Kaos (27/01/2014)
IF and at this stage it is a very big IF…but…IF the tracker, when properly fitted, should take (roughly) 15 minutes or more to remove; and you can show that this particular tracker was fitted by a company or individual holding themselves out to be a competently skilled mechanic who can fit such trackers; and you can show that the tracker actually only took 3 minutes to remove: then you may have a valid claim.
Now it isn’t clear from your post how the tracker was on your bike.
Did you buy the tracker and have it put on, or was it on the bike and transferred to you?
If you bought and paid P & H to put the tracker on the motorcycle. Then your claim would be under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which relates to care and skill. The argument you would present would be that P & H did not exercise reasonable care and skill when fitting the tracker, and this is why it could be removed in 3 minutes.
This would allow you to claim back the price of the tracker, minus any wear and tear based on age. I would argue the full cost of the yearly tracking system, on the basis that you would not have received any benefit from it at all during the period you paid for it, due to the fact that it would fail, it was just a question of when.
The bigger question for you is whether you can claim consequential losses based on the failure of P & H to fit the tracker properly.
You can claim consequential losses stemming from a breach of contract; however, there is a thing called novus actus interveniens which means that a third person intervenes and is responsible for your losses. P & H may argue that the thief is the third person who is actually responsible for your losses, and, at most, they are only responsible for a poorly fitted tracker.
The counter argument would be that this contract always had in mind the “thief” and was created purely on the basis that he existed and would act, and is not a third person to the contract at all. If I remember my opinion writing days correctly, you can claim against an “alarm fitting company” for a failure to properly fit an alarm. The consequential losses from the resulting theft can be claimed back.
There is some question as to what exactly you can claim back, due to insurance, value of vehicle etc, but if your claim is for less than £10,000 this claim would be dealt with on the Small Claims track and the court would not expect you as a litigant in person to be able to work out exactly how the amounts should be calculated.
If the tracker was already on your bike, your claim would be more complex and I don’t have the time to write it out right now.