Legal Rights with Courier companies

gibsongaz

I have always found it odd (and a racket) that if something is damaged or lost by a courier, then you have no come back unless you purchase their inflated insurance.

Is this the case, or is that just what they want you to believe?

Surely they have a contract in place to say they will safely get your parcel from A to B. If the item goes 'missing' due to sticky fingers, or an ape throws an item like a shotputt, then surely that is tantamount to negligence / theft?

It seems to be russian roullette with even the most respectable companies and it seems that the punter is stitched up.

Anyone care to enlighten me as I am interested? Could you pursue though a Small Claim?

cyberbob

Yes you could go via small claims. But you would lose.

neilmcl

gibsongaz wrote: »

Surely they have a contract in place to say they will safely get your parcel from A to B. If the item goes 'missing' due to sticky fingers, or an ape throws an item like a shotputt, then surely that is tantamount to negligence / theft?

No, you would have to prove they were neglgent.

Equaliser123

cyberbob wrote: »

Yes you could go via small claims. But you would lose.

Not so sure.

OP would need to show that the limitation clauses within the contract are unreasonable and that the courier was in breach of contract and/or negligent.

aveylee

As Equaliser123 says it will likely come down to the 'reasonableness' of the terms of the contract.

In consumer law there are two things any 'tricky' delivery companies have to watch out for.

1. Is falling foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

2. Terms in the contract that purport to avoid responsibility for failing in the core nature of the contract. It is not possible for a delivery company to avoid liability for failing to deliver (or a paper shop failing to give you a paper after you have paid for example).



Where it becomes slightly more difficult is assessing the legality of restrictions on the quantum (amount) of damages you can claim. It can be considered reasonable (it depends) to restrict their financial liability to you to a set amount (e.g. £50 or the initial cost).

In that case it depends on it being a reasonable limitation (UTCCR).

gibsongaz

I just find it crazy that you pay one amount for a service, yet you have to pay again to ensure that if they dont provide the service, you can make a claim. I guess it's the same with certain airlines, but surely this is a blaitent and modern form of being highwaymen!

Equaliser123

gibsongaz wrote: »

I just find it crazy that you pay one amount for a service, yet you have to pay again to ensure that if they dont provide the service, you can make a claim. I guess it's the same with certain airlines, but surely this is a blaitent and modern form of being highwaymen!

I think what Aveylee and myself are saying is that this is not necessarily the case.