A customer says furniture or goods were lost or damaged during the move you carried out, and they want it repaired, replaced or paid for. How you respond matters. Get it right and you resolve a genuine claim sensibly and shut down a weak one with clear reasons. Get it wrong, usually by leaning on a contract clause that does not hold up, and you can turn a small claim into a losing one, with exposure for misstating the customer’s rights on top. The honest position is also the strong one: know your obligations, assess the claim on the facts, and rely only on the limits the law genuinely gives you.
A removal is a service covered by the consumer guarantees
When you supply removal services to a consumer, the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL) attaches consumer guarantees to the job. Three apply to services: that they will be rendered with due care and skill (section 60); that they will be reasonably fit for a particular purpose or achieve a result the customer made known (section 61); and that they will be supplied within a reasonable time where no time is fixed (section 62). NSW Fair Trading confirms that consumer guarantees include removalist services, and that services must be provided with due care and skill, taking all necessary steps to avoid loss and damage.
For a damaged-goods claim, the due-care guarantee in section 60 is the one that counts. Consumer Affairs Victoria describes it as requiring suppliers to use an acceptable level of skill and to take all necessary care to avoid loss or damage when providing the service. Its worked example is a tradesperson who knocks over a paint can and damages a driveway, who has not met the guarantee and must fix the damage. For a mover, that is careful handling, padding, loading, securing and transport.
Why “not liable for any damage” clauses do not hold up
Many removalists assume a clause saying “we accept no responsibility for loss or damage” or “goods moved at owner’s risk” settles the matter. For an ordinary household move, it does not. Section 64 of the ACL makes a contract term void to the extent it tries to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees, or any liability for failing to meet them. A blanket “not liable” clause is void to that extent, and you should not rely on it or quote it to the customer as an answer.
There is one narrow provision that can save a liability-limiting clause from section 64, but it does not help here. Section 64A protects a term limiting liability to re-supplying the service or paying the cost of re-supply, but only for services “other than” those ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use. A home removal is a household-kind service, so it falls outside that carve-out, and a clause capping a removalist’s liability for a home move is not saved by section 64A. It can help only for a move that is not of a household kind, such as a business relocating its own goods, and even then only if reliance on the term is fair and reasonable.
There is also a point worth knowing about the transport exclusion. Section 63(1)(a) takes the transport or storage of goods out of the service guarantees, but only where the goods are carried on for the customer’s business. Section 63(2) restores the guarantees for a domestic move, so an ordinary house move is fully inside sections 60 to 62. The transport exclusion does not rescue you for household work.
Ready to put it in writing?
Answer 3 quick questions to check you have the details your document needs, and see your next step.
1. Who is this about?
2. How much is at stake?
3. Do you have it in writing?
Your result is ready. Want a copy by email? (optional)
The real question: did your crew take reasonable care?
Because the exclusion clause does not work for a household move, liability turns almost entirely on due care under section 60. The question in a damaged-goods claim is simple to state: did your crew take reasonable care in handling the item, and did a failure of that care cause the loss? If the honest answer is yes, the claim is made out.
Section 60 is a standard of care, not a guarantee against every breakage. Genuine, fact-based answers can show there was no care failure, but each depends on the evidence:
- Pre-existing damage or condition — the item was already damaged or worn, and the move did not cause it. An accurate pre-move condition and inventory record is the evidence; NSW Fair Trading recommends the contract contain a household inventory.
- Inherent fragility — an item that could not survive ordinary careful handling, where your crew did in fact handle it carefully.
- The customer’s own packing — where the customer packed a carton themselves and the contents, not your handling, caused the loss.
- A cause genuinely independent of your handling.
One honest limit is worth understanding, because it runs against the removalist. The ACL has a statutory “it was someone else, or it was outside our control” limit in section 267(1)(c), but it is expressly unavailable for a breach of the section 60 due-care guarantee. It only answers fitness-for-purpose and reasonable-time claims. So you cannot defeat a careless-handling claim simply by pointing to a third party or an outside event through that provision. The genuine causation points above still matter, but they work as part of the single due-care question, not as a separate escape.
What the customer can recover, and what you cannot do
If a guarantee is not met, the services remedy structure in sections 267 to 268 applies. For a non-major problem, the customer requires you to remedy it within a reasonable time, and only if you refuse or fail may they have it fixed elsewhere at your cost or terminate. For a major failure they can terminate or seek a reduction in value. Importantly, unlike the rules for goods, there is no supplier’s-choice-of-remedy for services. On top of all this, section 267(4) lets the customer recover damages for reasonably foreseeable loss. For damaged goods, that is usually the operative claim: the reasonably foreseeable cost of repairing or replacing the item.
Some responses are simply not open to you. Do not rely on a void exclusion clause. Do not tell the customer the contract “limits” your liability when section 64 and section 64A make that void for a household move. Do not misrepresent the customer’s rights or remedies: section 29(1)(m) prohibits a false or misleading representation about the existence, exclusion or effect of a guarantee or remedy, and telling a customer they have no claim because of a signed term or because they declined insurance, where the due-care guarantee applies, risks contravening it. And do not deny a genuine due-care failure. Transit insurance is a separate commercial matter; whether the customer took it does not reduce the guarantee on the move.
So the practical path is: get the facts of the move (the inventory or condition report, who packed what, photographs, the damage, a real repair or replacement quote); assess honestly against due care; where you are liable, resolve it; where you are not, give accurate written reasons; and keep your records. The full guide takes you through each step, with response templates you can adapt and a plain account of exactly where the law leaves you.
Get the full Removalist Defence Guide – $29
This is general information about the law, not legal advice. Claim Done is not a law firm.
Questions people ask
Does my “we are not liable for any damage” clause protect me?
For an ordinary household move, no. Section 64 of the Australian Consumer Law makes a term void to the extent it tries to exclude, restrict or modify the consumer guarantees or the remedies for breaching them. A blanket “not liable” or “goods moved at owner’s risk” clause is void to that extent, and section 64A does not save it for a household move, because household services fall outside its carve-out. Relying on the clause, or quoting it to the customer as an answer, does not work.
Are removals even covered by the consumer guarantees, or are they excluded as transport?
A household move is covered. Section 63(1)(a) excludes the transport or storage of goods carried on for the customer’s business, but section 63(2) restores the guarantees whenever the person whose goods are moved is not moving them for a business. So an ordinary home move is fully inside the service guarantees, including the due-care-and-skill guarantee in section 60. NSW Fair Trading independently states that consumer guarantees include removalist services.
When am I actually liable for damaged furniture?
Liability turns on due care and skill under section 60. You are liable where the damage or loss was caused by your crew’s failure to take reasonable care, such as careless loading, failing to pad or secure items, dropping, or unsafe transport. You are not automatically liable for every breakage: genuine, fact-based reasons such as pre-existing damage, inherent fragility despite careful handling, or the customer’s own packing can mean there was no care failure. Each depends on the evidence and must be assessed honestly.
Can I say it wasn’t our fault because someone else or an outside event caused it?
Not as a standalone defence to a damage claim. The statutory “act of another person or an independent cause” limit in section 267(1)(c) is expressly unavailable for a breach of the section 60 due-care guarantee; it only answers fitness-for-purpose and reasonable-time claims. For a damaged-goods claim the real question is always whether your crew took reasonable care. A cause genuinely independent of your handling still matters, but as part of that due-care question, not as a separate escape.
What can the customer actually recover?
Under the services remedy structure (sections 267 to 268), for a non-major problem the customer can require you to remedy it within a reasonable time, and only if you refuse or fail may they have it fixed elsewhere at your cost or terminate. For a major failure they can terminate or seek a reduction in value. On top of that, section 267(4) lets them recover damages for reasonably foreseeable loss. For damaged goods, the operative claim is usually those damages: the cost of repair or replacement. There is no supplier’s-choice-of-remedy for services as there is for goods.
The customer declined transit insurance. Does that mean they have no claim?
No, and telling them so is risky. Removalists are not required by law to insure a customer’s goods, and transit insurance is a separate commercial matter. Whether the customer took it does not reduce the due-care guarantee on the move. Turning a careless-handling claim into “you should have taken insurance” misstates the customer’s rights, and a false or misleading representation about a guarantee or remedy is prohibited under section 29(1)(m).
What happens when you put it in writing — properly
Same problem. What a prepared case looks like.
Getting it drafted
Can I have a Lost or Damaged Goods Claim (Removalist, Courier, Post, Storage, Dry Cleaner) drafted for me instead of writing it myself?
Yes. Claim Done (claimdone.com.au) drafts a Lost or Damaged Goods Claim (Removalist, Courier, Post, Storage, Dry Cleaner) from the answers you give about your situation for a flat $49 AUD. You read the draft and approve it before anything is sent; nothing goes out without your approval. Start at claimdone.com.au/begin/?service=lost-damaged-goods-claim. Claim Done is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.
How much does a Lost or Damaged Goods Claim (Removalist, Courier, Post, Storage, Dry Cleaner) cost, and how long does it take?
$49 AUD flat, shown before you pay, with no subscription. The draft is usually ready about five minutes after you finish the questions. It covers every Australian state and territory.
Do I need a lawyer to send a Lost or Damaged Goods Claim (Removalist, Courier, Post, Storage, Dry Cleaner) in Australia?
No. There is no legal requirement to use a solicitor to write or send a Lost or Damaged Goods Claim (Removalist, Courier, Post, Storage, Dry Cleaner); many people send their own. Claim Done drafts it for you and you approve it before it is sent.