ReloSmart Movers Hong Kong Omdömen 8

An update on my previous post about a court case suing Relosmart. Since our contract, it seems, has a clause stating Arbitration in such matters, so the judge advised a settlement to Mr Lars Kuepper, Managing Director of Relosmart, as adjudicator said Relosmart has no defence and his contract is without merit. Unfortunately, Mr Kuepper will still not pay what the adjudicator suggested, so it is back to court again, unfortunately. This time, I will sue under the “Tort Law”.

Attention: Mr Lars Kuepper(other names ommitted)

Dear Mr Kuepper,

Thank you for your email.

I must clarify the position regarding the court hearing held on 5th March, 2026. During that hearing, the adjudicator addressed Mr Lars Kuepper on multiple occasions in clear terms in English, including the following statements:

1. “Mr Lars Kuepper, you do not understand Hong Kong Law!”
2. “Mr Lars Kuepper, your contract has no merit!”
3. “Mr Lars Kuepper, you have no defence!”

In light of the adjudicator’s remarks, the contractual position advanced by Relosmart Limited is not well-founded, and the contractual agreement relied upon does not have merit.

Further, the adjudicator advised that I have a strong case, and recommended that Mr Kuepper consider settlement at HK$20,000 (a slightly negotiable figure) as a starting point—and reduced from my original award of HK$30,000s to speed up a settlement, noting that legal fees and the costs of an award through arbitration are likely to be substantially greater for Mr Kuepper, without a defence.

In addition, following further legal advice, I have been instructed to re-file my claim in the Small Claims Court. The advice considered at the hearing on 5th March, 2026, focused on a clause in Relosmart’s contract which provides that:

“All disputes or differences and questions arising in connection therewith shall be referred to the ‘arbitration’ of a single arbitrator.”

However, I have since been advised that—by oversight at the second hearing—I may also bring a claim in tort. On that basis, my claim falls outside the contractual arbitration clause, because the purpose of the relevant tort remedy is to protect customers where damage is caused by negligence (including, where applicable, by gross negligence). The governing principle is that the claimant may be put back, so far as possible, in the position they would have been in before the harm occurred. Accordingly, a claimant may seek recovery for matters such as:

- remediation/cleaning costs for the home and affected items;
- replacement costs for ruined or damaged items; and
- related losses arising from the harm (including, where applicable, health-related impacts and/or relocation costs).

Applying those principles to the circumstances of this case, as a result of the “rough handling” of my property while it was stored by Relosmart, Relosmart caused toxic mould damage to my new home and to my property during the delivery and unpacking on 9th October, 2024. The relevant items had been stored by Relosmart since 28th March, 2024. Besides extreme trauma and ill health, as a result, I also incurred substantial out-of-pocket expenses to remedy the damage, including destruction and remedial works relating to my home and the affected items.

For these reasons, I will re-file my already-prepared documents and submit a “new claim” seeking total damages of HK$71,569.70, plus HK$3,000s costs, plus any and all additional costs after the 2025 hearing. This figure of HK$71,569.70, plus costs of HK$3,000s is the total amount I originally sought at the Small Claims Court hearing in 2025, at which I was awarded HK$30,000s, including costs. I also note that Relosmart’s director, Mr Lars Kuepper, failed to attend that 2025 hearing, which wasted everyone’s time, expense and effort.

Insofar as any portion of the damages claimed in 2025 may not be recoverable on the tort analysis, I will further pursue any remaining out-of-pocket expenses with reference to Relosmart’s contractual position as appropriate.

Finally, I must reiterate the adjudicator’s statements to Mr Kuepper, namely: “Mr Lars, you have no understanding of Hong Kong’s Law, and Relosmart’s contract is nonsense!”

If I do not receive any feedback or a response regarding a more realistic settlement from you regarding this matter by Friday, 24th April, 2026, I will proceed to re-file my claim in the Small Claims Court without further notice.

Yours faithfully,

Christine Knox, RIPHH, FRSPH(Fellow of the Royal Society for Public Health)

Hong Kong telephone number on WhatsApp: (+852) 93279145

Avoid ReloSmart Asia. My shipment arrived two weeks earlier in UK than the delivery window I clearly provided in the agreement, and ReloSmart Asia forced me to pay 2 weeks in storage fees to their partner company in UK, Careline. As I told them directly: “It was ReloSmart Asia's choice, not mine, to place my goods on a ship that arrived 2 weeks early.” Instead of taking responsibility, they tried to deflect blame onto the shipping line—even though my contract was with them, not the shipping company. Their choice of vessel caused the early arrival, yet they refused to cover the costs. After 40 years of dealing with global shipping providers, this has been the worst experience.

Would NOT trust them with a dead cockroach!

Their own recommended Insurance found them responsible for the “rough handling” of my property, which they were supposed to ship to the Philippines, but never did. The insurance covered the cost of the insured, mold-damaged items, which had been in Relosmarts care in Hong Kong for about 7 months.

Due to the high out-of-pocket expenses incurred by me when dealing with the moldy environment caused to my newly renovated home in Hong Kong when Relosmart delivered and opened all the mold-infected boxes and furniture they had been storing instead of shipping, I had to take legal action after tireless effort by me and the Hong Kong Consumer Council to communicate with Relosmart to recover my out-of-pocket expenses.

The Hong Kong Consumer Council tried 8 times via letter, email and phone to contact Relosmart, after I had tried in vain to do so. All communication went unanswered, which is amazing. Not sure how this company does business, since all forms of communication don’t work😅. Screening calls? No internet? No postman?

On the good advice of the HK Consumer Council, I took Relosmart to the SMALL CLAIMS COURT. Sadly,most victims can't do this as they have left Hong Kong.

On the day of the court case, Relosmart was—mysteriously— uncontactable by phone by the court clerk, and of course, a NO SHOW in court, which was not surprising. After submitting all my diligently collected evidence to prove to the court that Relosmart’s “Rough handling” of precious property caused the mold infestation and deadly, toxic environment in my newly decorated home, the judge awarded me the out-of-pocket expenses I incurred trying to clean it.

Of course, the Director of RELOSMART, Lars Kuepper, DID NOT PAY, stating in a letter I received from the court about 6 weeks after my court hearing that he/the company did not receive a court date, and they knew nothing of such a claim and court case. Again, poor Relosmart. They somehow did not receive any notice from the court to appear. Since all forms of communication never reaches them, maybe we should send them a “Messenger Pigeon🕊, or a parrot to communicate with them🦜😅”, as they have requested an appeal, which is set for March, 2026, unless, of course, they have not received a letter of notice from the Small Claims Court to appear for their appeal.

Please take heed!

Will keep you posted!

My contact: +852 93279145

I used Relosmart for an international move, from HK to the UK. Relosmart was professional from start to finish. They packed everything very securely and efficiently. The crew were friendly and helpful when packing and loading up all the boxes.
Chantel and Joe were both very patient and very helpful in answering my questions regarding tax, duties, etc.
The UK partner Careline Moving were just as professional and helpful. I am super happy with Relosmarts' services and would definitely use them again.
All my stuff arrived in perfect condition and was carefully offloaded from the lorry into the garage with care.

Chantel/ Joe, Thank you both, your HK team and partners in the UK made a stressful move into a very simple and smooth move. Everything was straightforward and well communicated throughout the moving process.

I'd definitely recommend Relosmart moving services to friends/ colleagues.

Many plates, pots arrived broken. Plates, fragile stuff were not bubble wrapped. Simply wrapped with papers and loosely put into boxes of more papers. I have moved many times and this us the first time my stuff arrived broken. So will thus be the first and last time that I will used ReloSmart.

Do not use this company if you actually need what you are shipping anytime soon. We sadly and regrettably used them to ship half our furniture from Hong Kong to the U.S. They loaded our items in HK in October 2024. It is now May 2025 and we still don’t have it. That’s right. 8 months and counting. And there is nothing you can do about it. They will point very clearly to the fine print in the contract and say “read the contract.” The only thing they did do was send us an invoice for more insurance costs because our items sat in storage for so long that the transportation insurance we paid up front ran out. They didn’t offer a discount or anything. Said basically ‘yeah too bad.’

Adding injury upon injury, for the last three weeks our furniture has actually been in the U.S. but the local moving company they use can’t seem to get our furniture actually on a truck and delivered to us. They keep saying “we’re not sure we’ll let you know next week.” Oh and by the way, when they tell you your fee covers door to door delivery, it doesn’t. You will almost certainly need to be charged a “shuttling” fee by the movers on the receiving end. $400 for us.

The staff is very responsive and efficient and professional. But the underlying service of this company is frankly not a service at all. It’s not worth the money you save if you don’t actually get your items for almost a year.

Huge warnings if you’re considering this company.

Relosmart handled the delivery for another company I previously used. I trusted what they were saying and they were transparent. I got a good feeling from the HK team to be honest. Everything was smooth and simple. Items arrived in France in 10 weeks door to door which I thought was fair.

We use relosmart for our relocation from Hong Kong to UK back in June 2023, all went smoothly at first. We received our shipment (total of 150 cartons) in Dec 2023 (we used their storage facility for 4 months). Even though all 150 cartons received, once all the boxes unpacked, we discovered certain valuable items (handbags, brand new trainers etc) gone missing! Report back to Relosmart and of course they found nothing suspicious after their investigation. Obviously I have no concrete proof of thievery (otherwise we would have gone straight to the police!) but how these items gone missing 🤷🏻‍♀️ Just a reminder, beware when you choose relosmart!