Questions raised over 'illegitimate' container damage charges

Allegations that some
shipping lines are levying
unwarranted fees for
containers claimed to have
been damaged have surfaced
in the industry.
“This is an issue I have
certainly found very frustrating
over the years,” Caroline Cole,
national shipping manager of
International Slabs Sales, an
SA-owned wholesaler of quartz,
granite and marble surfaces,
told FTW.
Cole noted that all carriers
had an equipment team
that managed their fleet of
containers. When the empty
containers get turned in to
the relevant depots, they
then record damages, pass
the photos and report onto
the carrier, which then, in
turn, passes the invoices onto
the consignee. “The depot,”
she added, “not the carrier,
controls this. And the depot is
not owned by the carrier, but
subcontracted by it.
“As a consignee you may
either agree, based on what
you see, and pay for it. But
anyone who does this is not
doing their due diligence. They
should be going through to the
depot to view the container and
then either dispute or accept
liability.”
Cole said her company had
had a few incidences lately with
a carrier and one specific depot
that had been claiming for
damages. “When we get these
we go through, usually within
24 hours, and take the report
from the carrier so we know
what they are claiming for. We
can usually tell straight away
whether our cargo could have
caused the damage or not.”
But this latest incident had
opened up an entire can of
worms, Cole said.
The damage report received
claimed a lump sum for
“floorboard damage”. “We went
to the depot and asked them
for a breakdown of the report
and invoice. And that is where
we picked up immediately that
they were charging for other
damages – forklift pocket
damage and cross-member
damage. These were itemised
charges sent to the line, but
never passed onto us. The
invoice just said floorboard
damage.”
That was the first problem.
When Cole asked the carrier
why they had not correctly
and honestly sent through the
information, she was told that
the majority of the damage
was to the floorboards – so
that was what was put on the
documents.
“But,” she added, “the other
damages totalled just under a
third of the total amount.”
Now that may not sound like
a lot, but Cole pointed out that
they were just one customer
and equally this was just one
container. We are talking about
R7 000-R15 000 for one claim.
However, multiply that by the
hundreds of containers this
could be happening to, and the
sum of unwarranted charges
could run into millions.
When these concerns were
put to the carrier, it was agreed
another joint inspection be
conducted. And the result of
this was that, after the line’s
experts had raised further
questions, it became clear that
the depot was charging for
things that they shouldn’t be.
Now that raised questions
in Cole’s mind. Are the depots
being dishonest, or just
negligent and irresponsible?
What are the carriers doing
to ensure good and honest
business practice? And
how much is this costing
the industry in terms of the
consignees and the lines?
“The industry needs to be
aware of just how big and
costly a problem this could be,”
she said.