite often the case in this space that people will take a job to add on to something they were already going to do anyway, even if to just help cover the cost.

 

[Jonkier82]

Correct Rob.

It wasn’t a one off trip just for the board. He arranges multiple deliveries en route between locations. I agreed on a 3 day window for pick up which was 3 weeks from when we spoke to each other.

When the days came for him to collect the board he pushed it back a few days. Then when he arrived to collect the board he realised it was too big for his van, despite me being overtly clear that the board is 14’ x 25” and a high end carbon race board in the job description. He messaged saying he'd be back to collect the following week. So he was stuffing me around straight away.

He then purchased roof racks in order to complete the job and I'm sure was thinking racks would help him complete more jobs in future.

Anyway my guess is he purchased used racks that possibly were not suitable for the vehicle. Regardless, I cannot prove that and hypothesising won't get me anywhere.

I'm just cautious of going ahead with the civil claim if I'm likely to 'lose' as it costs about $150 to make the application. Wouldn't like to lose that on top of the $1100 I paid for the board.

Thanks again for the replies,

Jon

 

[Scruff]

@Scruff - You're discounting the possibility that he was going to take the trip anyway.

Not at all - in fact, I thought that would have to be the case. I only made my point in case it wasn't. First sentence: "... if this was a single one off delivery, ...".

So he has a van and makes other deliveries. That means he is carrying on a business as a courier:
1. Does he have an ABN?
2. Does he have appropriate insurance?
If the answer to either is "no", then it says a lot about how he actually runs his business. But be careful - the obvious question this will raise is "Why didn't you verify that before hiring him?"

As you say, you can only assume at this point that he has been reckless. So if this goes to the Tribunal, your job will be to try and confirm it - and I think the important questions relate directly to the roof racks:
1. Were the roof racks new or used?
2. New or used, was the load within the specifications of the roof racks? (ie; did not exceed weight limits, etc)
3. If used, did any qualified person (such as a mechanic) inspect them to ensure that they were operational? (ie; in good enough condition to be used for their intended purpose.)
4. Were the roof racks designed for that particular vehicle? (They may have been "generic", but if so, that doesn't automatically mean they can be used on "any" vehicle.)
5. Were the roof racks fitted to the vehicle by a professional? (ie; a mechanic or similar)

The one question that should be asked early on, or not at all, is:
6. Was the item properly loaded and secured?

While this is obviously an important question, how it differs from the others, is that it's unlikely the answer here can be proven either way. His answer will therefore have to be taken on face value and you should expect that it will obviously be "yes". So it's probably best that you don't bring this up - let him do it. If he does bring it up and goes on to describe how it was loaded and secured, then if you think you can show that he did something wrong, by all means, quiz him and put the pressure on - but only if you know what you're talking about. This will be your word against his and since you weren't there, you will need to rely on what he says and show that what he described was not the "proper" procedure.

For all the other questions, he is operating a business and therefore he should be expected to be able to produce paperwork to back his claims. I reckon #2, 3 & 5 are the most important questions here - especially #5.

Use the fact that the roof rack failed. That means your main focus points are #2 and #5, plus #3 if the roof racks were not purchased new. If you can show he was reckless in regard to just one of those points, then that should be enough.

 

[Jonkier82]

Not at all - in fact, I thought that would have to be the case. I only made my point in case it wasn't. First sentence: "... if this was a single one off delivery, ...".

So he has a van and makes other deliveries. That means he is carrying on a business as a courier:
1. Does he have an ABN?
2. Does he have appropriate insurance?
If the answer to either is "no", then it says a lot about how he actually runs his business. But be careful - the obvious question this will raise is "Why didn't you verify that before hiring him?"

As you say, you can only assume at this point that he has been reckless. So if this goes to the Tribunal, your job will be to try and confirm it - and I think the important questions relate directly to the roof racks:
1. Were the roof racks new or used?
2. New or used, was the load within the specifications of the roof racks? (ie; did not exceed weight limits, etc)
3. If used, did any qualified person (such as a mechanic) inspect them to ensure that they were operational? (ie; in good enough condition to be used for their intended purpose.)
4. Were the roof racks designed for that particular vehicle? (They may have been "generic", but if so, that doesn't automatically mean they can be used on "any" vehicle.)
5. Were the roof racks fitted to the vehicle by a professional? (ie; a mechanic or similar)

The one question that should be asked early on, or not at all, is:
6. Was the item properly loaded and secured?

While this is obviously an important question, how it differs from the others, is that it's unlikely the answer here can be proven either way. His answer will therefore have to be taken on face value and you should expect that it will obviously be "yes". So it's probably best that you don't bring this up - let him do it. If he does bring it up and goes on to describe how it was loaded and secured, then if you think you can show that he did something wrong, by all means, quiz him and put the pressure on - but only if you know what you're talking about. This will be your word against his and since you weren't there, you will need to rely on what he says and show that what he described was not the "proper" procedure.

For all the other questions, he is operating a business and therefore he should be expected to be able to produce paperwork to back his claims. I reckon #2, 3 & 5 are the most important questions here - especially #5.

Use the fact that the roof rack failed. That means your main focus points are #2 and #5, plus #3 if the roof racks were not purchased new. If you can show he was reckless in regard to just one of those points, then that should be enough.

Thanks so much for your input @Scruff.

In regards to him running a business and having an ABN and insurance, I'm not sure. Airtasker provide insurance for their sub-contractors or 'taskers' that complete jobs through their website and so I was under the impression that they would be required to vet their people completing tasks, otherwise criminal activity would surely be rife. I mean for all I know my board could have been stolen. Let's say it was, shouldn't Airtasker bear some responsibility since they allowed such individuals to operate through their service/website?

My insurance claim was formally denied by CGU and Airtasker now see the case as closed. I did not and still don't desire to make proceedings against the tasker but I'm not prepared to lose $1100 through someone else's negligence. Another lawyer told me Airtasker act only as the intermediary and my verbal contract was with the tasker.

Regarding the roof racks, he says she secured the board at the front via snatch straps and the seller of the board (who he collected it from) attached the rear of the board to the roof racks. he already used that as an excuse to accept no responsibility when we were texting following the loss of the board. I believe he purchased used racks that were not suitable for the particular vehicle. I just keep coming back to the idea that suitably installed roof racks that are designed to fit the vehicle, when loaded with a 10-11kg stand up paddle board, do not fail and fly off the roof of the vehicle. But again this is all supposition on my part. I have frequently have two 14 foot SUP's, one atop the other, on my sedan vehicle, with no issues.

He has to have been reckless with the purchase of inappropriate roof racks that were not properly secured. Otherwise it might have been the straps that came loose instead of the roof racks coming off. I mean the guy could have killed somone driving behind. Imagine a 14 foot board flying off a vehicle traveling on the highway.

Regards,

Jon