So far I've had ten responses, 6 of which quoted a full replacement cost
policy. One authority added an admin fee on top. There were two
contradictory replies from one authority citing full replacement cost
and 'discretion of librarian on enquiry desk with a general rule of half the
current value.' Don't worry - I won't tell!
One personal opinion was we are morally and possibly legally not entitled to
charge more than we paid in the first place. The problem - as some people
pointed out, myself included is that if your system quotes the gross price, you
may not actually know what that was without a lot of digging.
Several people felt that full cost was justified on the grounds of the additional
work required to replace the item and the fact that you might not get the
same level of discount as you did at first.
Replacement of item is generally accepted for books, although at least one
respondent pointed out that the library would then have to service it taking
more staff time. AV is another matter. The item may no longer be available or
may not be a rentable copy. We discourage our staff from taking replacement
AV for that reason.
Only one respondent noted a sliding scale, indeed another said the practice
had been abandoned as it was cumbersome for staff.
One respondent noted that the hefty fee and replacement cost charged by
the British Library for loss of their stock tended to concentrate customers'
minds wonderfully.
Most authorities expressed leniency in one form or another to the elderly,
disabled and under-fives.
Thanks to everyone who responded so far. I am in the process of revising our
stock policy and this is very useful!
|