FP
Frans P
1 reviews | Active since Aug 2020
18 Aug 2020, 22:21
Avoid British International if you want to avoid theft loss
Whatever you do, do not use these *********. The delays we could live with, but the broken antiques and theft are what you should protect yourself against. Most of our valuables have been carefully selected and ****** from where we packed it, 3D glasses were taken out of the packages, my wife's most expensive jewellery taken with the costume jewellery which was packed on top of it left alone, Playstation with all remotes and accessories (packed in separate boxes) taken etc. Then if you try to claim they aren't willing to assist until they return a ridiculous settlement amount. The insurance excess is calculated on the entire shipment value and does not consider replacement value in the new country, thus if your losses are less than R50k you will likely not get anything out and that is after paying almost R20k for insurance to start with. The worst decision we could have ever made was to make use of British International, our friends used their competition (Executive movers) and were very satisfied with the service they received.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
British International Removals's replyOfficial
21 Feb 2022, 18:29Dear Frans P
Thank you for raising your accusations in this open and very public forum, which finally gives BIR the opportunity to respond with the actual facts in this matter.
We would like to place on record that you were totally aware that jewellery, under no circumstances, can be covered under Transit Cover, and these were not permitted to be included in your shipment.
We are delighted to finally be in a position to disprove your wrongful and ******** allegations, since the Removal Industry Tribunal in NZ finalised and dismissed your 'claim'
In which, you went much further than you did in SA, and accused their staff of *****ing a diamond ring valued 5000 NZD. This item was never mentioned in your SA claim, thus we can only assume this to be the same 'opal' ring that apparently went missing in SA, that became a diamond once it set sail for NZ.
Further to the wrongful accusations above, you ********ly misrepresented that you were not covered by any Insurance in SA. This another untruth - as you clearly state in this very complaint above, that you were indeed covered, and not paid out in the manner you wanted.
Transit Cover is purely to compensate our customers that suffer a genuine loss.
Thus there are basic Industry Regulatory Rules and Laws, that we all need to abide by - to cover our customers, The Removal Companies and our Agents at destination
We would therefore appreciate an update on this complaint to reflect the real facts.
Kind regards
BIR
Thank you for raising your accusations in this open and very public forum, which finally gives BIR the opportunity to respond with the actual facts in this matter.
We would like to place on record that you were totally aware that jewellery, under no circumstances, can be covered under Transit Cover, and these were not permitted to be included in your shipment.
We are delighted to finally be in a position to disprove your wrongful and ******** allegations, since the Removal Industry Tribunal in NZ finalised and dismissed your 'claim'
In which, you went much further than you did in SA, and accused their staff of *****ing a diamond ring valued 5000 NZD. This item was never mentioned in your SA claim, thus we can only assume this to be the same 'opal' ring that apparently went missing in SA, that became a diamond once it set sail for NZ.
Further to the wrongful accusations above, you ********ly misrepresented that you were not covered by any Insurance in SA. This another untruth - as you clearly state in this very complaint above, that you were indeed covered, and not paid out in the manner you wanted.
Transit Cover is purely to compensate our customers that suffer a genuine loss.
Thus there are basic Industry Regulatory Rules and Laws, that we all need to abide by - to cover our customers, The Removal Companies and our Agents at destination
We would therefore appreciate an update on this complaint to reflect the real facts.
Kind regards
BIR
British International Removals's reply21 Feb 2022, 18:29
Official
Dear Frans P
Thank you for raising your accusations in this open and very public forum, which finally gives BIR the opportunity to respond with the actual facts in this matter.
We would like to place on record that you were totally aware that jewellery, under no circumstances, can be covered under Transit Cover, and these were not permitted to be included in your shipment.
We are delighted to finally be in a position to disprove your wrongful and ******** allegations, since the Removal Industry Tribunal in NZ finalised and dismissed your 'claim'
In which, you went much further than you did in SA, and accused their staff of *****ing a diamond ring valued 5000 NZD. This item was never mentioned in your SA claim, thus we can only assume this to be the same 'opal' ring that apparently went missing in SA, that became a diamond once it set sail for NZ.
Further to the wrongful accusations above, you ********ly misrepresented that you were not covered by any Insurance in SA. This another untruth - as you clearly state in this very complaint above, that you were indeed covered, and not paid out in the manner you wanted.
Transit Cover is purely to compensate our customers that suffer a genuine loss.
Thus there are basic Industry Regulatory Rules and Laws, that we all need to abide by - to cover our customers, The Removal Companies and our Agents at destination
We would therefore appreciate an update on this complaint to reflect the real facts.
Kind regards
BIR
Thank you for raising your accusations in this open and very public forum, which finally gives BIR the opportunity to respond with the actual facts in this matter.
We would like to place on record that you were totally aware that jewellery, under no circumstances, can be covered under Transit Cover, and these were not permitted to be included in your shipment.
We are delighted to finally be in a position to disprove your wrongful and ******** allegations, since the Removal Industry Tribunal in NZ finalised and dismissed your 'claim'
In which, you went much further than you did in SA, and accused their staff of *****ing a diamond ring valued 5000 NZD. This item was never mentioned in your SA claim, thus we can only assume this to be the same 'opal' ring that apparently went missing in SA, that became a diamond once it set sail for NZ.
Further to the wrongful accusations above, you ********ly misrepresented that you were not covered by any Insurance in SA. This another untruth - as you clearly state in this very complaint above, that you were indeed covered, and not paid out in the manner you wanted.
Transit Cover is purely to compensate our customers that suffer a genuine loss.
Thus there are basic Industry Regulatory Rules and Laws, that we all need to abide by - to cover our customers, The Removal Companies and our Agents at destination
We would therefore appreciate an update on this complaint to reflect the real facts.
Kind regards
BIR
FP
Frans P's updateReviewer Update
22 Feb 2022, 05:40Hi BIR
Thank you for the response.
You might need to get your facts right before you continue with this defamation of my character.
The only mistake we made (apart from choosing British International for our move) is to miss the part in the fine print that jewelry should not be included in the container. It does not however change the fact that it was ****** from our container together with other items.
We have taken the loss and accepted it.
The case we made against your subcontractors is related to a wedding ring ****** from within our house whilst they were offloading the shipment, the ring was in our possession, it was never included in the shipment and thus unrelated to your shipment.
The case you mention above was initially won by us and only successfully appealed when their lawyers got involved and on the grounds of the mover who stole the ring not being present on the day of the hearing.
The case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of which they stated that we did not see the individual take the ring, the ring was not found in his possession and no cameras recorded the activity, thus ignoring all circumstantial evidence (proving he indeed took the ring) in the verdict.
This individual your subcontractor sent to our house has a ********** public facebook profile. Is this the type of character you are proud to represent your company?
What is also unacceptable is how your company shared personal details including the details of the loss we suffered with your subcontractor in an attempt of accusing us of insurance *****. Fortunately, the judge dismissed these claims when hearing all the facts of the events.
I have nothing to gain by posting this, we accepted the loss of both thefts, however, I hope I can spare potential future customers the trauma and loss by warning them about the actions and ethics of your company and your subcontractor.
PS. We recently made use of a shipping company called Seven seas worldwide. We have nothing but praise for them as nothing went missing and everything was received in good order.
Thank you
Thank you for the response.
You might need to get your facts right before you continue with this defamation of my character.
The only mistake we made (apart from choosing British International for our move) is to miss the part in the fine print that jewelry should not be included in the container. It does not however change the fact that it was ****** from our container together with other items.
We have taken the loss and accepted it.
The case we made against your subcontractors is related to a wedding ring ****** from within our house whilst they were offloading the shipment, the ring was in our possession, it was never included in the shipment and thus unrelated to your shipment.
The case you mention above was initially won by us and only successfully appealed when their lawyers got involved and on the grounds of the mover who stole the ring not being present on the day of the hearing.
The case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of which they stated that we did not see the individual take the ring, the ring was not found in his possession and no cameras recorded the activity, thus ignoring all circumstantial evidence (proving he indeed took the ring) in the verdict.
This individual your subcontractor sent to our house has a ********** public facebook profile. Is this the type of character you are proud to represent your company?
What is also unacceptable is how your company shared personal details including the details of the loss we suffered with your subcontractor in an attempt of accusing us of insurance *****. Fortunately, the judge dismissed these claims when hearing all the facts of the events.
I have nothing to gain by posting this, we accepted the loss of both thefts, however, I hope I can spare potential future customers the trauma and loss by warning them about the actions and ethics of your company and your subcontractor.
PS. We recently made use of a shipping company called Seven seas worldwide. We have nothing but praise for them as nothing went missing and everything was received in good order.
Thank you
FP
Frans P's update22 Feb 2022, 05:40
Reviewer Update
Hi BIR
Thank you for the response.
You might need to get your facts right before you continue with this defamation of my character.
The only mistake we made (apart from choosing British International for our move) is to miss the part in the fine print that jewelry should not be included in the container. It does not however change the fact that it was ****** from our container together with other items.
We have taken the loss and accepted it.
The case we made against your subcontractors is related to a wedding ring ****** from within our house whilst they were offloading the shipment, the ring was in our possession, it was never included in the shipment and thus unrelated to your shipment.
The case you mention above was initially won by us and only successfully appealed when their lawyers got involved and on the grounds of the mover who stole the ring not being present on the day of the hearing.
The case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of which they stated that we did not see the individual take the ring, the ring was not found in his possession and no cameras recorded the activity, thus ignoring all circumstantial evidence (proving he indeed took the ring) in the verdict.
This individual your subcontractor sent to our house has a ********** public facebook profile. Is this the type of character you are proud to represent your company?
What is also unacceptable is how your company shared personal details including the details of the loss we suffered with your subcontractor in an attempt of accusing us of insurance *****. Fortunately, the judge dismissed these claims when hearing all the facts of the events.
I have nothing to gain by posting this, we accepted the loss of both thefts, however, I hope I can spare potential future customers the trauma and loss by warning them about the actions and ethics of your company and your subcontractor.
PS. We recently made use of a shipping company called Seven seas worldwide. We have nothing but praise for them as nothing went missing and everything was received in good order.
Thank you
Thank you for the response.
You might need to get your facts right before you continue with this defamation of my character.
The only mistake we made (apart from choosing British International for our move) is to miss the part in the fine print that jewelry should not be included in the container. It does not however change the fact that it was ****** from our container together with other items.
We have taken the loss and accepted it.
The case we made against your subcontractors is related to a wedding ring ****** from within our house whilst they were offloading the shipment, the ring was in our possession, it was never included in the shipment and thus unrelated to your shipment.
The case you mention above was initially won by us and only successfully appealed when their lawyers got involved and on the grounds of the mover who stole the ring not being present on the day of the hearing.
The case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of which they stated that we did not see the individual take the ring, the ring was not found in his possession and no cameras recorded the activity, thus ignoring all circumstantial evidence (proving he indeed took the ring) in the verdict.
This individual your subcontractor sent to our house has a ********** public facebook profile. Is this the type of character you are proud to represent your company?
What is also unacceptable is how your company shared personal details including the details of the loss we suffered with your subcontractor in an attempt of accusing us of insurance *****. Fortunately, the judge dismissed these claims when hearing all the facts of the events.
I have nothing to gain by posting this, we accepted the loss of both thefts, however, I hope I can spare potential future customers the trauma and loss by warning them about the actions and ethics of your company and your subcontractor.
PS. We recently made use of a shipping company called Seven seas worldwide. We have nothing but praise for them as nothing went missing and everything was received in good order.
Thank you