Tweet
Delivery firm damaged flooring, claim rejected
Hi everyone, i was recommended by a user on MSE to post on here for some advice. I ordered a fridge/freezer from Appliances direct which was delivered in July last year, I paid extra for the delivery and unpack in the room of our choice as it was quite big (not the American style fridge freezer)
The delivery company was ArrowXL, they had a two man team to bring the fridge freezer in to the house.
They arrived and asked to check the room the fridge was being delivered to, they unpacked it the it in the hallway because the box was so large and they said it would be easier to lift it into the room rather than using the trolley, as they got to the entrance of the kitchen one team member had the bottom of the fridge and the other was at the top (kind of holding it at a 45deg angle) the guy at the bottom dropped it while the guy at the top was moving backwards, and it hit the floor penetrated the corrugated floor protection we had and scratched our Amtico floor as it was pulled backwards.
As soon as he did it, he swore, and they lifted into the kitchen, and we pulled the sheeting up and there was a scrape around 2 inches with the plastic particles either side of it. He said I will call my boss, I managed to film the end of the conversation with his boss, and she was telling them ‘’the customer will have to raise a claim via our website’’ Not once did he say on the call/video he didn’t do it, or the customer is making it up. And they took some pictures of the damage before leaving.
I originally sent an email to appliances direct and they replied
‘’ Regarding the damage to your floor, since the delivery was handled by ArrowXL, you'll need to raise a property damage claim directly with them. You can contact their customer service team on 01942 943700’’
I found a local floor company that can fit Amtico (we must use a registered and approved Amtico floor fitter otherwise the lifetime warranty is not valid on the floor)
The company sent a guy out and he said that sometimes really easy that the one tile lifts and new glue is put down and its fine, sometimes they lift the tile and the sub floor is stuck to it and that damages the sub floor so he would need to fix that aswell, he also mentioned that sometimes they turn into a nightmare because it starts with one tile and then the next tile has to come up because of the damaged subfloor it’s the luck of the draw, he did say they heat the tile up and the glue underneath so it should be ok but hes had quite a few where they go on upto a metre because of the subfloor. He mentioned that the most expensive part is that you cannot just purchase one tile from Amtico, and we do not have any spare tiles, so they will price on a box of tiles from Amtico which are not cheap.
I raised a Claim with ArrowXL and received a rejection letter on the 7th august. Stating ‘’ I had been sent T&Cs on email and sms and highlight ‘adequate floor protection’ it also states that the crew did ask if the flooring protection was going to be provided and to sign the damage waiver, the crew had notified the depot of existing damage to the floor before delivery. ‘’
I responded to this with the following which was far to lengthy from my part but i felt that they weren't even reading my complaint
Dear David,
Thank you for your email and for outlining the reasons for rejecting my property damage claim. I do not agree with the decision and wish to formally appeal.
While I acknowledge the points you raised, I strongly dispute the version of events described in your findings and in the statements from your delivery team.
1. Adequate Floor Protection
Adequate protection was in place prior to delivery, and I took reasonable steps to safeguard my flooring. Your delivery team entered my property before carrying in the fridge freezer to check the route and assess the floor protection. At no point did either delivery team member state that the protection was inadequate, missing, or that the floor was damaged.
You note in your email: “Delivery team are forbidden to remove safety clothing, including footwear”. My claim is not that damage came from footwear — it was caused when the bottom corner of the fridge freezer was dropped. One crew member was the bottom of the freezer and other delivery crew member was positioned at the top, the crew member at the bottom dropped the fridge freezer onto the floor and the crew member at the top continued walking backwards, dragging the fridge freezer for a short distance until being told to stop.
2. Crew Statements and Existing Damage
I completely disagree with the crew’s account. At no time during their initial inspection did they say the protection was inadequate or that a damage waiver was required. No existing damage was present before the delivery. You stated: “The crew had notified the depot of existing damage to the floor before delivery”. This is incorrect and I believe you that you meant after delivery.
I have previously provided you with a video recording of my conversation with the crew, which confirms:
· I requested delivery crew member “Anton” to call his manager after the damage occurred.
· At no point during the phone conversation with his manager did he say the damage was pre-existing or deny responsibility.
· His manager instructed him to advise the customer that I would need to submit a claim online.
· The other crew member photographed the damage immediately afterwards, which will be evident from the time stamp.
· As a Logistics provided your delivery crews are required to follow the manual handling operations 1992 and part of that regulation is that the delivery crew need to assess the delivery area before undertaking any manual handling task, this assessment is crucial for identifying potential hazards and reducing the risk of injury, and from the T&Cs you have forwarded to me these also state that the delivery crews asses the route and area before they deliver the appliance inside the house. The statement your delivery crew stating they noticed floor was damaged is dishonest at best and at worst fraudulent.
I have now downloaded CCTV footage from the front of the property showing:
3. Damage Waiver Process
At no point was I asked to sign a damage waiver for inadequate floor protection or no floor protection — a process you have stated is standard for your delivery teams. I did not sign such a waiver. If I had refused, the correct process (as per Arrowxl's own procedure) would have been for the crew to call head office and refuse to deliver. That did not happen and yet another fraudulent statement by your delivery crew .
4. Photographic Evidence
Photographs clearly show the scratch direction and the resting place of the fridge freezer are linked. Small plastic fragments from the surface of damaged floor remain visible in the images — these could not have been present for long, as they would have been easily displaced by a slight breeze when someone walked past.
Given the above evidence outlined above, supported by both photographs, video and CCTV footage, I request that my claim is reinvestigated in full and I request that assessor is sent to the property.
I will await the decision from the appeal but bearing in mind how your company has responded so far and the false statements already made by your delivery crew I'm willing to pursue reimbursement via a small claims court, I hereby request a decision on my appeal within 14days from the date of this email.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal email.
Kind regards
That mail was replied with a message advising it had been sent to the appeals department
And then on the 11th September I received a rejection to my appeal
Good afternoon
The depot has investigated your claim 64641, which you raised to appeal. They have concluded to stay with the original decision and reject your claim. Unfortunately, we cannot progress with this property damage claim any further for you and advise you may need to seek independent legal advice.
Please see attached documents
Kind Regards
David
I posted up a thread on MSE forum asking for advice which is where one of the members suggested posting on here, but they mentioned i should be raising the claim with appliances direct and not the delivery firm as they have been contracted by appliances direct.
This mail was from Appliances direct on the 16th December
‘’ I have just come across your email and am currently reviewing the details of this matter.
I understand that you wish to progress a claim for alleged property damage. However, I would like to clarify that ArrowXL have rejected this claim, confirming that the damage was not caused by them at the time of delivery, and as such no liability has been accepted.
I have reviewed the images provided on 26/07/2025. From what I can see, the issue appears to relate to the threshold area of the kitchen doorway, although the exact nature and extent of the damage is unclear from the evidence supplied.
Regarding the £500 flooring quotation, we would not be accepting this amount. You are welcome to attach the quotation for review; however, this does not change our position regarding liability.
In order to bring this matter to a close, and without any admission of liability, I am prepared to offer a goodwill contribution of £50 as a full and final settlement.
Please confirm if you wish to accept this offer.
Kind Regards,
Monuar Rahman
I replied after Christmas
We acknowledge receipt of the without prejudice offer of £50.00. However, given the manner in which this matter has been handled by ArrowXL, including what we believe to be false and unsupported statements made by the delivery crew, we do not consider this offer to be acceptable. We believe we are fully justified in pursuing our damage claim in full and will therefore proceed with a small claims action against Appliances Direct.
I appreciate this is a lengthy email; however, it is important to be fully transparent so that, prior to the matter being heard in court, you have a complete and accurate understanding of the facts.
Chronology of Events
9 July
I submitted a property damage claim to ArrowXL after being advised by Appliances Direct as follows:
“Regarding the damage to your floor, since the delivery was handled by ArrowXL, you'll need to raise a property damage claim directly with them.”
7 August – Initial Rejection
ArrowXL rejected the claim, stating that:
Response to Rejection
The delivery crew arrived, inspected the delivery route, and confirmed the floor was protected. They advised they would manually carry the fridge freezer due to the step at the front door and confirmed a trolley would not be used.
At no point did the crew:
The assertion that existing damage was identified prior to delivery is entirely false. Had this been the case, the correct process would have been to issue paperwork to the homeowner for a signature. No such paperwork was provided because no such inspection or finding took place. I have repeatedly requested copies of the alleged waiver and evidence of pre-existing damage; these requests have been ignored.
Photographs taken immediately after the incident clearly show plastic debris adjacent to the scratch. These fragments are consistent with fresh damage and would not have remained in place had the damage pre-existed the delivery especially as they are in a high traffic area of the household and the delivery crew passed this area.
Appeal Submitted
I formally appealed the rejection, reiterating that:
11 September – Appeal Rejection
I received a further rejection (Appeal Reference 64641). The wording and reasoning were identical to the original rejection and demonstrated no consideration of the evidence provided. It appears to be a recycled rejection letter.
Outstanding Issues
To date, I have not received:
Repair Position
The flooring is manufactured by Amtico. To maintain the lifetime warranty, any repair must be carried out by a registered Amtico installer. Amtico tiles are supplied in full boxes, not individually. Removal of a single tile may require further tiles to be lifted if the subfloor is damaged.
I am willing for Appliances Direct to appoint their own contractor, provided they are Amtico-approved. Any remaining tiles following repair can be retained by Appliances Direct.
We have attempted to minimise costs by sourcing independent quotes. Amtico can be instructed directly to assess and quote; however, this involves a call-out fee, which I have not yet incurred.
I will also be seeking recovery of loss of earnings for court attendance.
Please provide a response within 14 days so this matter can be resolved. Failing that, we will proceed with issuing a claim via the small claims court without further notice.
Kind regards
2nd January I received
Thank you for your response.
I acknowledge the history of this claim; however, as previously explained, I am unable to verify the legitimacy of the claim as it currently stands due to the courier.
This matter is now with me at the highest point of escalation within the business. While we do not accept liability, I have considered the circumstances and am prepared to offer a contribution towards your costs.
We are unable to accept a single statement of £500 without supporting evidence such as a quotation, in most cases this is free to acquire. Should you wish for this to be reviewed, you would need to provide a fully itemised quotation clearly detailing the individual costs involved.
In an effort to resolve this matter amicably, I am prepared to offer a revised final settlement amount of £100. This represents our full and final position.
Should you choose to pursue the matter externally via the small claims court, that would be your right to do so. In that event, we would robustly defend our position.
Please confirm how you wish to proceed.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
2nd January I responded
Happy New Year to you. I hope 2026 will be a positive year for you.
Please find attached the quotation I obtained prior to Christmas. The company is approved to install Amtico flooring.
I am also happy to contact Amtico directly to arrange an assessment. I understand there would be a charge for this, which I would then request to be reimbursed by Appliances Direct.
Additionally, I can look further afield locally to obtain alternative quotations. I did speak with another company before Christmas; however, due to their workload at the time, they were unable to visit and instead provided an estimate of £600 + VAT based on photographs of the area. They have advised that a site visit would still be required to provide a formal quote. While the cost may appear high for a single scratch, I have been informed that individual tiles cannot be purchased. Furthermore, there is an inlay close to the damaged area (visible in the photos), which they advised would typically lift when removing an adjacent tile. The adhesive is also costly, as it must be supplied by Amtico to ensure the lifetime warranty remains valid.
Please let me know if you would like me to proceed with booking an Amtico assessment. As previously mentioned, I am also more than happy for you to appoint your own flooring contractor, provided they are Amtico-approved to maintain the lifetime warranty.
I look forward to hearing from you
5th January I received
Happy New Year. I hope you had a pleasant Christmas.
Thank you for providing the quotation. This will be used as part of the ongoing review.
To progress this matter, I require clear images of the specific damage you are claiming for. Upon reviewing the file, there is currently only one image available, which shows the threshold between the hallway/living room and the kitchen. This image also appears to show cardboard placed over the flooring in the area where the appliance was moved into the kitchen.
Please forward images that clearly demonstrate the damage being claimed for, so these can be fully considered as part of the review.
I responded on the 8th January
Hi Monuar,
Apologies — I completely missed this message.
I have attached several images. I have also attempted to attach the video; however, due to the file size and the fact that I am travelling and working from my mobile, I have been unable to include it with this email.
The first set of images shows the area immediately after the accident. In these photos, you will clearly see fragments of the flooring. As previously explained, these fragments would have been easily displaced by air movement or foot traffic. If they had been from a previous incident, they would not reasonably have remained in place for any length of time.
The additional images show the area as it currently stands. We have not touched the site, and it remains exactly as it was following the incident.
You will also note that the inlay border is cut into the tiles at a 45-degree angle. The flooring contractor has advised that, while they will make every effort to retain the original inlay when removing the damaged tile, this is not always straightforward. The subfloor is disturbed during tile removal, and the process of lifting and relaying tiles — together with the installation of a new subfloor — can compromise the integrity of the surrounding inlay. For this reason, the quotation includes replacement inlay section as a contingency.
9th January they responded with
Good Morning Peter
Thank you for providing all the details.
I have reviewed the matter and considered your request to revise the original offer of £100. I appreciate the frustration caused by the back-and-forth between the courier claim process and myself. I want to clarify that I have not rejected your claim and remain willing to offer a contribution towards your costs.
From the evidence provided, the damage appears to be a scrape of some kind. As you are aware, ArrowXL have rejected the claim and accepted no liability. Therefore, we are unable to accept responsibility for the total costs requested, particularly given the nature of the damage shown.
However, I have reviewed and authorised a final contribution settlement of £150 to amicably close this matter.
I advised by return that £150 was not acceptable to me and that I will pursue a small claims submission
15th January Appliances direct responded
I understand your position.
Our offer of £150 remains open as a final settlement amount as we do not accept liability. Should the matter proceed as a claim, we will robustly defend our position.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
Head of Customer Service
Buy It Direct Ltd
I replied asking for a copy of the waiver I had, after seen the crew lie about the damage floor before they arrived I thought they might have falsely created a waiver.
15th January they responded with
Having reviewed this matter, I can confirm that delivery confirmation was issued to you via text/email by ArrowXL on 26/07/2025.
As you may be aware, couriers in the UK are not legally required to obtain a physical signature upon delivery. Deliveries are completed digitally and on a contactless basis, and signed-for services or waivers are optional rather than mandatory.
Should you require further clarification on their delivery procedures, you may wish to contact ArrowXL directly.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
Head of Customer Services
Which takes me upto date with now wanting to take this to a small claims to recover the cost to get the floor repaired.
The delivery company was ArrowXL, they had a two man team to bring the fridge freezer in to the house.
They arrived and asked to check the room the fridge was being delivered to, they unpacked it the it in the hallway because the box was so large and they said it would be easier to lift it into the room rather than using the trolley, as they got to the entrance of the kitchen one team member had the bottom of the fridge and the other was at the top (kind of holding it at a 45deg angle) the guy at the bottom dropped it while the guy at the top was moving backwards, and it hit the floor penetrated the corrugated floor protection we had and scratched our Amtico floor as it was pulled backwards.
As soon as he did it, he swore, and they lifted into the kitchen, and we pulled the sheeting up and there was a scrape around 2 inches with the plastic particles either side of it. He said I will call my boss, I managed to film the end of the conversation with his boss, and she was telling them ‘’the customer will have to raise a claim via our website’’ Not once did he say on the call/video he didn’t do it, or the customer is making it up. And they took some pictures of the damage before leaving.
I originally sent an email to appliances direct and they replied
‘’ Regarding the damage to your floor, since the delivery was handled by ArrowXL, you'll need to raise a property damage claim directly with them. You can contact their customer service team on 01942 943700’’
I found a local floor company that can fit Amtico (we must use a registered and approved Amtico floor fitter otherwise the lifetime warranty is not valid on the floor)
The company sent a guy out and he said that sometimes really easy that the one tile lifts and new glue is put down and its fine, sometimes they lift the tile and the sub floor is stuck to it and that damages the sub floor so he would need to fix that aswell, he also mentioned that sometimes they turn into a nightmare because it starts with one tile and then the next tile has to come up because of the damaged subfloor it’s the luck of the draw, he did say they heat the tile up and the glue underneath so it should be ok but hes had quite a few where they go on upto a metre because of the subfloor. He mentioned that the most expensive part is that you cannot just purchase one tile from Amtico, and we do not have any spare tiles, so they will price on a box of tiles from Amtico which are not cheap.
I raised a Claim with ArrowXL and received a rejection letter on the 7th august. Stating ‘’ I had been sent T&Cs on email and sms and highlight ‘adequate floor protection’ it also states that the crew did ask if the flooring protection was going to be provided and to sign the damage waiver, the crew had notified the depot of existing damage to the floor before delivery. ‘’
I responded to this with the following which was far to lengthy from my part but i felt that they weren't even reading my complaint
Dear David,
Thank you for your email and for outlining the reasons for rejecting my property damage claim. I do not agree with the decision and wish to formally appeal.
While I acknowledge the points you raised, I strongly dispute the version of events described in your findings and in the statements from your delivery team.
1. Adequate Floor Protection
Adequate protection was in place prior to delivery, and I took reasonable steps to safeguard my flooring. Your delivery team entered my property before carrying in the fridge freezer to check the route and assess the floor protection. At no point did either delivery team member state that the protection was inadequate, missing, or that the floor was damaged.
You note in your email: “Delivery team are forbidden to remove safety clothing, including footwear”. My claim is not that damage came from footwear — it was caused when the bottom corner of the fridge freezer was dropped. One crew member was the bottom of the freezer and other delivery crew member was positioned at the top, the crew member at the bottom dropped the fridge freezer onto the floor and the crew member at the top continued walking backwards, dragging the fridge freezer for a short distance until being told to stop.
2. Crew Statements and Existing Damage
I completely disagree with the crew’s account. At no time during their initial inspection did they say the protection was inadequate or that a damage waiver was required. No existing damage was present before the delivery. You stated: “The crew had notified the depot of existing damage to the floor before delivery”. This is incorrect and I believe you that you meant after delivery.
I have previously provided you with a video recording of my conversation with the crew, which confirms:
· I requested delivery crew member “Anton” to call his manager after the damage occurred.
· At no point during the phone conversation with his manager did he say the damage was pre-existing or deny responsibility.
· His manager instructed him to advise the customer that I would need to submit a claim online.
· The other crew member photographed the damage immediately afterwards, which will be evident from the time stamp.
· As a Logistics provided your delivery crews are required to follow the manual handling operations 1992 and part of that regulation is that the delivery crew need to assess the delivery area before undertaking any manual handling task, this assessment is crucial for identifying potential hazards and reducing the risk of injury, and from the T&Cs you have forwarded to me these also state that the delivery crews asses the route and area before they deliver the appliance inside the house. The statement your delivery crew stating they noticed floor was damaged is dishonest at best and at worst fraudulent.
I have now downloaded CCTV footage from the front of the property showing:
- The crew arriving before taking the fridge freezer into property (timestamped)
- The fridge freezer being carried in the property after that inspection (timestamped).
- The crew taking the old appliance and outer cardboard box and placing them in their vehicle after the delivery (timestamped)
3. Damage Waiver Process
At no point was I asked to sign a damage waiver for inadequate floor protection or no floor protection — a process you have stated is standard for your delivery teams. I did not sign such a waiver. If I had refused, the correct process (as per Arrowxl's own procedure) would have been for the crew to call head office and refuse to deliver. That did not happen and yet another fraudulent statement by your delivery crew .
4. Photographic Evidence
Photographs clearly show the scratch direction and the resting place of the fridge freezer are linked. Small plastic fragments from the surface of damaged floor remain visible in the images — these could not have been present for long, as they would have been easily displaced by a slight breeze when someone walked past.
Given the above evidence outlined above, supported by both photographs, video and CCTV footage, I request that my claim is reinvestigated in full and I request that assessor is sent to the property.
I will await the decision from the appeal but bearing in mind how your company has responded so far and the false statements already made by your delivery crew I'm willing to pursue reimbursement via a small claims court, I hereby request a decision on my appeal within 14days from the date of this email.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal email.
Kind regards
That mail was replied with a message advising it had been sent to the appeals department
And then on the 11th September I received a rejection to my appeal
Good afternoon
The depot has investigated your claim 64641, which you raised to appeal. They have concluded to stay with the original decision and reject your claim. Unfortunately, we cannot progress with this property damage claim any further for you and advise you may need to seek independent legal advice.
Please see attached documents
Kind Regards
David
I posted up a thread on MSE forum asking for advice which is where one of the members suggested posting on here, but they mentioned i should be raising the claim with appliances direct and not the delivery firm as they have been contracted by appliances direct.
This mail was from Appliances direct on the 16th December
‘’ I have just come across your email and am currently reviewing the details of this matter.
I understand that you wish to progress a claim for alleged property damage. However, I would like to clarify that ArrowXL have rejected this claim, confirming that the damage was not caused by them at the time of delivery, and as such no liability has been accepted.
I have reviewed the images provided on 26/07/2025. From what I can see, the issue appears to relate to the threshold area of the kitchen doorway, although the exact nature and extent of the damage is unclear from the evidence supplied.
Regarding the £500 flooring quotation, we would not be accepting this amount. You are welcome to attach the quotation for review; however, this does not change our position regarding liability.
In order to bring this matter to a close, and without any admission of liability, I am prepared to offer a goodwill contribution of £50 as a full and final settlement.
Please confirm if you wish to accept this offer.
Kind Regards,
Monuar Rahman
I replied after Christmas
We acknowledge receipt of the without prejudice offer of £50.00. However, given the manner in which this matter has been handled by ArrowXL, including what we believe to be false and unsupported statements made by the delivery crew, we do not consider this offer to be acceptable. We believe we are fully justified in pursuing our damage claim in full and will therefore proceed with a small claims action against Appliances Direct.
I appreciate this is a lengthy email; however, it is important to be fully transparent so that, prior to the matter being heard in court, you have a complete and accurate understanding of the facts.
Chronology of Events
9 July
I submitted a property damage claim to ArrowXL after being advised by Appliances Direct as follows:
“Regarding the damage to your floor, since the delivery was handled by ArrowXL, you'll need to raise a property damage claim directly with them.”
7 August – Initial Rejection
ArrowXL rejected the claim, stating that:
- Terms & Conditions were sent by email and SMS
- Adequate floor protection was not in place
- The crew allegedly asked for a damage waiver to be signed
- The crew allegedly notified the depot of existing damage prior to delivery
Response to Rejection
The delivery crew arrived, inspected the delivery route, and confirmed the floor was protected. They advised they would manually carry the fridge freezer due to the step at the front door and confirmed a trolley would not be used.
At no point did the crew:
- State that floor protection was inadequate
- Request that I sign a damage waiver
- Refuse delivery or contact the depot to raise any concerns regarding previous damage to the floor
The assertion that existing damage was identified prior to delivery is entirely false. Had this been the case, the correct process would have been to issue paperwork to the homeowner for a signature. No such paperwork was provided because no such inspection or finding took place. I have repeatedly requested copies of the alleged waiver and evidence of pre-existing damage; these requests have been ignored.
Photographs taken immediately after the incident clearly show plastic debris adjacent to the scratch. These fragments are consistent with fresh damage and would not have remained in place had the damage pre-existed the delivery especially as they are in a high traffic area of the household and the delivery crew passed this area.
Appeal Submitted
I formally appealed the rejection, reiterating that:
- Adequate floor protection was in place
- The crew inspected the route prior to delivery and
- The damage occurred when the bottom corner of the fridge freezer was dropped and dragged briefly across the floor
- Video footage of the crew calling their supervisor immediately after the damage
- CCTV footage showing the inspection, delivery, and removal of the old appliance
- Timestamped photographs taken immediately after the damage occurred
- The timestamp of the photograph the delivery crew took of the damaged area will match the CCTV timestamp of them entering with the fridge and leaving without.
- The crew did not state the damage was pre-existing
- Responsibility was not denied to their supervisors
- The supervisor advised that a formal claim should be submitted online and there was nothing they could do at the property
11 September – Appeal Rejection
I received a further rejection (Appeal Reference 64641). The wording and reasoning were identical to the original rejection and demonstrated no consideration of the evidence provided. It appears to be a recycled rejection letter.
Outstanding Issues
To date, I have not received:
- Evidence of alleged pre-existing damage
- A copy of a signed damage waiver
- Any explanation addressing the video, photographic, or CCTV evidence
Repair Position
The flooring is manufactured by Amtico. To maintain the lifetime warranty, any repair must be carried out by a registered Amtico installer. Amtico tiles are supplied in full boxes, not individually. Removal of a single tile may require further tiles to be lifted if the subfloor is damaged.
I am willing for Appliances Direct to appoint their own contractor, provided they are Amtico-approved. Any remaining tiles following repair can be retained by Appliances Direct.
We have attempted to minimise costs by sourcing independent quotes. Amtico can be instructed directly to assess and quote; however, this involves a call-out fee, which I have not yet incurred.
I will also be seeking recovery of loss of earnings for court attendance.
Please provide a response within 14 days so this matter can be resolved. Failing that, we will proceed with issuing a claim via the small claims court without further notice.
Kind regards
2nd January I received
Thank you for your response.
I acknowledge the history of this claim; however, as previously explained, I am unable to verify the legitimacy of the claim as it currently stands due to the courier.
This matter is now with me at the highest point of escalation within the business. While we do not accept liability, I have considered the circumstances and am prepared to offer a contribution towards your costs.
We are unable to accept a single statement of £500 without supporting evidence such as a quotation, in most cases this is free to acquire. Should you wish for this to be reviewed, you would need to provide a fully itemised quotation clearly detailing the individual costs involved.
In an effort to resolve this matter amicably, I am prepared to offer a revised final settlement amount of £100. This represents our full and final position.
Should you choose to pursue the matter externally via the small claims court, that would be your right to do so. In that event, we would robustly defend our position.
Please confirm how you wish to proceed.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
2nd January I responded
Happy New Year to you. I hope 2026 will be a positive year for you.
Please find attached the quotation I obtained prior to Christmas. The company is approved to install Amtico flooring.
I am also happy to contact Amtico directly to arrange an assessment. I understand there would be a charge for this, which I would then request to be reimbursed by Appliances Direct.
Additionally, I can look further afield locally to obtain alternative quotations. I did speak with another company before Christmas; however, due to their workload at the time, they were unable to visit and instead provided an estimate of £600 + VAT based on photographs of the area. They have advised that a site visit would still be required to provide a formal quote. While the cost may appear high for a single scratch, I have been informed that individual tiles cannot be purchased. Furthermore, there is an inlay close to the damaged area (visible in the photos), which they advised would typically lift when removing an adjacent tile. The adhesive is also costly, as it must be supplied by Amtico to ensure the lifetime warranty remains valid.
Please let me know if you would like me to proceed with booking an Amtico assessment. As previously mentioned, I am also more than happy for you to appoint your own flooring contractor, provided they are Amtico-approved to maintain the lifetime warranty.
I look forward to hearing from you
5th January I received
Happy New Year. I hope you had a pleasant Christmas.
Thank you for providing the quotation. This will be used as part of the ongoing review.
To progress this matter, I require clear images of the specific damage you are claiming for. Upon reviewing the file, there is currently only one image available, which shows the threshold between the hallway/living room and the kitchen. This image also appears to show cardboard placed over the flooring in the area where the appliance was moved into the kitchen.
Please forward images that clearly demonstrate the damage being claimed for, so these can be fully considered as part of the review.
I responded on the 8th January
Hi Monuar,
Apologies — I completely missed this message.
I have attached several images. I have also attempted to attach the video; however, due to the file size and the fact that I am travelling and working from my mobile, I have been unable to include it with this email.
The first set of images shows the area immediately after the accident. In these photos, you will clearly see fragments of the flooring. As previously explained, these fragments would have been easily displaced by air movement or foot traffic. If they had been from a previous incident, they would not reasonably have remained in place for any length of time.
The additional images show the area as it currently stands. We have not touched the site, and it remains exactly as it was following the incident.
You will also note that the inlay border is cut into the tiles at a 45-degree angle. The flooring contractor has advised that, while they will make every effort to retain the original inlay when removing the damaged tile, this is not always straightforward. The subfloor is disturbed during tile removal, and the process of lifting and relaying tiles — together with the installation of a new subfloor — can compromise the integrity of the surrounding inlay. For this reason, the quotation includes replacement inlay section as a contingency.
9th January they responded with
Good Morning Peter
Thank you for providing all the details.
I have reviewed the matter and considered your request to revise the original offer of £100. I appreciate the frustration caused by the back-and-forth between the courier claim process and myself. I want to clarify that I have not rejected your claim and remain willing to offer a contribution towards your costs.
From the evidence provided, the damage appears to be a scrape of some kind. As you are aware, ArrowXL have rejected the claim and accepted no liability. Therefore, we are unable to accept responsibility for the total costs requested, particularly given the nature of the damage shown.
However, I have reviewed and authorised a final contribution settlement of £150 to amicably close this matter.
I advised by return that £150 was not acceptable to me and that I will pursue a small claims submission
15th January Appliances direct responded
I understand your position.
Our offer of £150 remains open as a final settlement amount as we do not accept liability. Should the matter proceed as a claim, we will robustly defend our position.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
Head of Customer Service
Buy It Direct Ltd
I replied asking for a copy of the waiver I had, after seen the crew lie about the damage floor before they arrived I thought they might have falsely created a waiver.
15th January they responded with
Having reviewed this matter, I can confirm that delivery confirmation was issued to you via text/email by ArrowXL on 26/07/2025.
As you may be aware, couriers in the UK are not legally required to obtain a physical signature upon delivery. Deliveries are completed digitally and on a contactless basis, and signed-for services or waivers are optional rather than mandatory.
Should you require further clarification on their delivery procedures, you may wish to contact ArrowXL directly.
Kind regards,
Monuar Rahman
Head of Customer Services
Which takes me upto date with now wanting to take this to a small claims to recover the cost to get the floor repaired.
- Main concerns are that delivery crew created a waiver that I didn’t see or sign
- I have cctv of the crew which is time stamped so it will show that the timestamp of the photo the crew took of the damage is after the fridge was delivered into the house (not sure if that’s enough)
Comment